The following was said by Galen Hallcyon, an atheist vlogger who had held conversations with avowed anti-theist Hicks prior to him executing his three openly-religious Muslim neighbours. Hallcyon was so disturbed by the depth of Hicks’ anti-theist hatred that the fear of how this antiheist venom may manifest itself gave him sleepless nights.
“They are openly hostile to criticism of any kind if it’s pointed at them. Such actions show them to be cowards.who even used such to spin their ideological pig shit politics and their inflated net celebrity. How low can can you go?”
So how low can you go Stephen Knight? Lets find out….
First let me address the elephant in the room. This will give you a clue.
You are actively passing-out the begging bowl with the intention of giving up your day job to become a professional religion-basher. Correct? The reality is that your bottom line is relative to the public face of brand atheism. You have a financial incentive to play down and deflect hate-crimes by new atheists against the religious. I have no such financial entanglements. My concerns are true. I wish to see justice served for the sake of the loved ones. For the parents who lost two beautiful daughters on a single day and for all persecuted minorities who face discrimination and suspicion on a daily basis due in no small part to the vitriol pumped out from new atheists.
There will be more Breiviks, more Hicks’, more Dylan Roofs more Lundin-Pettersons and many more innocent people will die because of who they are – or more pertinently what they are portrayed to be. I can’t allow this to happen in good conscience without at least trying to stand against this in my own small way; which is why I wrote the blog post.
So what else have you got to say?
I note there is no attempt whatsoever to highlight what these ‘half truths’ are in my piece titled The Views And Potential Motivations Of Craig Hicks. Lazy. Also, as you can see from my comprehensive book review, mere ‘dedication’ is not what I ‘attacked’ Werleman for, but rather it was misrepresentation and exploitation.
You clearly didn’t comprehend what I was saying. You were repeating Nugent’s half-truths. Everything, including your issue with Werleman’s dedication, was based on the false premise that there was no meaningful evidence of an anti-Muslim hate crime. You were (still are?) ignorant to the evidence that supports the bias motive. Next?
Of course, he also fails to mention that I announced my conversation with Robinson before recording it, detailing my dislike for the EDL and my reservations on Robinson in general. I also encouraged people to submit questions to challenge Robinson. ‘Johnny’ also fails to mention that Robinson shared my podcast platform with an ex-Muslim, Pakistani blogger who challenged Robinson on his generalisations of Muslims. It’s as though it’s not possible to disagree about some things with people, yet agree with them on other things without endorsing everything they’ve ever said.
Bottom line is you gave a platform to an anti-Muslim hate group founder. A man who does Breivik impressions, threatens every single UK Muslim with the wrath of his street-army of fascist thugs and has entered into partnerships with Pamela Geller and other anti-Muslim propagandists that had a huge influence on the terrorist Breivik’s murderous anti-Islam ideology.
You know who else gave Robinson a platform? Pegida.
Thankfully and in the interests of “balance” you invited on an anti-Islam ex-Muslim. It’s unclear whether your worldviews are so warped that you could actually consider a three-way conversation on Islam which included not a single Muslim but in instead: a) An anti-Islam atheist b) An anti-Islam fanatic from the far-right and c) An anti-Islam “ex Muslim”. as balanced.
I specifically remember your conversation with “ex-Muslim” Eiynah, where she declared “Tommy really knows what he is talking about when it comes to Islam”. Did our hero interviewer interject and counter her lurid and dangerous claim? Did he fuck. So why didn’t you? What are the potential financial gains from getting your “donate” button out into the world of extreme far-right Muslim hatred?
He takes similar desperate swipes at Atheist Ireland Chairperson Mick Nugent by sharing a picture of Nugent in the company of someone else he doesn’t like, therefore Nugent must subscribe to whatever unsavoury views Johnny has decided this other person holds. Anyhow, details.
This is when new atheists are at their most repulsive. The person “I don’t like” in the photo is a person all decent people of conscience “shouldn’t like”. She is Nonie Darwish, who Think Progress identified as a key Islamophobic “misinformation expert” in their extensive investigative projects into organised Islamophobia Fear Inc. and Fear 2.0. She is salaried by Frank Gaffney’s virulently Islamophobic neocon think-tank the Center For Security Policy (CSP) who are financed by Ultra Conservative financiers from the Christian Right and Zionist Jewish communities.
But you keep on fighting the real “regressive left”. Maybe you too can work for Gaffney one day and can do away with your begging-bowl. So back to these “details”. If you had actually bothered to open the links provided you would have understood that the right-wing atheist extremist I was referring to connected to wasn’t the “misinformation expert” Nugent was gleefullly hobknobbing with; it was UKIP’s Anne-Marie Waters whom Nugent refuses to disassociate himself/atheist Ireland from.
Waters, the current darling of the British far-right is an extremist atheist who wants to “deport a lot of of people” and “close down many Mosques”. She attends meetings with your extremist mate Tommy and other “patriot” leaders who have emerged as offshoots from the BNP. Jim Dowson, one of the far-right extremists who attended these meetings was so appalled at the dangerous anti-Muslim radicalisation of Waters and Robinson that he went public with his claim that they were trying to ignite a race-war with British Muslims.
I make no apologies for not “liking” these people. Perhaps you might like them though.
There are just two issues with this:
Not only is this information coming second-hand, it is impossible to substantiate, given the person quoted is unfortunately deceased. People interested in diligence call this ‘hearsay’.
Even if the victim did say this (I’ve no reason to doubt it), it doesn’t automatically mean that it’s true. People interested in diligence call this ‘logic’.
People “interested in due diligence familiarise themselves with North Carolina’s exceptions to the hearsay rule. I take it you haven’t. While it doesn’t prove anything it is clear evidence of an anti-theist hate crime. Hicks had terrorised and ultimately executed his Muslim neighbours but you and Nugent know better from the other side of hte Atlantic than the victims themselves and their family members they shared their fears with based on Facebook posts, some many years old right?
Try to put yourself in the place of the victim. People interested in people outside of their cult call this “compassion”.
The newlyweds and the bride’s teenage sister were minding their own business, all together in their own home. Their peace is interuppted by their new atheist “hateful neighbour” banging on their door. What could he possibly want? The Muslim family had given him full use of the disputed parking spot despite Hicks having no claim to it. What he wanted was to leave no Muslim alive in that house as he executed them one-by-one.
A terrified Abu-Salha’s final thoughts, whose last images would have been the new atheist gunman executing first her husband and then her sister would have been not “he hates us for who we are” but “He is murdering us for who we are”.
What possible gain is there for you, Nugent, Sherlock and any other new atheist obfuscator to stand against the traumatised families in their quest for justice?
This is your shame.