The Dutch government was today examining the legality of banning a film attacking Islam amid fears that it would fan sentiment against the Netherlands in Muslim countries.The Telegraaf newspaper reported that the coalition government was divided on the film, with the Christian Democrats leaning towards a ban but Labour favouring freedom of expression and calling on Muslim countries to prevent violence against the Netherlands. -- from this article
If the Netherlands bans the Geert Wilders film on the Qur’an, it will be one of the most important acts in the history of free speech. It will constitute an act of Great Undoing, in response to threats from maddened primitives, of the most important political right acquired, over time, by individuals in the Western world -- a right that, without which, all other rights are essentially meaningless.
This has to be understood. If the Netherlands, and if the countries of NATO (who are now involved), cannot permit, and will by fiat end, freedom of speech when it comes to perfectly legitimate criticism of Islam, then the civilization of the West will have suffered an immense blow. Not everyone will mind, or even notice. Some will tell themselves that this "right-wing" politician Wilders was looking to stir up trouble by criticising Islam. And if he was? Isn't it better that the "trouble" be stirred up now, while the West can still defend itself, especially within its own lands, but can do so only if it recognizes the meaning, and the menace of Islam and Jihad?
And others will say something like "oh, but there will be greater danger to Dutch troops" in Afghanistan. And still others will add, "yes, and even to the troops from the other NATO lands." And perhaps that is true. However, if it is true, perhaps it is NATO forces that should rethink their "mission" in Afghanistan, and what is achievable there. Perhaps NATO should rethink whether "helping" people who would eagerly kill them because of the refusal of the Western world to abandon freedom of speech in the case of a fifteen-minute film in the Netherlands, is really the wisest course of action. Perhaps NATO should consider what that tells us about the nature of the people in Afghanistan, or in any other Muslim state or society, whom we complacently or desperately assume are not our sworn enemies, are not hostile to the non-Muslims of the world. (For yes, that hostility can exist side-by-side with a desire to get from the West all the benefits that West clearly offers, including every sort of aid. It can even be present among people who decide to move to and settle within that same West. That is, even those who leave the misrule of Islam can continue to harbor that hostility to non-Muslims. Unlike refugees from the Nazis or the Communists or other examples of misrule, all too many of these immigrants bring with them, in their mental baggage, the very thing, Islam, whose effects, especially those of political despotism and economic paralysis, are what caused them to leave such hell-holes as, say, Somalia, or Pakistan, or the Maghreb, in the first place.
This suppression, by the Western world, of free speech, will have grave and long-lasting consequences. For if this movie is suppressed, one assumes that all other such movies will be suppressed. And the demands, by Muslims inside and outside of Europe for still more to be censored, including the written word, will only increase, with that well-known triumphalism that feeds each new demand, as Muslims demand more and more concessions to ensure that they will never feel offended, neither within their own lands, nor within the historic heart of the free and advanced West. For if they are offended, the consequences will be greater than what the West wishes to pay. It need not be soldiers in Afghanistan. It could be, say, a threat to blow up one of the Oxford colleges, or the Louvre, or the Alte Pinakothek, or the Uffizi or the Vatican. Oh, it could be any number of things. Do what we want, submit to our Diktat....or else!
The stand has to be taken now. Not later. Later will be too late.
Will Muslims threaten Dutch oil shutoff?
Freedom of speech is non-negotiable.
Sad to say, but most people won't notice or care. This won't affect their lives (in the short term) and they're more interested in the mundane problems of interest rates for their mortgage, gas and electricity prices, the price of beer, football matches etc etc.
It's drip, drip, drip. Except the drips are getting bigger.
Hugh, I just came back here to post these very sentiments.
To Geert: We cannot capitulate now. If we do, the price to be paid by all freedom-loving, peace-loving people, especially in Europe, will be gravely jeopardised, as the howling demands from the cult-of-Islam will just grow ever stronger with every perceived 'victory'.
It's rather like running away from an rabid dog. The faster you run away, the faster it runs towards you, and then bites you with its drooling fangs. In this case, Islam is the 'rabid dog'.
Now surely it's truly time to push this beast back into its kennel from whence it came, and never let it rear its ugly head again.
"Some will tell themselves that this "right-wing" politician Wilders was looking to stir up trouble by criticising Islam"
Most people in the West think this way about practically anyone who is significantly criticizing Islam and the Muslims who follow it.
Think of all the trouble that the Abolitionists "stirred up" during the 19th century -- the grief, mayhem and misery -- tragically unnecessary birth pains -- whose ultimate responsibility was not theirs, but of those who obstinately resisted the paradigm shift of the time.
To abdicate our freedom of speech is to shun our 2,500-year heritage of democracy. When free speech ends, so does the sovereignty of the people, and we all become slaves of despots. The rule of law and reason is displaced by superstition and the descent of the whole of Mankind into another Dark Age becomes inevitable.
Woe to the present generation who has allowed the jinn of jihad to escape from the bottle to which our ancestors had confined it with cannons and about which they indeed did not fail to warn us. Woe to us that we have ignored the lessons of more than 1,400 years of history. I fear that the greatest conflagration in human history is soon to be ours to witness.
It’s curious that demographic ‘conquest’ of the West, especially Europe, by the Mohammedan hordes running into the more advanced values of civilization, especially the abolition of slavery, equality for all including gender equality, and constitutional protection of our natural rights and freedoms, is becoming manifest in their attacks on our freedom of speech. This is a natural first attack, which if successful will embolden them further for more demands to implement Sharia friendly legislation to further erode our freedoms. As Muslims get more politicized in the West and begin to exercise their vote muscles, these attacks against our freedoms, especially freedom of speech, should be expected to rise. Demographic conquests in history are not new, from Genghis Khan to Spaniards seeking gold in American El Dorado, or European displacement of native peoples (often after disease wiped them out); but most such conquests eventually absorbed the newcomers into the population mix over time, like the Mestizos of Mexico, or Asians in the lands of Russia, so eventually they adapt to the new societies, though not without changing them permanently. What will an Islamic invasion look like in the future of Europe, or the Americas, if they willfully reject our modern social values and insist upon dictating to us their own regressive values?
Conquests by demographics happened before, all over the world, and there is no reason they cannot happen again. The only way to fight this invasion is to publicly recognize it now, and take steps to either integrate the new comers into our way of life, or send them packing back to whatever Sharia inspired lands they came from. Notice there are no mass migrations into Sharia states, but rather the other way around. Hordes of Muslims in our lands does not paint a hopeful future, but more likely will reduce us to the same primitive levels from whence they came. Shouldn’t demographic invasions, especially hostile invasions (see latest attacks in Paris suburb by masked armed men on the police), be banned by legal means? Either that, or suffer the inevitable consequences of watching the vote swing their way (like Muslims endorsing Obama) until our natural freedoms are eroded away. Demographic invasions should not be acceptable in modern times, especially if the invaders threaten us to remove our freedoms for their repressive religio-political enslavement of body and mind. Then, when they succeed, watch them start blowing up our institutions of higher learning and works of art. Grim picture for the future of Europe and the West. Genghis Khan would have been proud.
BOOM!
Steigen Sie! Volltreffer durch Hugh.
"Conquests by demographics happened before, all over the world"
Can you give one or two significant examples from world history? I don't think a less sophisticated culture has ever conquered a more sophisticated one by mere demographics without physical violence as part of the equation.
Where is the response from the West. A powerful response would be massive rallies and demonstrations across the West by those who hold the Western values in high regard worthy of defense. Where are the leaders? Where is the outrage? Mass non-violent protests with articulate leaders at the helm would be such an inspiration to all of us Westerners. Blogging and quietly expessing our outrage is not going to do it.
Hugh:
One can only shake one's head at the position of the Christian Democrats on this, especially in light of the threat you cite to the Holy See, which will not be defused - but only strengthened - by the emerging dhimmitude of that ancient authority, which many of us had cautiously expected the current Pope to understand.
I noted that matter elsewhere on this site today and do so again for consideration by yourself and readers on this thread. It is particularly discernable in matters noted and undertakings given in this document from the webpage of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20080226_cairo-declaration_en.html
If this attitude gains ground and spreads in the culture of the remnant of Christendom that remains in the West, the anti-Jihadist resistance will have suffered a severe blow.
So, as on the other thread, I submit it here for other readers, fellow Catholics in particular, with the recommendation that we all bombard the Holy See with letters and messages, including direct petitions to the Pope, to overturn this emerging policy of compliance with Islamist demands by withdrawing its approval from the joint declaration, and renewing the earlier theme in Papal diplomacy on freedom from religious coercion.
The Papacy had an opportunity to further weave the theme of freedom of conscience and freedom from coercion into its dialogue with Islam by insisting on avoiding the topic of the Mohammed cartoons, steering the discussions away from this whole wretched matter of "avoiding disrespect of religions", and calling the attention of the Islamic participants in the discussions to the value (of which the Church now has considerable experience) of considering the constructive criticism of religious dissenters and non-believers. Sadly (despite having had several hundred years to consider all this in light of such historical debacles as the Albigensian Crusade, and the condemnation of Galileo), it squandered this opportunity, being coopted instead into the old sinister agenda of repressive state imposition of orthodoxy.
Notwithstanding the important role of religion in creating a strong culture, which I vigourously defend, religious believers ought to be wary of their beliefs and institutions being further discredited by once again being put in the position of overriding basic rights and freedoms.
This is not only a great undoing for the Netherlands. There is, at the root of it, or at least parallel to it, a great undoing for the fruit of centuries of Christian reflection on human rights and freedom of conscience, including the important advancements made in the Second Vatican Council and the more than forty years of the post-Conciliar era.
Why do I see irony in this line? Hugh has again brought to the table a very sobering yet troubling analysis that deserves a wider audience.
The mere fact that the Dutch government would even consider banning something this film -- and for the reasons specified -- should be disturbing even to liberals.
The consideration alone has created a case where shariah law established in muslim countries could be seen as so supreme, and of such stature, that it must be considered if not consulted -- either before sovereign laws in the West are enacted; or prior to actions that can be taken by supposed "free individuals."
Are the members of the Dutch government in such fear of shariah or are they as I suspect -- on the whabbist dole?
If they are not "on the take" through corruption, then why else other than profound stupidity -- would that place the desires and laws of muslim countries ahead of their own?
This needs to be investigated.
Most recent demographic invasions, such as European ‘conquests’ of the Americas, or parts of Africa and Asia, or Australia and Polynesia, were by a superior force of both technology and social organization, often using traditional native hostilities against each other (and disease), so there was limited resistance. The other way, where more primitive cultures conquer and dominate superior civilizations, had happened in ancient times, like the Vandals sacking the Roman Empire, or Huns and Mongol attacks against European kingdoms, though not in recent times. The closest is Islam’s attacks on southern Europe, Turks in the Balkans, Russia and Ukraine, the Austrian empire, but those were eventually repulsed because of superior organization and military technology. So the demographic conquests of the West would be counter to recent historical trends, which leads me to think they cannot possibly succeed unless we ‘invite’ them and empower their primitive behaviors once they’re inside our societies. Unfortunately, this seems to be what our leadership is allowing to happen, especially in Europe, but to some extent as well in North America. So even if they cannot succeed, historically speaking, they will cause us a lot of harm. At risk is first and foremost the most important underpinnings of our civilization, that of free speech. Not surprised this is their first line of attack, to bring Sharia and undo our constitutional freedoms. The next in line for these hordes is to remove obstacles to their Sharia by undermining our constitutional governments. Though this is sedition and should be recognized as such, but the time our leadership respond we could be in the throes of civil war. I am not too hopeful that they will have enough of a wake up to stop it from happening. France may be our 'canary in the coal mine'.
For if this movie is suppressed, one assumes that all other such movies will be suppressed.
It wont be long before Islam critical books will also be suppressed. They won't be banned - just that it be increasingly difficult to find a publisher willing to face the wrath of Muslim rioters, and the pressure from an increasingly jittery Western government.
Don't worry folks; it will be on the internet on one site or another or several, sooner or later. Yourdhimmitube may not allow it, but it will be somewhere. I believe that Herr Wilders will see to it.
Seems like Balkenende is a shoo-in for this year's Dhimmi of the Year Award.
BTW, that's a pretty sick last line there, Pelayo.
When did "peace at any price" ever work. You just end up less and less peace and pay a bigger and bigger price.
I doubt that perjorative cartoons or films are really the issue. They are just a convenient vehicle to exercise control over the West so that we can begin to feel ourselves subdued by Islam. First comes psychological dominance and evetually physical.
Islam is a well-evolved system of paranoia and megalomania. And Muslims generally seek to maintain their own compensatory sense of surperiority by shaming and destroying others. If you give any ground on one issue, they will simply find further precious "sensivities" reinforced with threat which you must not disturb.
Every insane outrage committed by Muslims is designed so that you will be ever alert to their presence. Designed also to ensure that you are forever walking on eggshells around them.
The whole of Islam is a minefield of exploding egos.
Better just to let them blow. One way or another they mean to give us grief.
Mr Wilders needs the sustenance of our support in letters and emails to him. Above all, we need to pray for Mr Wilders safety from Muslims, as well as the government of the Netherlands.
If no one is in the room do gonads falling make a noise? I think I am hearing some soft thuds.
anyway, we are all going to have to face the 'music' at some time and if the Dutch put it off then it is just going to grow and fester some more. This will not stop muslim violence. What they seem to want to do is go back to putting their heads back up their butts and not have to do anything and just let muslim violence happen to the other guy.
Those who have died for freedom of expression (the White Rose group of brave youths in the midst of Nazi Germany comes to mind) have made this freedom sacred and precious to our civilization. How cheaply and quickly they give it away!
Celsius states,
You are absolutely correct, and it's a pathetic shame.
Hugh-
The Dutch already capitulated in 1990.
They banned the first published warning of their own impending self-genocide.
By forbidding the distribution of the book "The Downfall of The Netherlands: land of the naive fools" (De Ondergang Van Nederland: land van de stomme dwazen) penned by "Mohammad Rasoel".
A nomme de guerre taken by a Pakistani Muslim immigrant -and apostate- who loved his newfound freedom in Holland and tried to warn his chosen countrymen and women of the plague that they were permitting into their land.
By failing, as a people, to understand the existential meaning of retrograde Islam.
Using their recently minted "intolerance laws" [sic] the Dutch, who were previously the world-historical champions of freedom of speech, and thought, and especially publishing, -from the Renaissance onward- banned the book.
In Holland, this was an unheard of event.
But it went by with no particular notice or national protests.
The volume was quietly removed from bookstore shelves and it offically became a "disappeared" item.
The author then had to pay a $1000 fine for "hatespeech", convicted of inciting "anti-minority-religion" sentiments.
The Dutch mistook the Mohammedans in their midst for neo-Anne Franks in khaftans and burqas.
However, after the slaughter of Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch drew back from their "pure tolerance" model (which, ironically included intolerance of those who criticized the New Intolerance of Militant Islam) and they momentarily reasserted the survival instincts.
Sadly, in the intervening years since the streets of Amsterdam were bathed in Van Gogh's blood, the Hollanders' sense of survival has faded, once again.
This may be their last opportunity to redeem themselves as free men, and free women.
And as paragons of human liberty and intellectual integrity.
You only get so many chances to drop that baton.
One too many times and the fire goes out.
And the Neo-Dark Ages begin.
Survival of the FITNA?
Has Mohammed Rasoel's book been translated into English? Is it available, in any language, on-line? It should be re-published in the Netherlands, and this time, not banned but widely distributed.
"Conquests by demographics happened before, all over the world"
Can you give one or two significant examples from world history? I don't think a less sophisticated culture has ever conquered a more sophisticated one by mere demographics without physical violence as part of the equation.
Posted by: cantor
Very strange that cantor is unaware.The above post is the real thing.Look at Pakistan and Bangladesh. Look at into its history of creation ,basis of creation.All on the basis of demography only of Muslim religion a separatist identity exclusive in nature not inclussive.That what it asks for from others,it forbids the same things for others(non Muslims).And who were instrumental in giving final shapes to Pakistan and Bangladesh ?.The same Western (British et al)and US forces, their leaders ,acquisisives /submitters to Islam ( Muslims in deed ). Now it has come to their door-steps . And you are worried. Muslims have already succeeded in their mission-80 percent!. A voilent wave and it gets concluded. Its only a matter of Time now. Very sad indeed for history.
These Dutch politicians who favor banning Wilders' film and who evidently believe in trading freedom for security, will discover soon enough that they will enjoy neither.
Hugh-
"Rasoel"'s droll work is available for free, in English, online here:
http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/heroes/faust/faust2.php
The Dutch version is wittier, and more rawly sardonic, but this version conveys the gist of his "offense".
Hoping Holland keeps its head.
This time.
"Mr Wilders needs the sustenance of our support in letters and emails to him."
He really needs one of these: http://www.pointblankarmor.com/CSeries.asp
However, after the slaughter of Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch drew back from their "pure tolerance" model (which, ironically included intolerance of those who criticized the New Intolerance of Militant Islam)
The pretzel logic of PC MC is wondrous to behold. Allow me not so much to untangle it, but to display its gymnastic contortions:
While claiming to oppose all Intolerance, it is intolerant of any intolerance of the intolerance of Islam; while it is tolerant of the intolerance of Islam, and furthermore will not tolerate any intolerance of its tolerance of the intolerance of Islam.
Excerpts from Mohammed Rasoel's "De Ondergang van Nederlands":
“If there were no Scandinavians, of who I don't know a whole lot, then without a single trace of doubt in my voice I would call the Dutch the nicest, most honorable, civilized, honest, objective, and outspoken people of the world, while my opinion about their social system, police, jurisdiction, education, etcetera, is equally high. I'm sometimes still surprised about the way of life in the Netherlands and the behavior of the Dutch, even though they form a rich source of entertainment and happiness in my daily life. But when someone doesn't agree with me or doesn't understand what I'm talking about it's either a moron or exactly one of those Dutchmen, while in other countries in their most ideal dreams people wish they could reach the same thing as here, or at least almost the same, because also the Dutch are not perfect.
How can a people be so advanced in their thought while being so naive at the same time? Or the other way around: how can people as smart as the drug lords of Colombia or the master minds of the mob and yet be dumb enough to ignore the lives they wreck? The answer is easy: we only develop our brains in those areas where we train them. The story of the Dutch is simply the story of a people who lived so long in a neatly arranged society, and developed its kindness so far that it not only forgot what a mess looks like, but never developed the intelligence to keep itself clean: the Dutch don't see the mess around them and hence do not see a good reason to protect themselves against it.
It's time the Dutch realize that other people don't look at this world with the same eyes. Or, more to the point, it's time the Dutch realize that all the bloody political incidents, the civil wars, the border disputes in the Middle East, the far East, or elsewhere, that continuously make the news, could rather directly spill forth from an aggressive nature, without there being a difficult explanation for this. And that when a pro-Iranian Hezbollah movement or any other kind of extremist Muslim group forms a fanatic army, while shouting, "Allah Akbar", any kind of reasonable policy or ideology is out of the question, but that we're simply dealing with a bunch of idiots, psychopaths, and imbeciles who do whatever they please. Of course the Dutch pigeon doesn't see everything in a twisted way. The Dutch do realize that in Bangladesh the people don't build houses from bamboo because they are tree huggers, and that the population of Ethiopia isn't on a hunger strike.
Beware of discrimination
No matter from what nation a fresh immigrant comes to the Netherlands, he will spend years figuring out the Dutch, unless he spends a couple of euro to buy the Dutch constitution which is available in most bookstores, and from which he can get some basic knowledge about them, including their sense of humor. He opens it, full of suspense and expectations, and wham! There it is, the first paragraph of the first chapter, what else could this be about? "Everyone who finds himself inside the Netherlands will in equal situations be treated equally. Discrimination because of religion, philosophy of life, political inclination, race, sex, or on any other grounds, is not allowed." The jewel of this statement is the words 'or on any other grounds.'
There's no doubt that the history of discrimination is horrible and shouldn't be forgotten.
But somewhere in the campaign against it, with endless TV series about slaves in America, Jews in the second world war, South Africa, the Ku Klux Klan, etc, the Dutch lost track, short-circuited their brains, until they melted the various separate occurrences into one gigantic monster. Meanwhile they failed to see, intentionally or not, the word was used by either side like a gun against the head. Every Dutchman with whom I discussed this subject reacted according a set pattern, first the denial of their emotions, then, when I kept pressing, they started to loosen up, till the words and the anger flowed out of their mouths, like the lid was removed from all their stored annoyance. Others, who openly talk about discrimination, try to blame everything on skin color, as if they want to divert the attention from the real issue at hand. Skin color and discrimination have become, as it seems, the best buddies lately: they go hand in hand, day and night, from breakfast till bedtime, and woe to whoever that tries to separate them. I, personally, believe that the two have no legitimate relationship nor belong together. A black crow is shy, a white swan is aggressive, and a zebra is fast, not because of their color but because that's the way they are, with color being a side effect.
The Muslims in the spot light
Thief knows thief, cop knows cop, junkie knows junkie, and Muslim knows Muslim. The Dutch however, who never learned to know themselves, prefer to get to know the Muslim, and do not do a very good job at it.
Deceitful appearance
The Dutch meet Muslims on cultural gatherings, on markets, and parties. They see sparkling, shy eyes and a sincere shining smile and think: how nice, how sociable, how lively these people are. And when they look at themselves in comparison, they see what they lack, but fascinated and captivated they move like insects to the source of unusual light. In the expectation that what shines there is gold, they don't see that the nice looking people are often the biggest monsters and that men like Ceausescu or Hussein beam as strongly at their parties as anyone else. Or did the Dutch think that unfriendly people are beasts with dangerous, unshaven faces and clothing drenched in blood, groaning and growling, "murder, murder"?
Well, the people that didn't utter that word directly, existed the day before from the same nice people, simply because the true nature of a man isn't shown until he is put to the test. The gentleman Ganuka, who's been living in the Netherlands for twenty-two years, seemed very nice and definitely not aggressive until a comedic TV show tried to place a public toilet outside his Israeli restaurant (July 1, 1990, Tros). However, when a Muslim does something right, or something not wrong whenever that is expected, the Dutch yell, "I told you they're all right!" And when they meet my mother, the sweetest and frailest old women they've ever seen, they couldn't image that she's the one my stories are about, and how aggressive she is on the inside. The Dutch can't get to know the Muslim, no matter how hard they try, because the Muslim won't let himself be known. It's like that time the television showed how a cop used his bat to beat into a group of villagers to make way for a parked motorcyclist of the Paris-Dakar tour.
When his superiors warned him that the camera was running he suddenly stood still and looked friendly, with a beaming smile. Besides, the Dutch have the impression of Muslims as friendly, welcoming people, something the Muslims won't deny. But even here you can speak of deceit. Because when family A arrives around dinner time and family B jumps up and offers for everyone to join in the dinner, this doesn't show family B's hospitality, but primarily that they lack the courage and honesty to admit that they have just enough goathead soup for themselves, in which already didn't float enough eyes for everyone. Or family B can feel forced to take the offer, because family A would be so insulted they would never visit them again. It's an insincere custom, which I saw on my travels throughout the Islamic world, all the way to the United States.
And regarding friendliness in Islamic nations: of course Muslims will be superficially friendly toward Western tourists, not out of good intentions, but because it's interesting and exciting to have an original white man inside your house, to brag about to the neighbors. But you only have to make one mistake, like it happened to me several times in Turkey when I stopped playing harmonica for the driver who had been so kind to give me a lift, and you can get lost. Still the Dutch TV reporters from all over the world come back with picture after picture of smiles, and kilos of set up images with which they misguide the already naive fools even more.
Variable contents
It can be interesting to see in what ways the Islamic culture differs from the Dutch one, but it can be dangerous not to see that seemingly mutual morals and habits differ vastly in intention and effect. In the Netherlands the important and rich people often walk around in the cheapest clothing, in which they step into their Audi of half a ton, or depending on the weather, on their crunching old bicycles. If they wear a suit, then only because of their work or because they find it pleasant to do so. In Islamic nations however, where one wears a suit to feel superior toward others, nobody with any kind of status would ever want to be found on a bicycle.
The, "Thank you", "Sorry", "Sorry", "Thank you", which easily comes from the Dutch mouth, upon which he looks you straight in the face, would be seen as self-humiliation in Islamic nations, besides being a hollow statement. Dutch bus stops, and other public localities sound like burial processions, that is, not at all, and neither do their restaurants, where the Dutch quietly converse and are served by other Dutchmen who regard them as humans and treat them accordingly, with a certain kind of eye contact and a very natural friendliness. Entirely different is the situation in Islamic nations, where the customers try hard to restrain themselves for the duration of the dinner, while being served by waiters who radiate a purely physical performance, but in reality are incapable of seeing and respecting their customer as a human being.
Finally: a conversation with a Dutchman is never complete without a dozen whys. The question why is offensive in Islamic nations and can lead to trouble. Given the great many differences under the superficial resemblances, I only named a fraction of them, combined with the ease at which Muslims lie and the confusion created by Dutch researchers pumping all sorts of, for Muslims, entirely unimaginable questions into their ears, followed by the pulling of the answers from their mouths that they desire to hear, it shouldn't be hard to imagine how many misunderstandings about Muslims continue to exist. I on the other hand walk in and out of their Mosques, sit among them in their clubs as their 'comrade' and hear them tell how depraved the Dutch are and how easy it is to fool them, not to mention the dangerous things they say without knowing what I think.
Do you know the Koran?
The voice of the Koran seems to awaken more and more curiosity in the Dutch, and once in a while a woman submits to Islam leaving a nation behind wondering what it is the Koran has to offer, that an intelligent woman discards her religion and picks another, while the question if she can ever convert back again isn't worth television time. I don't mean this in a bad way, but I think it's a certain type of people that joins the Baghwan or the Hare Krishna, longs to be locked up in a Scientology church, eats the last poisoned dinner with pastor Jones, or becomes a Muslim. How else would they feel special and belong to a specific group? Besides, don't we live in a time where all miracles of the days of old have become cold calculations and scientific fact, and is it pointless to tell a girl you'll pick her a star; she knows it's much too big for that.
Still questions remain unanswered, like, "What exists outside the universe?", "When did time begin?", and, "Why do we exist?" So you search in books, under your bed, behind the TV, in the fridge, in your father's pocket, but nowhere the answer can be found, and the longer you search the more disoriented you become. You're seeking desperately for an answer, whatever that may be. Your own religion is so boring and besides you were born with it so does it really interest you? Then appears the only light that dissolves the darkness, the only thing that can fill your inner void - the Koran. Suddenly you're happy again, your life changes, as well as your clothes, your hair, your friends, your parties. Everything changes; you've become a new person. You're surrounded by enthusiastic juicy Muslim friends who wish you well because you're in their midst and try out all sort of exciting games, like the Ramadan, praying five times a day, and saying farewell to the arid Dutch life.
If we truly want to understand Muslims, we must have a look at the Koran. And while I learned the book by heart, assisted with whiplashes, I've been reading it lately to refresh my memory, and pondering if Muslims abuse the Koran, or the other way around, or both. The following citations are from the translation by J.H. Kramers and can give the Dutch a global impression of the convictions and mental baggage of their fellow citizen.
Sura 2, 191: 'Fight them not at the Inviolable Place of Worship, as long as they don't fight you there. Though if they attack you, then slay them.'
Sura 5, 38: 'And the thief, male or female, you shall cut off their hands as pay-back for their crime, and to serve as an example of punishment from Allah.' If the Muslims in the Netherlands are so devoted to their religion, they will also have to accept the punishments of that Allah.
Sura 24, 2: 'The adulteress and the adulterer, whip each of them a hundred lashes.'
Sura 24, 31: 'And tell the believing women, that they subdue their eyes and maintain their chastity. They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary. They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies.'
(To subdue your eyes applies to men as well.)
Sura 24, 4: 'Those who accuse married women of adultery, then fail to produce four witnesses, you shall whip them eighty lashes...'
Sura 4, 15: 'Those of your women, not maintaining their chastity, you must have four witnesses from among you against her. If they bear witness, then keep her in the houses, until death pays her debt or Allah shows a way for her.'
Before comparing the Koran with the Bible, it should be noted that with the Bible I do not mean the old testament, which isn't less ridiculous than the Koran, but the new testament (N.T.). And while the Koran and Bible have the same purpose, spreading a religion, the difference between them is striking. While Christianity (N.T.) spreads it with friendship and love, without force, asks to pray for the unbeliever and to help them with their conversion or otherwise forgive them, etc., Islam is hard, biding, punitive and aggressive. Or, with one word: primitive, because it hasn't changed one bit in fourteen centuries.
Such a difference inevitably results in collisions and even without that there's a clear social conflict between what the Dutch and the Muslims are allowed to. Islam forbids letting dogs inside your house, entering a house where a dog lives, or shaking the hand of someone who touched a dog. This makes social relationships and friendships between the Dutch and Muslims highly impractical, especially when the Muslims aren't allowed to eat on the same table with Dutchmen who eat delicious sandwiches with pork ass. Next there's the clothing issue, which goes deeper than one would assume from the surface. A punker paints his hair, a hippy puts flowers in it, a soldier keeps it short, and those frequenting discos cover it with gel. Everyone does as he pleases, Muslim women on the other hand abide to the 'hizjab' and cover their head, not because they want to or because of their clothing style, but because uncovering their head makes them impure, dirty, and repulsive. Their 'hizjab' is a gesture, a manifesto, that contains a judgment about the Dutch women, who they approach with a polite smile that is less innocent than it seems.
This opinion, which Islamic women carry with them from under their 'hizjab' has been poured into them from childhood, because all Muslim women find all white women - simply put - repulsive. The white women walk in public with their legs and shoulders visible, go to bars and sit among men, drink alcohol, and have sex before marriage. A Turkish guy once summarized it openly on national TV when he called Dutch women whores, and was seconded by an Islamic girl who declared openly on TV (February 24, 1987, IKON) that she'd never marry a Dutch guy. This results in an interesting one sided situation, where the Dutch give all their love and only get contempt in return, then what are all these Muslims doing in the Netherlands? It can't be so that Allah agrees that such a halal (pure) Muslim civilization lives on such a haram (impure) soil. Back to the content of the Bible and Koran. Some people claim the Bible also contains reprehensible scriptures, or that the Koran has good sides as well. In the Bible that I read (N.T.) there must be pages missing with the instruction to whip and mutilate, or scriptures with a mutual intention.
And regarding the good side of the Koran, the lawyer of Ferdy E. said nothing about the family members of Albert Heijn that Ferdy did not kidnap, and Khomeini couldn't say either: 'Hey, why is everybody after me? How many writers are there that I did not sentence to death?' The good side of the Koran doesn't neutralize its bad side. So where does Fred Leemhuis get the courage to fill half a page on the newspaper Telegraaf and later on an entire TV screen, mostly with a grin and the rest with a Koran in his hand, proudly declaring that the Koran is 'extremely tolerant', to sleep peacefully the next night in the knowledge that he deceived the readers and audience? After this thorough introduction to the Koran we can answer the question if Muslims abuse the Koran, or if there is a mutual relationship between the two of them. Claiming that the Koran is innocent to the behavior of Muslims, or that Muslims abuse the Koran, both abusively justifies the other party. In reality the two strengthen each other.
But the word abuse is incorrect, because both Koran and Muslims manage to use each other very well, and belong to each other. It's the soft New Testament the Muslims wouldn't like, and the Koran would reject the Dutch at first sight. The reciprocal relationship between Muslims and Koran doesn't mean the Muslims would be helpless or harmless without the Koran. Who milks a snake's poison doesn't milk the aggression after all. And when the Americans showed their concern about the visit of Rafsanjani to Russia, a visit on top of Gorbatsjov's already growing concern about fifteen million Muslims in his country, everyone spoke, including Europe, about the fundamentalism of Islam. No word about the fundamentalism of the Muslims. As if the Muslims are all without a will obeying to the comments of a thundering voice from the heavens. Take a gun away from an enraged man, and instead he'll grab a stick or stone.
Islam is not just a firearm; the enraged man is the fundamentalist Muslim himself. But in our world with its complex political constructs there is no place for such a logical way of reasoning. And now another idiot startles the planet by annexing its neighboring country, while entrenched in a fortress of human sandbags, the western optimists think the man's resignation will solve the entire case. And that while the same fundamentalist Muslims, who cheer on our so-called dictator with millions, are very well capable of pulling the exact same coin from their ear. If not in Iraq then somewhere else, and if not with mustard gas, then with atom bombs.
Cleaning diapers
No matter how nice and spontaneous the Muslims may be, they're not the only ones. Also Dutch children, that is till around the age of twelve, display spontaneity, not that spontaneity isn't the same as being childlike; both come forth from the lack of self-criticism and thoughtfulness. Understand children as children, and much of their apparent incomprehensible behavior - such as seeking attention, crying about futilities, and the tendency to dislike everything, becomes clear. Such behavior became obvious and widely displayed when it came to a book that was so important; the behavior of a child whose toy was taken away.
It certainly explains all the tears shed in movie theatres and on train platforms. Children are also quick to anger and fight for straps. No wonder that the Islamic nations are continuously at war, and that their leaders cannot hold peace negotiations as adults. Movies, drama, and ego trips have a childlike relationship to each other. Children like to imitate TV programs, and they find themselves incredibly important and interesting. The Muslims ventured out onto the Dutch streets exactly like they were used to in their own countries, inspired by all the movies they had ever seen and fascinated by their own moustache and manly behavior. And drama is certainly not something patented by children. Recently, on the TV, an orangutan taken care off by a European woman started to hit its own head and jump up and down, because the women tried to pry away his milk bottle.
When I think of the adults of every nation where I've been, I find that their behavior and intelligence can be globally compared to that of a 14 years old Dutchman. And the ego, which is probably the most deadly weapon mankind possesses, and the more a nation turns inward, the less their line of vision reaches outward and takes others into consideration, the more evil it will do.
Evolution
Regardless if the subject is about children or war, the environment, sex, or heart attacks, if I want to go into more detail, I often find myself referring to the evolution of human civilization. The Muslims are no exception to this, but so are people in general. In the stages a child goes through until it reaches adulthood, form an equal evolution like process as the development of ape to man. But not every child develops at the same pace and doesn't continue for the same length of time, so why would the different peoples on this planet? There are even examples of people, like the Biami's who only recently made contact to the outside world, who now still live like in the stone age - and not because they don't know how to modernize, but because they don't know better.
Maybe it's simply a matter of an evolutionary gap, though in this context I'd like to add that the evolution I refer to only spans a cultural development, the developing of social behavior and mentality; it seems as unlikely and illogical to me that two peoples would go through the exact same development as two fingers having the exact same print, or that two frames of two leaves would be alike. Moreover, a higher level of development doesn't have to be a blessing, as proven by our, as good as ruined, planet. It seems we never should have crawled out of our caverns. But less development means matter of fact more touchiness, more impulsivity, more aggression, basically: more of the characteristics we started out with as apes.
Thresholds and limitations
Russian roulette
The bizarre part of the whole thing is the question why it was necessary, no matter the price, to take the risk of having the Netherlands get hit by a massive immigration wave of Muslims. Of course there are situations in life where risks need to be taken, but only when there's no other option. After all, if the Sicilians hadn't been allowed into the United states, the mob wouldn't have terrorized the nation for years, and Kennedy would have lived long enough to turn America into a better place. If the Muslims hadn't been allowed into England they couldn't have burned shops in London or attacked English principles, nor would they have been able to steal detonation mechanisms for nuclear weapons or export giant cannon barrels, which left the country as disguised as the exporters themselves entered it.
This doesn't make the Chinese less notable, who smuggle tons of heroin into the Netherlands each year, have their own mob, complete with blackmail, prostitution, extortion, etc. The second question is why in the Netherlands the situation had to be created where racial hatred could prosper. For example, it's well possible that two people who don't fit together but are forced to for the sake of the children will end up hating each other. Racial hatred between Japanese and Mexicans is hard to imagine. And Morocco and Turkey don't struggle with the problem of 5 million Dutchmen, and their newspapers aren't full of articles in which a situation is attacked and defended. Nuclear missiles are dangerous. No matter how severe the precautions and no matter what arguments, as long as our planet is loaded with missiles the danger will be there.
The same way, despite all arguments, the same risk of a collision between Muslims and the Dutch persists. In such a way that the Dutch are forced into the relationship of the same kind as that of a match and a gas cloud: The little match in the kitchen, where it belongs, is blamed for a possible explosion, even if it was the gas that shouldn't have been there. After all, if we look at all the Iranians, Pakistanis, Liberians, Saudis, Iraqis, Turks, Moroccans, etc, who live in the Netherlands, and how much freedom they have, and if we look at how many Dutchmen live in their country, and how many restrictions to their freedom they have, and finally what circumstances, communication methods, information channels, terrorists, spies, and secret agents are needed to let that situation function properly, we should be able to imagine who is facing the wrong end of this numerical inequality.
The course of the downfall
It starts with challenging nature's laws as two fundamentally different worlds are brought together in a miniscule point to carry out an experiment. At one side the soft Dutchmen, drowning in a sea of conscience and guilt, and on the other side the hard Muslims, medieval robbers. A people that in their own Trojan bodies not only carry their culture, but also the corruption, bloodshed, desperation, misery, and disaster, currently seemingly harmless like the mustard gas bombs that lie on the ocean floor. The situations may remind some of the one on Pearl Harbor, you know, the day the Japanese said: "Surprise!"
The behavior of the Muslims currently hasn't fully deployed yet, and can be compared to the one of the boy who is new at a club. It takes a while before the ice is broken and he starts to move more at ease, until at last his true nature becomes visible. In the same way most Muslims in the Netherlands are self-conscious and afraid to openly challenge the Dutch. But as time progresses and they continue to claim victories like having their own schools, universities, mosques, hospitals, beaches, swimming pools, sport centers and whatever else they can think of, they'll steadily become less shy and more self assured. The Muslims will stamp the Koran into the head of their children through the ears, a brainwashing behind closed doors and curtains, so they will start to hate the Dutch and see them as their enemies. For this purpose they've been granted their own schools, where they can fabricate Muslim-bombs without any disturbance.
And then there's that other industry, which supplies Islam in an unstoppable pace of much more disciples than the Dutch mothers can keep up with. Because of this difference (as well as importing brides and grooms from the home country in 75% of the marriages) the Muslim population will surpass the Dutch one eventually. Like Alhaaj Firdous, in the Panorama of march 1989, said already: "...The Dutch no longer make children, and we do. In fifty years the Netherlands is an Islamic nation." In a certain stage there will be more incidents like the affair with Rushdie, and the Muslims will reconsider their right to be offended by the libertarian, sinful way of life of the Dutch, a way of life that they consider to go straight against their Islamic way of life. They will state that a Muslim woman can't walk through a street with sex shops, dog turds, girls with short skirts, or that the sight of that is a violation of their Ramadan. The government, who'll at that moment be more concerned with the oil price and the course of the dollar, besides finding it more important that the Dutchmen with a ton on their bank account can hang in front of the TV, than that they can walk the street as free citizens, will go for a compromise to avoid complications, and come up with an emergency law that forbids the display of pornography in shopping windows and the walking of dogs, but not quite yet the wearing of short skirts during the Ramadan.
A handful of Dutchmen, cursed with a greater respect for their own existence and a stronger will to survive, will object to the changes that are taking place and protest, to be directly oppressed by the majority, turned into outcasts, and branded as racists. The Muslims will count on the guaranteed reaction of the Dutch, by making optimal use of it, and strike the Dutch like leprosy and take away their hand finger by finger. After the passing of the century, somewhere around 2010, the bombs will be done ticking and ready for the big bang. But on the other side underground movements and gangs will have been created because of the repressive and frustrating situation. During this stage most Dutchmen will realize what a grievous mistake it was to be friendly to the wrong persons.
But since the international image and the public decency still have the highest priority, the Dutch will continue to ignore their problems, or wipe them under the carpet, lacking the guts to face them. Instead they'll keep the dialogue going, in the hope to still convert the Muslims, and one will blame the other for not trying hard enough, or for not accepting the Muslims enough. And too busy unpacking their mental baggage in search of the last possible justification, they won't see the smile on the faces of the Muslims who watch the overly diligent oddballs. While all this is taking place in the Netherlands, the Muslim leaders elsewhere, who kept themselves informed of the developments, concentrate on plans for the long term.
And whether a country like Iran at that moment only partially helps with the revolt will hardly be of importance to the Muslims. Strengthened by their higher positions in politics and the national bureaucracy, which they didn't have before, and supported by their allies in Belgium, Germany, England, and France, the Muslims shall create a network of mutual loyalty, and undermine the entire social system. Once that's over and done with, the Muslims will realize that they no longer have to maintain nor tolerate the oppression and suffocation of their hollow love affair with the Dutch. In the year 2020 the first stage of the downfall will be completed. The Dutch anthropological culture will be lost. From then onward, year after year, the Dutch will have to, like a body without a soul, live on in grief and regret the loss of what was built up over the centuries, and of a clock that wouldn't turn back if it could. Many years and many tears later the situation will only have worsened. Till the day the great incident happens. An incident where two rivaling foundations of two rivaling cultures make a frontal collision. Then the Muslims will hit back with all they have for the first time. Men, women, and children will go out on the street as one man, and not like recently against Rushdie, but a hundred times amplified and with a hundred times that rage.
And though the Dutch will fight for their norms and values, the Muslims will not only surprise them once again with their barbaric methods, they will punch straight through their soft and decent defense. When a pack of wolves attacks a herd of sheep the outcome is known beforehand. By now it should be obvious what the Koran means with: "When you meet the unbelievers in jihad, chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously." (Sura 47, 4) And not until that moment will the Dutch at last admit that they, by letting the Muslims into the Netherlands, planted the disasters of strange countries inside their own territory. So now, as never before, they will all vote on a party who aims for a 'definitive solution' of the problem. But since they no longer form the large majority, since the Muslims will vote on their own Muslim party of which the well-camouflaged prototype already exists, this will not accomplish anything.
Afterwards the Muslims will steadily continue to overmaster and dominate the Dutch, who will have no choice but to participate in a game of tug of war where they will steadily lose ground. The Dutch on their own side won't know of a solution nor be capable of carrying out a possible solution. And revenge isn't their style. The Muslims, who will know all this, shall start to make the nation obey their will and more or less gain control. And with the help of supply lines from their own countries or through private immigration centers they will allow for a continuous flow of immigrants who will establish themselves in the Netherlands, and indirectly force the Dutch out. By 2050 there will be no Netherlands left, or at least, nothing worth calling it that. The second stage of the downfall is then completed.
The final remedy
It is 2050 by now. The European Union gave up on the unification and closed her borders again. Scandinavia cancelled her relationships with the Netherlands, while the United States is angry at the Dutch government for housing the Islamic rampart, which in turn threatens American citizens in Europe. Many Dutchmen have found refuge in the surrounding nations and of the Dutchmen left behind the women dress as Muslim women to avoid trouble. The jihad has started. The queen and most of the ministers are still in the Netherlands, but the party of the Muslims has a strong position in the cabinet. Iran and Libya have direct influence through their European headquarter in Rotterdam and their secret army, the 'Islamic Execution Squad'.
Dutch and Islamic gangs fight it out in the streets and the population has taken the right in their own hand, since the police are afraid to take action. The nation is frozen by fear. The queen calls for the remaining truly Dutch ministers to come together for a secret meeting. Nobody is allowed in our out of the royal palace. It's expected the congress will last a week. They will eat and sleep in the palace, guarded by the armed forces. After five days the congress is over and the following is concluded: The provinces Groningen, Friesland, Drenthe, Overijssel, Gelderland, and Limburg will be declared as 'New-Netherland'. Utrecht, Noord-Holland, Zuid-Holland, Brabant, and Zeeland will from now on be 'Old-Netherland'. All Muslims are to be deported from New-Netherland to Old-Netherland.
Borderposts making the former Berlin wall look like wire-netting are built like roads between both countries. New passports are handed over to all the real Dutch people, who only get one chance to choose between the two countries. Regardless of how bizarre and unreal it may seem, or maybe even is, still it happens. Countries split regularly. And while it's hard to imagine at first, the cause is always the difference between two cultures. But the longer it takes to realize this reality, the bigger the chance of a civil war. Though mostly it doesn't get that far. Sometimes a people, like the North American Indians, and the Australian aborigines, are walshed flat, such a people goes extinct, with a few remaining behind to become attractions for tourists with Canons and Fujis.
Unhappily ever after
About a year ago a girl from Limburg decided to go on a vacation to Amsterdam. She heard nice stories about this big city, but wasn't aware of the dangers. So she walked nearby the Zeedijk into the wrong street and was raped. The same day she returned home, with her trust in pieces and her eyes wide open for the rest of her life. Some wounds heal and some things cannot be undone, but all the guilt and tears shed at the Anne Frank House cannot bring six billion corpses back to life. With which we are back at a people that isn't that much bigger than those six million.
There they stand, the Dutch with their completely justified and without doubt noble striving to dissociate themselves as far away as possible from Hitler's ideology. Completely blind to the fact that their path circles back to the other end at the jews (with all due respect). The poor devils continue to misunderstand that a choice isn't necessarily between the Nazis or the Jews, predator or prey, oppressor or victim, but that there is an alternative, a third road, which is save yourself and guarantee the continuance of your own culture and your own country. It's simply this one, tiny misunderstanding, that will make the Dutch go down in history as the people who thought so deeply about a nightmare from the past that they ended up becoming that nightmare.”
— Mohammed Rasoel
Kash225:
"Very strange that cantor is unaware...Look at Pakistan and Bangladesh."
If you read my question carefully, I asked about conquest without violence. Pakistan and Bangladesh were accomplished by a great deal of horrible violence perpetrated by Muslims.
Maybe there should be a category for Dhimmi and anti-dhimmi nation of the year.
Mohammad Roesel for anti-dhimmi of the 20th century.
Dennisw hit the nail spot on (top of this thread).
The EU is scared shitless of another Arab oil embargo. Not a lot of practical alternatives now that China is a major player.
Whatever European politicians think privately, staying in power takes precedence; tough to do when you've created brownouts, gasoline shortages, and people are huddling in unheated homes.
The Arabs, on the other hand, need the revenue to hang on to power in THEIR domains. That makes for a nasty symbiotic relationship.
This is just too funny to pass up: it turns out that Balkenende has sent one of his cronies, Tjibbe Joustra, who is the National Coordinator for Combatting Terrorism, to ask Wilders for a sneak preview of his film. Allegedly in order "to be able to determine what kind of security measures he needs to take."
Wilders has turned him down flatly, since he's well aware of the fact that the only reason that Balkenende cannot make a case for banning the film is that it's contents are not known.
A nation that forgets its past has no future
Winston Churchill
cantor:
I don't think a less sophisticated culture has ever conquered a more sophisticated one by mere demographics without physical violence as part of the equation.
Indigenous populations and host cultures are being gradually displaced in several cities in Western Europe by both Muslim and non-Muslim immigrants from Africa, the Indian sub-continent and Eastern Europe.
e.g. Leicester, UK; Birmingham, UK and Peterborough, UK.
This displacement does not really constitute "conquering" as such. We also need to take into account the fact that one person's assessment of the degree of sophistication of a culture will differ from another's. However, there are many examples of indigenous people expressing discomfort at the changes they are experiencing in their communities yet they are expected to either like it or lump it, as the fundamental tenet of the insanity that is multiculturalism is that all cultures are equally valid.
Unless mankind destroys itself (which is quite likely) I hypothesise that there are two possible futures for planet Earth:
Outcome 1: there will come a time when multiculturalism and political correctness will have been consigned to history and the rights and concerns of indigenous populations will have been heard and heeded. In this case the historians of the future, when they write about these troubled times, will be highly critical of the politicians of today and will be astounded at what those politicans have allowed to happen in their countries.
Those historians, with the benefit of hindsight, will be able to assess the rise of PC/multiculti and say: "well, it's obvious that those policies were stupid, so why did the people put up with them?"
Outcome 2: we continue as we are, with the result that there will inevitably be several thousand years of demographic changes and strife until we ultimately arrive at a world where humanity consists of one coffee-coloured race and one culture (not necessarily Islam!). Diversity will have been eradicated. In this case I believe that the historians will also be highly critical. They will say: "well, we're all the same and we all believe the same things, but wouldn't the world be more interesting if we had tried to preserve the rich diversity of mankind that once existed rather than destroying it?"
>>in response to threats from maddened primitives
Came across this on the internet. The site is called The Middle East Forum.
Introduction: The Threat of Lawful Islamism
Islamists ultimately seek hegemonic control via a worldwide caliphate that applies the Islamic law in full. Afghanistan under the Taliban offers one model of what they would establish globally.
Terrorism is one method to advance these projects but it is not the only one. Indeed, the activities of nonviolent Islamists arguably will prove a more effective tactic in the long term. For while the public intuitively understands the threat of terrorism and is mobilized by it, and while states have well-developed institutions (law enforcement, intelligence agencies, the military, the justice system) to protect and fight against it, the activities of nonviolent extremists are not alarming and institutions do not exist to deal with this problem. And how can terrorists impose their will on whole societies?
The Progress of Lawful Islamism
Quietly, lawfully, peacefully, Islamists do their work throughout the West to impose aspects of Islamic law, win special privileges for themselves, shut down criticism of Islam, create Muslim-only zones, and deprive women and non-Muslims of their full civil rights.
Lawful Islamists advance their cause through lobbying politicians, intimidating the media, threatening international boycotts, making predatory use of the legal system, advancing novel legislation, influencing the contents of school textbooks, and in other ways exploiting the freedoms of an open society. They advance their agenda in incremental steps, each of which in itself is minor but in the aggregate point to fundamental changes in society. Here is a sampling of such steps taken by non-Muslims to accommodate Islamists:
Sell land at discount prices for building mosques or other Islamic institutions.
Ban Hindus and Jews from a jury hearing a criminal case against an Islamist in Great Britain.
Allow a prisoner the unheard-of right to avoid strip-searches in New York State.
Let students in public (i.e., taxpayer-funded) schools use empty classrooms for prayers in New Jersey.
Permit public schools and public airwaves to be used to convert non-Muslims.
Recognize polygamous marriages for tax purposes in the United Kingdom.
Set aside women-only bathing at a municipal swimming pool in France or use taxpayer funds for Muslim women-only swimming times in Washington State.
Arrange for women-only classes at a taxpayer-supported university.
Blame women for being the victims of rape by Muslim men in Norway.
Develop a special hijab for female Muslim employees of a leading home furnishing company, sporting the corporate logo.
Ban the use of piggybanks—the symbol of frugality—in their advertising by two major British banks.
Establish panels, councils, or advisory boards uniquely for Muslims.
Authorize Muslim-only neighborhoods or events.
Apply the "Rushdie rules" – accepting Islamist intimidation and silencing critics of Islam.
Punish anti-Islamic views through the application of criminal charges, as has occurred to critics of Islam in Australia and Canada.
Prohibit families from sending pork or pork by-products or "Any matter containing religious materials contrary to Islamic faith" to U.S. military personnel serving in the Middle East.
Require that female American soldiers in Saudi Arabia wear U.S. government-issued abayas.
Perhaps most alarming is how the Islamists currently dominate the Muslim political scene in every Western society, without exception. They control the mosques, publish the weeklies, host the Internet sites, run the schools, write the op-eds, appear on talk shows, engage in ecumenical activities, and enjoy access to politicians
Wilders just called Balkenende "the weakest prime minister since the second World War."
Kim Hartveld, I cannot find that line that you attributed to me:
"Seems like Balkenende is a shoo-in for this year's Dhimmi of the Year Award."
Quoted above from another forum:
"Terrorism is one method to advance these projects but it is not the only one. Indeed, the activities of nonviolent Islamists arguably will prove a more effective tactic in the long term."
This is an increasingly common assertion I have seen. It is absurd. Of course the non-violent "stealth" jihad is an important factor and is being pursued by assiduous Muslims throughout the West. But it will never be able to gain the complete domination that Islam requires without the additional employment of physical violence, which will include terrorism since that has been an integral tactic of Islam from its inception.
I am baffled why some people cannot wrap their heads around Both/And, and instead feel forced to think in terms of Either/Or. Thus their minds seem to go: "Gee, I see evidence of 'stealth jihad' -- therefore it must not be necessarily dependant upon terrorism!" From all available evidence, it seems, in fact and to the contrary, that the two -- stealth and terrorism -- work hand in glove. Indeed, terrorism has the effect of weakening the target with fear (whether conscious or semi-conscious) and making him more pliable and vulnerable to the effects of stealth. But for any Westerner to think the West could be taken over -- conquered as Islam dictates is the only satisfactory type of relationship ("Islam must dominate and not be dominated") -- by sheer stealth without the necessary adjunct of physical violence including terrorism, is to imply a self-understanding and estimation of one's civilization so superficial, pusillanimous and abject, such a person deserves to throw in the towel anyway.
Perhaps “most Muslims are self-conscious” in challenging Dutch culture, especially a culture of personal freedoms and self-guiding morality, but for how long? Van Gogh’s murder was not from a vacuum, nor criticism of Wilders’ unreleased film from a cultural vacuum. Muslims are already feeling pretty self-important and pressing for advantage over the “soft” Dutch, in their own homeland. This invasion by primitive Islam into progressive Holland, like in so many nations, is a self-inflicted wound, a wound made more pestilent with increasing social demands to accommodate the primitives in their repressive norms. The mosque and its orthodoxy of Koranically brainwashed imams is the fountainhead of this invasion, and unless it is stopped, right now, the self-importance of Islamic ego will push for more and more concessions from the Dutch, in their own homeland, same as in all nations invaded by Islam. There is a vacuum in Holland, and it is from the Dutch failure to respond assertively that their culture of freedom is being invaded by a culture of non-freedom, to enslave their minds and bodies in the same way the Ummah thinks is the ideal for all humanity, under Sharia tyranny. Perhaps France’s “canary in the coal mine” will have a partner, with Holland’s canary. Watch when the bird stops singing, and keels over dead. Then the Muslim behavior will have finally been fully deployed. Are the Dutch ready for a civil war, in their own homeland? This may be their Great Undoing… “Surprise!”
Hope is not an option, and unless the Dutch re-assert their culture’s freedoms and liberal way of life, by putting Muslims “in their place”, the future of Holland (and France, Belgium, England, Germany, Spain, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and on the other side of the pond, Canada) is indeed grim. This is not a fairytale where the evil is vanquished by the good, but a nightmare where evil wins. Is Holland ready for car bombings, car burnings, no-go areas, rape, shopping mall bombings, stabbings of little old ladies going to market, churches and cathedrals defiled or destroyed, art removed or destroyed... all to please Islam? Rasoel understands, Wilders understands, and we understand. But will the Dutch people understand, when the “true nature” of Islam is finally so confident that it dictates Sharia in their new brave world, in their own homeland? I don’t hear the canary singing… the Muslim “stealth” invasion has taken away its freedom of speech, so it falls silent. Only a matter of time until it falls dead.
"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.
"There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves."
Winston Churchill, 1948
"I believe that Herr Wilders will see to it"
I believe I'm just fed up with people that feel the need to cast Wilders as a nazi, Pelayo.
Templar: I posted this link earlier today on some thread on JW. It reveals the real reason the Vatican is suddenly so cozy with the immams. They share a common scapegoat. Copy and paste the URL if it fails to show as a link.)
http://www.catholicism.org/news/2008/02/28/human-rights-watch-targets-morocco-urges-government-to-repeal-anti-sodomy-laws/
Nice try, Skevin, but the Catholic Church does not "share a common scapegoat" with Muslim Imams. Please provide dates and times of recent incident of Catholics killing or imprisoning homosexuals for committing sodomy. Anything from the last century will suffice.
You forget that those of us who've been posting here for some time are equipped with excellent bullshit detectors. This is Jihad Watch, not I-want-to-have-sex-with-men-and-the-Church-disapproves Watch. Your victim mentality is as boring as the Muslims'.
watling said
Yes, why do we have to spend all our national treasure (money and lives) trying to "save" Dar al-Islam? We don't need to make them be like us, we just need to protect ourselves from their attacks. Let Muslims be Muslims in Dar al-Islam, let kufirs be kufirs (of whatever stripe) in Dar al-Harb. I say wish Dar al-Islam well, and give them not one penny in foreign aid/jizya.
skevin:
I'll admit that the scapegoating of homosexuals has always been one of the various shadows lurking over Ratzinger's insistent orthodoxy (although so far neither it nor any of the others have materialized), but your suggestion that this is the true motive for the Cairo declaration is a real reach! How do you know the mind of Cardinal Tauran on this? Or of Benedict? Are you a mind reader? Can you do it across oceans and through the dense walls of the Vatican? Your position, for which the Lifesite article that your post links to doesn‘t provide any support, assumes that Benedict's resistance to gay rights overrides his revulsion for Islamist violence and brutality against Christians. This is highly unlikely. A far more obvious (and therefore, all other things being equal, more likely) explanation is the same simple, mindless, reflexive, dread fear of Islamist violence that is casting its shadow over Europe in general these days.
Either way, don’t lose sight of the fact that the monstrosity created by the bastard union of Christianity and militant Islam, if it comes about, will make the world a far more dangerous place for all marginalized groups, homosexuals included. (In fact, homosexuals have even more to fear from this than most other groups). Try to understand this: Christian violence is an aberration that has usually resulted from an unseemly intermingling of the concerns of Church and State, not from the nature of the religious revelation at the root of the faith. In Islam, violence is rooted in the teachings of the Koran, more or less permanently it seems, and in the foundational profile of Muhammed, and there are no separate spheres of religion and political life (no “Render unto Caesar what is Ceasar’s, and unto God what is God’s) to generate the dynamic tension in which a margin of liberty for the citizen/subject takes shape, as it did in Christian medeival Europe; mosque and state are always completely one and the same power.
There are too many people in gay society today who perversely try to whitewash Islam, while gleafully demonizing Christianity. In providing this kind of moral cover to an enemy as deadly as militant Islam, this spiteful contrarianism could lead to the death of every gain the gay culture has made in the modern era. If you have connections in the gay community, you would be doing them a big favour making sure they know who they should be more afraid of between Christianity and Islam. For me, as for Isabella, the answer to that is obvious.
"Very strange that cantor is unaware."
He said something about it being *without violence*
In all the cases you mention, violence was involved, so it fits with what cantor said.
On the main topic, I don't have anything to say Hugh hasn't already said.
Very sad situation.