Robert Spencer in Melbourne 26/11/11
by PJG (longtime Jihad Watch commenter)
On a day of relentless spring rain, Melbourne – or a select contingent thereof - welcomed Robert Spencer for his first talk in his first ever visit to Australia, courtesy of the Q Society of Australia. The 250-seat room was full to capacity, booked out well in advance of the day.
For a change I decided to put aside my old habit of taking notes. After all, the event was being filmed, and I would have access to the film. But afterwards, Robert asked me to write about the event for Jihad Watch, so what follows is a brief snatch of snippets.
Vickie Janson, Vice-President of the Q Society and candidate for the Christian Democratic Party, led off with a sobering disclaimer, mindful as we all are now of local laws restricting free speech, and – with a winning smile – invited anyone with ultra-sensitive feelings or a plot to use those laws against us to kindly leave. She then gave us a run-down on what is happening vis a vis the encroachment of Islamic laws and norms, that is, the steady road to control of us by them, here in Australia in schools, universities, workplaces and elsewhere. As keeping up with Islamic advancement and its enabling and funding by our government is now virtually a full-time job, much of what she informed us in her inimitably cheerful style shocked the audience.
Vickie quoted a Muslim cleric who said that there was no “clash of civilizations, but instead a rise and fall of civilizations.” It is clear that to many Muslims here and abroad their religion constitutes the “rising civilization” and ours the falling (not that they would prefer to stop at ours; Hindu and Buddhist civilizations are in their sights for being given a helping hand to disappear…)
Another member of Q called Warren then gave a talk about what he has seen in recent years in Europe, including the car-burning in France and a memorial (!) devoted to the young Muslim car thieves who were accidentally killed when they hid from pursuing police in an electricity compound and whose deaths were “avenged” by Muslim anti-police rioting. These were stories of immigration-related events our government smugly believes cannot happen in sunny Australia, where it is constantly proclaimed that multiculturalism is an outstanding success story and caution is brushed aside.
When Robert Spencer took the floor, it was clear from the enthusiastic atmosphere that few in the room were new to his views and that his message was seen as acutely urgent. He talked of the responsibility of Western people to learn and respond to the Islamic perspectives which are giving rise to Muslims’ so-frequently misinterpreted words and actions, and expanded on the theme that terrorism and da’wa (the call to Islam) are but two sides of the same coin and directed at the same result, the imposition of Shari’a law. Quoting from Maududi’s commentary in a Koran given to him by the Finsbury Park mosque and using Koran 9:5 as an example, Spencer demonstrated that what Muslim apologists claim to be a misleading absence of “context” proves to be from their own side a misleadingly invalid argument, “context” being at least as alarming as verse and backed up by respected Muslim commentary.
He spoke of many topics which will be familiar to JW readers: the Mafia-like dhimma pact, the absence of the “clash” factor as we in the West politely accede to Muslim demands, the campaign of erosion of our free speech which is central to the Islamic agenda, the existence of self-protective Western laws which are being ignored or under-utilized in the interests of political correctness, and the highly successful phenomenon of contrived Muslim victimhood which has the effect of causing us to rush to make further accommodation for them after every terrorist attack and every expression of grievance.
This last aspect was in reply to one of the many spirited questions asked of him in the latter half of the evening. Many questions reflected the helpless frustration people felt in the face of the plethora of tactics employed by Islamic organizations and individuals and shameful capitulation by our own political parties. Spencer advised not only being persistent in our efforts to inform governments and fellow citizens, but to emulate his colleague Pamela Geller’s creativity, for example her “copycat” bus and taxi advertisements which forced public enquiry into Islamic human rights abuses such as death for apostasy and honour killings.
When pressed as to the vexing question of whether President Obama is a Muslim, Spencer could only surmise that if he were, he would not be doing anything differently; the outcomes of Obama’s policies have been extraordinarily helpful to zealots in the Muslim world – both outside and inside America.
As for Iran, it is important that we understand the Iranian Shi’ite view about the Twelfth Imam and about how Muslim “victimhood” can exist in a most threatening and sinister form on a national level as a tactic of war.
And lastly, about “moderate’ or “secular” Muslims about whom so many nurture great hope, Spencer wasted little time. Of course there are many, many Muslims who pose no threat and are not determined to impose the supremacist aspect over us their religion demands they do, but he did caution, in view of fatally naïve exercises of US soldiers teaching Afghani soldiers, against playing with guns with Muslims.
We may not all be able to dazzle people with erudition and quickness of wit the way Spencer can, but at events such as this one we can develop arguments and tactics based on stated intentions of Muslims which are derived from their texts and their own tactics based on principles within those same texts. Robert Spencer and the Q Society on this night helped and encouraged us to work harder, and to devise means in the vital job of defending the uniquely free and prosperous civilization we have inherited through the blood, sweat and inspiration of others before us and which it is our sacred duty to deliver untarnished to our descendants. They will have their own battles, as we have had ours; let us at least spare them the vice-like grip of Islam.
Oh, and a good time was had by all before and after the talks. So many conversations with so many people; the freedom to speak one’s mind; not once being glared at or called a racist/bigot/Islamophobe…! Thankyou, Q and Mr Spencer!
Thanks PJG, great summary of the evening. Luckily we didn't have the "occupiers" joining us as they have elsewhere.
And thank you again Robert. Thrilled to have you speak downunder finally, sorry we turned summer off for the day in Melbourne.
Looking forward to seeing the videos of the series when they are available.
Chrissie
Thanks for that fine write up, PJG.
And, to you, Bohemian Rhapsodi; though the event was apparently not joined by "occupiers", I'm interested to know--as I believe the location of most of Robert's appearances have been made public in advance--how about Muslims? Any opposition to the event--inside or out--by Allah's slaves?
Thanks.
"Hindu and Buddhist civilizations are in their sights for being given a helping hand to disappear…"
Although Jews and Christians are very slowly waking up to the Islamic Menace (thanks to the tireless work of Robert and Pam in particular), I wonder just how many Buddhists and Hindus are aware of the threat they face? Especially those fluffy-headed young American campus Buddhists who seem to be overwhelmingly left-wing and liberal.
Maybe they should take a look at the links under Buddhists and Hindus at http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/everything-you-need-to-know-about-islam.html
Thank goodness for the Aussies whom are at least welling to discuse, and listen to the teachers of Islamic ideologys. I salute Robert and all members of JW for their courage and commitment.
If we would have waited for the our governments and news media to help remove us from ignorance I shutter to say what would have happened.
Hurray for Robert, our world-travelling anti-jihad warrior!
And thanks to PJG for reporting on the event.
I am grateful that Robert was able to speak out in Australia without getting arrested under this countries foolish laws governing free speech and criticism of Islam. To be able to tell the truth is a precious freedom. Robert has the ability, like none other, to speak to this problem in the face of Islams Jihad against free speech and any criticism of Mohammed. Keep up the good work.
PRCS, none that made their presence known by voice or dress. In fact, there didn't seem to be anyone who was antagonistic to Robert's message at all. It was really an informative and fun night. Q Society were very careful with how they promoted the event, which no doubt meant that many who would love to have come along wouldn't have known about it and also kept the rabble out of the loop.
Thank you PJG for this great summary, and to Robert Spencer for the great speech :-)
No. This is not a “clash of civilizations”
Mohammedanism never had a civilization to begin with
This is the final jihad of the barbarians
against civilization
http://schnellmann.org/in-the-name-of-god.html
Video: “In the Name of God”
--- Qur'an 9:111 “slay and are slain” for promised paradise
The never-ending work of saying what is in the Koran.If it is true then millions of apes and pigs in the world are literally descended from Jews.
Jews who were once humans.You see,the Koran says some Jews were turned into apes by Allah for breaking the Sabbath
http://www.antisharia.com/2011/11/25/in-the-koran-allah-changes-some-jews-into-apes-for-not-respecting-the-sabbath/
ALSO
The whole,sad story,hardly known in the West,really,of the religious and political leader of the palestinians,the Grand Mufti,who knew of the Holocaust,and was an Ally of Hitler
http://www.antisharia.com/2011/04/24/al-hussainigrand-mufti-of-the-palestinians-and-ally-of-hitler/
I suppose Mr Spencer only goes where he is invited but he is badly needed in New Zealand as well. The people are generally of a friendly and outgoing nature which Muslims interpret as being weak and stupid. NZ universities have attracted mass student enrolments for their Islamic studies courses and foreigners come from all over the Islamic world with a view to settling there. The meat industry is almost totally run by Muslims and the export of Halal lamb into Britain and elsewhere is vast and not identified as Halal compliant. The general attitude to Muslims is one of acceptance and anyone who says otherwise is promptly put down with the racist and xenophobic treatment.
Check out the new website by Nabeel Qureshi,ex-Ahmadiya Muslim,now Christian,friend of David Wood(of answeringmuslims.com)
http://creed26.com/
And a NEW BOOK is coming out,one I find fascinating:
It is called "Satan's Trinity:Hitler,Stalin and Muhammad",buy it
http://satanstrinity.wordpress.com/
AND
Website by Mr Edwards,who was a Muslim for ten years,but no longer:
http://www.callingmuslims.com/
PLUS
1.answeringmuslims.com
2.answering-islam.org
3.thereligionofconquest.com
thereligionofconquest.com
4.See the videos (click on "online videos") of abnsat.com(like "Jihad Exposed","Debate","Jesus or Muhammad").
The videos are also on youtube,write "abnsat".
Plus a new blog about the Persecution of Christians(mostly by Muslims)
http://www.persecutedfourchrist.blogspot.com
5.Also PYEM Ministry:
http://pyemministry.blogspot.com/
(very critical of Islam)
6.The blog "Debunking Quranic Science":
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/
7.WIKISLAM(with 1,400 articles):
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Main_Page
8."Confident Christianity by Mary Jo Sharp":
Home Page:
http://confidentchristianity.com/
Her blog:
http://www.confidentchristianity.blogspot.com/
Also read:
antisharia.com and:
avraidire.com:
http://www.avraidire.com/
(in French and English),you can translate the French by copying and pasting with Google Translate:
http://translate.google.com/#
PJG -
Thank YOU so much, great job!
Here's my concern, and I hope for some serious discussion on this point:
"She then gave us a run-down on what is happening vis a vis the encroachment of Islamic laws and norms, that is, the steady road to control of us by them [..]"
Obviously, "them" refers to the Muslim islamizationists, pushing their supremacist agenda.
"Islamic advancement and its enabling and funding by our government [..]".
So there you go, the other "them", hubristically imagining they're running the show, while we're on the road to serfdom.
The question is, who's really in control here? The diseased and technically bankrupt managerial state, as the great bestower of preferential treatment for "minorities" and sensitizer of us, Western ab-origines, or [really shouldn't make these sentences this elaborate, but hey, I'm no native, speaker that is. So bear with me].. or the Islamic zealots carrying and spreading a diseased and inherently parasitical cult of conquest and submission.
I submit ;) that for us in the counterjihad movement, it remains of vital importance to keep in mind that the driving force behind political correctness, the steady degradation of our national borders and the concomitant islamization of our lands, has been the therapeutically enhanced Welfare State 2.0
Large scale social conflict, sponsored by our (trans)national governments, has been the logical result, serving as a pretext for the managers elect to step in and "save" us and society from disintegration and civil unrest.
Sometimes, when I see the justly enraged comments of fellow CJs, insisting on a place at the table where power is brokered, I get the distinct feeling that the temptation of centralized power is sometimes more than slightly underestimated. From that vantage point, there's even some qualified support for this "War on Terror", waged in our name by the progressivist nomenklatura, which i.m.o. is quite a departure from, and in some cases the exact opposite of what a just War against Islam should be.
To me, the question is basically: are we going to destroy this Ring, or - from our own perspective - follow the progressivist social engineers and fall for the temptation to "do good"?
I'd support those who say we should resist. To wit, stand our ground against Islam (literally our ground, and our forefathers'), but also not forget to withstand the temptation of using the state apparatus, and thus enhance today's Leviathan.
Countering Islam while engaged in competition for state power with today's political elites, will ultimately add to the primacy of the progressivist welfare state.
While it's understandable and seems like the logical way to go, I think this well trodden path won't lead us back to freedom.
These past decades "we, the people" served as involuntary witnesses who - through the voting machine - have been made complicit in the steady encroachment of modernist state power, sponsoring the anti-Western agenda of its clientèle (Muslims and other "victims" of traditional Western culture). As a result, we find ourselves surrounded by a veritable Mordor that knows no boundaries, certainly not the traditional kind, be it morals or national borders.
Me thinks we can't vote our way out.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag
Good reporting ... thanks...
'And lastly, about “moderate’ or “secular” Muslims about whom so many nurture great hope, Spencer wasted little time'.
That's because there aren't any...I won't list what all the Quran verses, hadith and historians like Tabari, have to say about the 'obligation'of fighting and jihad...as a 'duty' to Allah...Jihad does not seem to be an elective, but mandatory, incumbent on all Mahoundians...There are of course Mahoundians who are not fit to be sword slashing warriors...Physical jihad is simply not in them...but there are other ways to jihad that are not violent, so no Mahoundian has an excuse for not jihading, as far as Allah is concerned...That's why he said that those who stay home and those who jihad are not equal...Does any Mahoundian like the idea of being seen as inferior by Allah? Does being 'unequal' wreck the chances of Paradise?...Are Mahoundians concerned about getting into heaven? Is it a burning desire?
If they are not concerned with heaven, and jihad is not their way, they are not pious and will have to deal with Allah later...or rather, he will deal with them...But for now, these 'moderates', who are not pious by definition, and not equal in Allah's eyes, are not fit spokespeople for Islam...It is a waste of time looking for them and a bigger waste of time if you find one...
Sean, please don't take "fluffy-headed American campus Buddhists" for the real thing--and I accept your description "fluffy-headed" as 150% correct. I've lived in both Theravada Thailand and Mahayana Taiwan, and have some appreciation for Buddhism on its home turf. Believe me, that for all the peace and gentleness that the Buddha image seems to represent, the smile of the ordinary Buddhist can conceal a razor-sharp knife; and when roused, they can be as deadly as anyone else.
The Chinese Boxer Rebellion of 1900 is one example. The Yi He Chuan believed that their murders of foreigners and Chinese Christian men, women, and children was a defense of Buddhism. Earlier, the Ming revolt against the Mongols (1360's) was led by an erstwhile Buddhist monk and ended up with the extinction of both Syriac and Western Christianity among the Chinese, the great curtailment of Judaism, and a rough time for Islam.
Today, ask Hindu Tamils in Sri Lanka or Christian Karen and Kachin in Myanmar if Buddhism is a "tolerant and peaceful religion".
The Western Buddhists you've met are also supporters of abortion rights; but the Chan school(禅--"Zen" is the cheap Japanese copy)they purport to admire teaches that a woman who gets an abortion will go to Hell, where a demon will lead her around in a portable stocks while her aborted child tugs at her clothing. Such murals that I have seen in temples in Taiwan should be made public to every campus in America. This, perhaps, is Exhibit A in the case that Western Buddhism, like the Left's support for Islam, is merely a pose adopted by bored, ignorant, and self-destructive Westerners.
Don't get me wrong, but I do have some respect for Buddhism as it has been taught, lived, and practiced in Asia; and have relatives who belong to that religion. But I will close by stating that I think Buddhism is a singularly un-gracious religion whose supposed "compassion" appears as such only when compared to the inexorable kharma of Hinduism, that a lot of the charm of the Mahayana comes from a generous borrowing from Chinese Daoism, and that a lot of the pleasantness of the Theravada comes from Thailand's having enjoyed a generation or so of peace and and relative prosperity. Further, Buddhism's "compassion" is a very frail thing compared to the compassion of Jesus Christ (it's Sunday, and the Tai-tai and I are going to worship with a lot of ex-Buddhists and their offspring).
It's good to see that the Q Society is still going, as I hadn't heard anything about it for quite a while. Just how wedded to the concept of multiculturalism most Australians are, I don't know, so am uncertain as to how much appeal the Q Society will be able to muster.
Bizarrely, 'Bosnian Islam' of all things, has been touted this week as the potential answer to Europe's Islamic issue: http://durotrigan.blogspot.com/2011/11/potential-model-for-europe-bosnian.html
That's right, duh_swami -
Muslims who are inactive with regard to Islam (I'd rather call them in- or sub-active, instead of "moderate"), will only react in one predictable way to their activist - and thus extremely violent - brethren and that is to submit. They're not on our side.
Neither are the Mahoundian women who are often - and sometimes even by fellow CJs - paraded as "victims" of Islam.
To that I say no, they're not in our court where freedom stands accused. They're part of the system of Islam, spreading the same parasitical and violent doctrine as their activist co-cultists. They are, quite literally, "bearers" of Islam, a determining factor as brooding sitters, and in that capacity our primal enemies.
Cheers,
Sag
I'm heartened by this report. A big shout-out to all JWers in "Down Under"!
It is my prayer that the Australians will get their act together and vote out the clowns who gave them their hate speech laws; while we in the USA find a way to impeach and remove the judges who would support such things and import Sharia into their decisions.
Back to Sean: Come to think of it, there's a lot of fluffy-headedness going on in Western countries, and not just among White Buddhist wannabes.
Tolerance; one of the most abused terms of the modern politically correct and completely asinine and ignorant Islamic "Kumbaya" pushers out there.
tol·er·ance [tol-er-uhns]
noun
1.a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2.a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3.interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
4.the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.
---
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
- Sir Karl Popper
If agreeing with this quote makes me an Islamophobe... so be it. At least I won't be ignorant of the TRUTH!
I too thank PJG for that excellent summary of last night's Stealth Jihad RS Travelling Extravaganza.
Sag,
instead of wondering about for whom to vote, why not simply run for office?? A bunch of independents would be effective, or get people who hate the Islam-enablers to join their local big parties and turn the parties themselves around.
The only reason we in Australia or you in America have these despicable people in office is because unionists (in our case) and radicals (in USA's case) decided to take over the relevant party (Labor and Democrats respectively), stuff themn with their own people and act accordingly.
Of course, whoever runs for office would need to be the kind of person that can stand being around people at least 14 hours a day.
I also attended Robert Spencer's talk last night. We were indeed lucky I suppose that the Occupy Melb. people did not decide to join us, but they too were rained on from above and ironically were actually not that far from the venue.
They, however, seem to have their own problems:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/the_food_working_group_is_not_safe1/
Robert came across as erudite - as always - and amiable, and spoke very well.
Thank you, Robert, for being VERY audible and for coming here to speak! It really makes a difference. :)
Concerning the cult of PC/MC,
"These were stories of immigration-related events our government smugly believes cannot happen in sunny Australia, where it is constantly proclaimed that multiculturalism is an outstanding success story and caution is brushed aside."
The hypocrisy of this "multi"culture, is of course that it negates traditional Western culture a place at this colourful round table of love, peace and human understanding. But in a way this notion may be beside the main issue, because in spite of appearances, multiculture isn't really about diversity at all. But of course, that's only my opinion, and I gladly stand corrected if a better one is put forward.
I vaguely remember a "multi-culti" interview with the bomber of Serbia, Bill Clinton, somewhere in 1999.
While the wrapping was clearly PC/MC in rhetoric, singing the praise of diversity and all, the actual package was about something else than just ethnicity or "The Other" [one may take a deconstructionist puke-brake here].
This man religiously expounded globalist beliefs, giving the distinct impression that the actual goal behind the MC message being sent to us - as subordinate members of their peer-group - was, and still is:
to zealously eliminate "difference" in OUR minds, while parading multiculturalism and diversity in front of us.
Kind of like the therapeutic behavioural technique known as "flooding with response prevention".
They see themselves as anointed prophets of PC/MC, having truly transcended "difference" and our past sinful Western history marked by "insensitivity"TM and prejudice*. What they want us to do, is submit to that vision or at the very least coerce us into emulating their pseudo-cosmopolitan indifference.
So they really are the globalist "perfecti" of PC/MC, and as representatives of the managerial state cum therapeutic body politic, they seek to extend the modern political project - which is about eliminating all "boundaries" - to encompass the prescribed psychological escape from traditional thisworldly reality into their uprooted gnostic dreamworld (see: Eric Voegelin).
Therefore, I reckon it would be unwise for Western natives, especially those engaged in the counterjihad, to demand inclusion as an officially recognized ethnic group, for the whole thing has never been about that kind of diversity in the first place.
The state-sponsored cult of "Diversity" serves as a temptation directed at Westerners (our "fitna", so to speak). This temptation - that more primitive people might succumb to by reverting to tribal loyalties and so on - is supposed to serve as a test for us, lesser members of their gnostic cult of power. It is presented as an obstacle that we, their lesser peers and trainees, by discarding and exorcising our past history and traditional loyalties, need to transcend.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag
* this is of course pardoned when displayed by non-white, ethnic minorities, which underscores the fact that inter-ethnic sensitivity is not the issue, as well as it betrays the veiled elitist superiority of the PC/MC mandarins
I’ll say it again: A “moderate Muslim” is a contradiction in terms. One can’t be a “moderate” – that is, non-threatening, non-belligerent, non-jihadi – about a religion (aka an ideology) that calls for conquest of non-Muslims by any violent or deceptive means possible. This more recently includes the revelation that much of the food Westerners consume is “halal,” that is, prepared according to Muslim criteria and blessed (“certified”) by a witch doctor (for a fee, of course). Islam can’t be “moderated” without taking Mohammad out of it and giving Allah a make-over so that he more resembles Kris Kringle than he does a barbarous, whimsical deity. And if one excises Mohammad from Islam, what’s left? The eclectic ramblings of a half-wit. This is the conundrum “moderate” Muslims face, having their creed without its pedophilic, raping, murdering, wisdom-dispensing icon and eating it too. Glad to read that Spencer is welcome in the land of the Southern Star. Pam Geller, however, currently is being attacked over the Butterball turkeys. But, she’s proven on more than one occasion that she’s capable of shoveling it back at her critics with equal vigor.
When I was in grade school back in the 1960's, we were taught about Australia's restrictive immigration policy that allowed only European peoples into the country. I am simply astonished that now they are admitting Islamic people who are trying to destroy them.
"The question is, who's really in control here?"
Sagunto,
Allow me the privilege of responding to your very relevant questions.
The fact is, government has always had a tendency to enlarge itself. Parasitic philosophies such as Communism and Islam attract devotees who gravitate to government positions, where they can wield power and influence without having to actually create it. There is a dynamic by which strong government systematically attracts bureaucrats who are philosophically opposed to the very system which sustains them. These bureaucrats, incidentally, are often willing to use their power to suppress open arguments opposed to their philosophy.
There is a libertarian candidate in the US, Ron Paul, who recognizes the tendency of government to amass power to itself, including the pursuit of fruitless wars. The solution to this problem, according to Paul, is to allow the government to only have the power necessary to enforce certain functions, such as internal and external security.
Of course, the view of government as a potential oppressor is nothing new. The question of local government versus federal government versus individual freedom was thoroughly debated at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and in the subsequent arguments contained in The Federalist Papers. The conclusion acted upon by the Convention, and subsequently ratified, is that the central federal government needs a certain amount of power over local governments, or the union would not survive. By the way, the Federalist Papers, kindle edition, can be downloaded for free at Amazon.com, and is more than worth reading.
Ron Paul, however, shows a persistent blindness to the dangers of Islam, particularly by organized Islam within our borders. He appears to view the terror activities of organizations such as Hamas, and their attacks on Israel, as responses to Israeli aggression. Part of his platform is to cut off illegal immigration to the US (although he is highly critical of the actual fences between the US and Mexico), but he says nothing about limiting the types of legal immigration we permit. Part of libertarian philosophy is that people respond to economic incentives as shaped by the legal environment around them. There is little room for committed ideologues who do not care in the least what the economic situation is.
The real answer to your question is the same answer as the founding fathers of the US came up with: government with a certain power is vital, but an educated citizenry dedicated to the principles of a constitutional, limited government is just as vital. There is no substitution for the hard work of building up public awareness, and forming diverse groups aware of the Islamic threat. One of the goals of such organization should be to block further Muslim immigration into Western countries. It makes no sense at all to import people who at best are committed to a system of governance diametrically opposed to the system of individual freedoms and rights we now enjoy.
When I was in grade school back in the 1960's, we learned about Australia's restrictive immigration policy in which they allowed only European peoples into the country. I am really astonished that they now allow Islamic peoples into the country who want to destroy them.
Durotrigan,
I looked at your website and your links. In one, you asked the question "Why did England intervene in Libya", but you said that answer was too complex to deal with there.
In truth, I have no clue as to why the European countries intervened in Libya. I don't see the payoff for them, particularly if they favor immigration from the region. Obama said he intervened because the Europeans intervened. It's a stupid reason, but that's what he said.
But, if you can give me any reasons for the Libyan intervention, I would appreciate it. I have never been able to see any reason for it, from any viewpoint, other than that of the rebels.
"Moderate" Moslems might justifiably be called "dormant" Moslems. The parallel with inactive volcanoes, also referred to as "dormant," is clear: eruptions in either case can happen abruptly with catastrophic results due to the vast, relentless forces at work below the surface.
However, as in all things, when clear objective study is brought to bear, these forces can be better understood, the eruptions better predicted and perhaps in time controlled. The worst possible approach is to live on the slope of either "volcano" and pretend that there is at all nothing amiss.
What got me wondering about Islam in the first place was a book I read in India in 1986 called "Freedom at Midnight" - about Partition in India. Those "dormant" Muslim Indians were roused to violence in no uncertain manner. The writers of the book had no anti-Islam agenda, but it made me wonder...
Thank you.
Yhank you, Robert for going all the way to Australia to enlighten people about the threat of radical Islam. I hope that you get some sunny weather and see some kangaroos.
Good work, PJG. Thanks for it.
Next year in Juba!
Good work, PJG.
Next year in Juba!
And what a great talk it was!!!
Thank you for your excellent account, PJG!
Thank you, PJG.
I hope and pray that all the other gigs will be similarly well-attended; both the public lectures and the private 'briefing' luncheons.
Robert is a lover of jazz so a few of us went afterwards to find a jazz bar to talk more and listen to some relaxing music. Unfortunately the place we went to was full, but as we were walking in the street somebody (Muslim appearance) came up to us and said to Robert "You must be Robert Spencer". This person then followed up by saying that he didn't like what Robert said in his books. Robert responded with true aplomb "Well it's the truth, man".
Robert is a lover of jazz so a few of us went afterwards to find a jazz bar to talk more and listen to some relaxing music. Unfortunately the place we went to was full, but as we were walking in the street somebody (Muslim appearance) came up to us and said to Robert "You must be Robert Spencer". This person then followed up by saying that he didn't like what Robert said in his books. Robert responded with true aplomb "Well it's the truth, man".
Sorry to spoil the universal aclaim with some actual critique of the evening, but...
Whatever the merits of your main argument, it doesn't help your (collective) cause to get distracted with unrelated issues that alienate parts of your audience: climate change denial, your feelings about Kevin Rudd (unless you can make a clear connection with the main topic), your right to bear arms (thank you, we don't need the US gun death toll in our country, if it's all the same to you), your obvious dislike of Barach Obama (feel free to disagree with him, but you don't need to attack the man), the importance of supporting Israel regardless of how it behaves, etc. Much of the evening was well presented and you may well have a point, but it was undermined by your lack of focus on the issue we'd come to hear about.
- Diana's husband, not Diana, using her account with her permission but not neccessarily expressing her views.
Diana's husband:
I don't know what talk you attended, but I didn't say a single solitary thing about climate change, Kevin Rudd, or the right to bear arms. Stay on topic -- indeed.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
The Melbourne one, hence the posting under that topic.
You was plural - climate change and Kevin Rudd were the last thirty seconds of the second speaker's talk, which was otherwise reasonably well presented. The right to bear arms was, as I understood it, about attacks on the second amendment to the US consitution.
The point remains however, that what may appeal to a small meeting of your supporters will be very unhelpful to you in mainstream political debate, and will be seized on someone who wants to represent you as some sort of right-wing nutter. If the meeting had been reported in the mainstream press, someone could have used such comments to do a lot of damage to your cause.
I absolutlely defend your right to hold whatever political opions you like (well, within reason), and certainly to disagree with mine, but you don't do yourself any favours long term by marginalising people who might otherwise be interested in and potentially sympathetic to what you have to say.
Husband again - who doesn't have a Facebook account.
Diana's husband:
I've never taken a public stand on any issue other than jihad, for precisely the reason you object to the second speaker's talk. But he says what he says, and I say what I say. I don't control what other speakers say.
Cordially
Robert Spencer