Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Geert Wilders' new book on Islam


Diana West has a review of Geert Wilders' new book on Islam titled "Marked for Death: Islam's War Against the West and Me".

Excerpt:

... Wilders, for eight years a political prisoner of Islam requiring round-the-clock security to avoid assassination, quotes from the anti-Islamic writings of our presidents John Quincy Adams and Teddy Roosevelt. Both men warned against the dangers that Islam poses to liberty and Christianity. These writings will jolt the postmodern reader, alerting us that we are reading something society outlaws as taboo: criticism of Islam. 
In 1916, [Theodore] Roosevelt observed: "Wherever the Mohammedans have had a complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared" (ditto Judaism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism ...). Roosevelt rejected as "naive" the notion that "all religions are the same." Some religions, he explained, "give a higher value to each human life, and some religions and belief systems give a lower value." Our "social values," including equality before the law, exist "only because the Christians of Europe (did) what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do -- that is, to beat back the Moslem invader." 
John Quincy Adams wrote that Muhammad "poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war as part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST; TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE." 
The capital letters are Adams', by the way, and the source Wilders draws from is "The American Annual Register of 1827-28-29," where Adams published unsigned essays in 1830 (listed in Lynn H. Parsons' annotated bibliography of Adams' works) in between his tenure as president and his return to Congress...
Today, however, with liberty shrinking in direct proportion to Islam's rising influence in the West, Wilders' voice is one of few to make itself heard. Why? Wilders points to the entrenchment of cultural relativism, an ideology that rises from the ashes of Judeo-Christian-humanism to promote, as interchangeable, all other cultures, religions, creeds, over our own.

Wilders has... ummm... balls. He has courageously spoken the truth about the threat Islam poses to the West.  Those of us in the Dar-al-Harb need to understand the violent totalitarian nature of militant Islam. We need to put aside political correctness (which is just cowardice) and tell the truth about Islam and the West.

Wilders' book is going to be a must-read. It is written by a man with real courage who puts his own life on line to tell the truth. 

5 comments:

  1. Of course Wilders is right that Islam is a dangerously violent and insane ideology. More so than other religions.

    But Wilders himself also has some, um, controversial proposals:

    - outlawing the Koran
    - outlawing minarets
    - outlawing Mosques in residential areas
    - outlawing Islamic schools
    - a tax on wearing head scarfs
    - outlawing ritual slaughter of animals (as practiced, e.g., by Muslims and Jews for example). I would agree with this.
    - animal rights in the constitution
    - outlawing hunting (Wilders is very animal-friendly as you can see)

    Etc.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was not aware of those proposals (assuming they are true).

      I don't support outlawing the Koran.

      Regulations regarding building Mosques, wearing headscarves, etc. should be approached with a gimlet eye. There may be justification based on building codes, etc, but it would have to apply to all faiths, not just Islam.

      One can justify outlawing the teaching of anti-semitism and hate in schools, and closing schools that do so. "Outlawing" a group of schools pro-actively is not right.

      I support human rights, which are God-given, and apply to all, including Muslims, even if they deny them to to others.

      Delete
    2. I am wary of this Mr. Wilders.

      >>One can justify outlawing the teaching of anti-semitism and hate in schools, and closing schools that do so.<<

      Are you losing it, Doctor? Wait until they decide that your beliefs are hate and decide that they can't be taught in any school, public or private. The whole point of private schools is so that you can teach your kids what you want them to learn, not what the government wants them to learn. In Ontario, the government has decided that Catholic schools may not teach that abortion is a sin because it amounts to quote-unquote bullying of girls who have had abortions.

      It's laughable to say that this is hate, but the government says has decided that it si. Hate is a human emotion. It has always existed and will always exist. We can't expunge its existence by force of law, but we can lose our freedom trying.

      JQ

      Delete
    3. JQ:

      You make excellent points. However,

      [Wait until they decide that your beliefs are hate and decide that they can't be taught in any school, public or private.]

      "Public or private" is the key. In public schools, teachig hate should not be permitted. It is true that the definition of "hate" is unfortunately broad and can be abused, but I'll be damned if a cent of my tax money will support a school teaching anti-semitism or racism or anti-Catholicism or anti-Islam, for that matter.

      [The whole point of private schools is so that you can teach your kids what you want them to learn, not what the government wants them to learn.]

      Exactly right. I support broad rights for private schools to teach as they choose.

      But what do you do about public funding? Should the public fund classes on "Jews are devils and monkeys"?

      [In Ontario, the government has decided that Catholic schools may not teach that abortion is a sin because it amounts to quote-unquote bullying of girls who have had abortions.]

      Obviously a serious abuse.

      As a general right, people have the right to say and teach what they want, hateful or whatever.

      In publicly-funded education of children, and perhaps even in publicly-certified education, I don't see how you can allow certain things to be taught with impunity.

      I am a strong supporter of freedom of speech, but public funding of anti-semitism, racism, etc in schools is too far.

      Perhaps the best approach is vouchers, which allow parents to choose schools, public or private.

      But the question remains: must the public fund or certify all kinds of instruction to children, including obviously hateful instruction?

      Delete
  2. I was not aware of those proposals (assuming they are true).

    They are true. Translated literally from the (Dutch) program Widers ran on in the recent elections, which is here. He got his ass kicked and lost half his seats in parliament.

    But what do you do about public funding? Should the public fund classes on "Jews are devils and monkeys"?

    Good question. In Holland all schools (except a handful of elite private schools) are publicly funded, including faith schools like Catholic schools and Muslim schools (where they are free to deny evolution). I don't have much of a problem with that, but schools shouldn't be allowed to promote hatred.

    ReplyDelete