Saturday, July 15, 2017

Golriz Ghahraman V Andrew Atkin: Part 2.

Andrew Atkin:

Part 1. Here.

Yes it's true. Golriz Ghahraman is still deeply in love with me. She hit back at me with a screenshot (my trick!) of the ghastly Andrew Atkin, on her twitter feed.

However! She edited out the bottom part of what I wrote, which kind of frames a different picture. The screenshot below gives the complete picture. She also edited out my identity (you don't need to do that, Golriz. You can make me famous all you want).

It demonstrated my matter-of-fact relationship to the whole thing. I was hardly accusing her of being some kind of Muslim Brotherhood agent, as such, and stated that I doubted that was who she was. I also stated that only under certain conditions could any kind of suspicion be justified. Pretty fair? I think so.

Nonetheless, with a little editing out, she choose to use me to promote her victimhood status [Golriz, if you want to change New Zealand's laws, then you should accept that your unfortunate childhood history means and must mean nothing].

No doubt she didn't want me to see (or reply to) her post because she blocked me from her twitter feed. You will notice the above screenshot was from a Google search (that's how I know it even exists).

Golriz, if you want obnoxious people like me to go away, then all you have to do is explain how we are wrong. Hey - we might be! But until you do this, we "the people" will do our best to hold you to account for your silence. Understand than when you just smear people who have concerns as Islamophobes and bigots, as opposed to providing honest discourse, then that alone can provoke a degree of suspicion - a "what have you got to hide?" effect. It's surely better for your political future just to converse.

So where is this Andrew guy really at?...all I am trying to do is drive the real conversation. I want New Zealand to understand the facts about Islam - at its best and at its worst. I don't want immigration decisions being politicised. I don't want New Zealand making the same mistakes that we now know other European nations have made. Crying out "Islamophobia!" is not a conversation.

Bill Warner's video, from my screenshot:


  1. Golriz Ghahraman wants us to be moved by the fact that she was persecuted in her childhood by the Islamic regime. She had to spend several of her earliest years growing up in a bunker. We are supposed to believe she is deeply connected to the meaning and value of human rights. That is the basic advert (video below).

    The hard truth is it doesn't quite work that way. Deprived childhoods and serious early trauma create emotional distortions. My Hitler, for example, was heavily abused as a child and a WW1 hero who almost got killed everyday as a delivery man. If only the Germans had known not to be so impressed by his bravery. The man went mad!!

    I know I can look a bit heartless at times, but when it comes to national-level politics the facts must come first. And there are good reasons why New Zealand doesn't let in many people from terrorist-infested countries. Golriz needs to argue those reasons, and not make intellectually meaningless appeals to her unfortunate background.

  2. Dude, you are mentally ill and a racist. You are attacking this woman solely because she comes from a Muslim majority ethnicity. I imagine you wouldn't attack a white Christian candidate and claim that they think 'Slavery is a natural condition' and that 'women are inferior to men' (all teachings in the Bible).

    Also, I like how your source is Bill Warner. A hack with zero credibility and a hardcore Christian apologist.

    Let's not even get into the fact that Iran is a Shia majority nation, and the overwhelming majority of terrorists are Sunni. Or the fact that groups like ISIS specifically target Shia Muslims. Or the fact that the main groups fighting ISIS are Shia. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your narrative.

    1. Shoop: Did you actually read my content? I am hardly even attacking her - except where I think that's fair, like when she makes empty appeals to "Islamophobia" and plays the victimhood card. None of this has any place in honest politics.

      I am virtually only making an assertion of where suspicion may or may not be justified.

      You say Bill Warner has zero credibility. Yawn. You can say that about anyone on any grounds you like.

      And you start off by saying I am mentally ill and racist. Wow. And I suppose you see yourself as the bigger person? You have no grounds for making those kinds of insults, at all, and if you make them again I will block you. I won't tolerate trash talk on my blog.

      And remember "Shoop"...the only thing I am asking of Golriz, and the Greens, is to respectfully confront the legitimate concerns of people who don't want New Zealand to turn out like Europe. So far the Green's are silent. NOT. GOOD. ENOUGH.

  3. I would like to elaborate on the "discredited" comment of Shoop's, in relation to Bill Warner.

    I've seen accusations of 'discredited' everywhere, all the time, and always directed at people that camp-Leftist don't like. It has one obvious purpose. To stop the followers of a political position from even hearing a leading political opponent out. And usually it works.

    Far-leftist followers hear these accusations secondhand from their guru's, and they take their message on faith. Especially if their guru's saying what they already want to hear (confirmation bias). The mere accusation of 'discredited' as all they usually need to maintain ideological isolation.