Geert Wilders Interview

A video of note:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=54d_1234534586


Never a man at a loss for words.

A Comment on RD.net and the Wilders Debate

Since I have been banned from RichardDawkins.net I am forced to comment here about the insanity there. The following comment was brought to my attention by the ever prescient and entertaining Styrer. He asked for my commentary, and I plan to give it to him. Here is the link to the comment in question:


http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3597,Dutch-MP-refused-entry-to-Britain,BBC,page4#339916

Here is the relevant portion of text of the comment:

"Not that I am against [crucial edit] opposing Islam as a
religion, but not from the point of view of privileging Christianity and/or
Judaism, as Wilders
does. The Abrahamic
religions are after all cut from the same cloth; they have all drunk from the
same poisoned well of tribal barbarism.

Where I disagree with Hitch (and
Sam) is that Islam is inherently more barbaric or conducive to violence. Wrong.
The societies in which Islam predominates are today more backward, that is the
difference. When those societies were relatively more advanced (eg 10th century), Islam was
relatively more enlightened, and tolerant, than Christianity"

It is difficult to know where to start with this bit of regurgitated nonsense propaganda. But I shall give it a whack. Whether or not Wilders priveleges Christianity is irrelevant, and is also his right, just as Muslims are free to privilege Islam in their proselytizing of infidels. The Abrahamic religions are cut from the same cloth indeed, yet they maintain remarkable differences. The Qur'an is rife with calls for violence and oppression, those verses do not need to be recited here as they can be found by even a doltish self flagellator with a google search. One often hears the ignorant retort "Well the Old Testament says awful things as well", oh and indeed it does, but the Torah (OT) is a book that functions as a description of the history of a people. When god told the Jews to murder a tribe of people, it was just that, limited to the tribe mentioned. These are as much descriptive as anything else. Now the Qur'an doesn't speak specifically about tribes, it speaks generally of disbelievers. Thus the calls for violence don't have a limitation, one delineated in the text. If we leave the Qur'an we find ample reinforcement in the Hadith (sayings of Muhammad) for this near limitless violence.

"The societies in which Islam predominates are today more
backward, that is the difference. When those societies were relatively more
advanced (eg 10th century), Islam was
relatively more enlightened, and tolerant, than Christianity. "

This here, right here, is what drives me up the damn wall. This kind of parroting of myth and half truth is where our problem lies, this fetishization of all things non-Western. The inversion of reality, that a barbaric faith is ACTUALLY the exact opposite. Islam is clearly barbaric and violent, so the intellectual exercise to say the exact opposite is of primary importance. What nonsense. These places are backwards precisely because of Islam, how else do you explain countries awash with unprecedented oil wealth where female rape victims are beaten for adultery? What is the critical element here? Islam.

Let's move on to this 'golden age'. Indeed Islam produced some great scholarship as it spread like a pack of locusts across the globe. Devouring local knowledge, and rehashing it and producing new knowledge. But this was quickly put to death. After the Abbasid Caliph, Harun al-Rashid ushered in a period of mihna, in which literalism and rationalism were pitted against one another. The literalists (Asharites), armed with the totality of Islamic canon promptly thrashed the rationalists (Muatazilites). The rationalists were run out of town, tarred and feathered for heresy. And by no small coincidence the vast majority of scholarly production came from the Muatazilites. Rationalism was crushed, Baghdad was sacked by Hulagu, the library burnt, the Caliph stuffed in a carpet and rolled down the stairs of his palace.

The notion that Barbarians can bring benefit is not particularly special, by comparison Genghis Khan was a brutal but just leader. A man who had many redeeming qualities, but never enough to rehabilitate the destruction he wrought. Islam destroyed itself, setting quite a precedent, namely that when the texts are examined, a literalist will win. The Qur'an is not a book of allegory and metaphor, it is a book of clear and timeless commands for domination and austerity, no western scholar proved this, Muslims did. It did not help that Sunni scholars determined that the doors of Ijtihad (interpretation of the religion) were closed, leaving the Sunni world with four schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali) all vying for who shall be most austere as well as patronage of the ruler of the day, whomever it was.

Is it any wonder that the period between the destruction of Islamic rationalism and present day has been a descent into further barbarity... by the miracle or miracles reflecting the very texts Muslims deemed literal and eternal? The citation of the Golden Age of Islam as a meritorious period is simply disingenuous in the extreme, it is not meritorious, it is an example of how an honest adherence to a religious text will destroy a functioning society.

More on Geert

http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=5253

A video of Wilders after his arrest at Heathrow. He calls Gordon Brown the biggest coward in Europe. The British have caved into threats of violence, coward is an accurate term.

Geert Wilders Denied Entry to the UK

The saga continues to unfold.... Geert Wilders has been denied entry to the UK, he was being held at a Heathrow detention center pending deportation. In light of this affront to the EU (which allows for the travel of its citizens and certainly the elected leaders of member states) and freedom of speech let us examine the rank hypocrisy of the UK government. David Miliband, when confronted by Dutch Foreign Minister, Maxime Verhagen, said of of his decision to exclude Wilders; "A hate-filled film designed to stir up religious and racial hatred in this country is contrary to our laws". Woh woh woh pump your brakes Davey, let's look at your policy a little closer... didn't the British government admit Ijaz Mian who said:

"You cannot accept the rule of the kaffir. We have to rule ourselves and we have to
rule the others... King, Queen, House of Commons: if you accept it, you are a
part of it. If you don't accept it, you have to dismantle it. So you being a
Muslim, you have to fix a target. From that White House to this Black House, we
know we have to dismantle it. Muslims must grow in strength, then take over...
You are in a situation in which you have to live like a state-within-a-state -
until you take over."

I seriously have to ask if Miliband is putting us on? Is this a joke? Is he a complete idiot or a liar? Wilders pointed out that people like Mian are intolerant and take their inspiration from the Qur'an, Wilders is banned. Mian calls for the destruction of British society, and the Brits let him waltz in, hopefully they didn't issue him a welfare check on arrival. If I were British I would probably choke on my scone. The British government is in such gross dereliction of duty that the least that should happen is expulsion from office for these self destructive morons (Davey Miliband being the first to go).

Brits... What kind of circus are you running over there?

Geert Wilders and the Weak Kneed Capitulationists

All over the news recently (or rather the sources that bother to note massive and impending threats to our liberties) is the case of Geert Wilders, under prosecution for the production of his film Fitna. On January 21, 2009 a three judge court ordered prosecutors to try Wilders for "hate speech". This is an absolutely despicable act, one that a person would expect to see in the very dictatorial pseudo-fascist Islamic states that Wilders so rightly excoriates, not in a liberal European state. As this pathetic comedy plays out it will be an enormous pie in the face of the Islamists who have begun a campaign to suppress free speech the world over. Having already succeeded in their own miserable cesspools of countries they have moved on to places where women can drive.

The reason this may turn into a fiasco is because Wilders did nothing but read back what Muslim texts already say, and juxtapose these with pictures of acts carried out by Muslims who cite these very same texts for these actions. In furtherance of this Promethean display of irony, Wilders actually does use 'hate speech', but it isn't his own, it is that of the Muslim canonical texts. Muslims should be suing themselves, if anyone.

The real issue here isn't whether Muslims are outraged over offenses, which is a near hourly occurrence for these spoiled brats, it is that a western government has given in to their fascistic demands for blood over the execution of one of their sacred cows (ironically Muhammad Ali Jinnah once quipped about the partition of India "I want to eat the cow the Hindu worships"). Liberal democracies have one enduring quality, with which they can always best the Muslim world, and that is the freedom of expression. And now the Dutch seem ready to sacrifice this great virtue on the alter of cowering political correctness (perhaps they will keep the windmills and wooden shoes).

Alas, it isn't the wooden shoe people alone who have gone on bent knee to appease the Islamists, the British (never content to be bested by another country's obsequious whimpering) have issued a letter telling Wilders he is not welcome on British soil because he "would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the U.K." by upsetting Muslims. No doubt this has something to do with a Muslim member of the British House of Lords, Nazir Ahmed, threatening to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to protest Wilders' appearance and the screening of Fitna.

See the letter here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024785.php#respond

And frankly who can blame the British law enforcement establishment, the very police that scurried in all directions like frightened rats when a Muslim mob charged them screaming Kuffar (a derogatory term best translated as "infidels") during a protest in support of the people of Gaza (read, 'Hamas'). Every once and a while (lately, in fact, all too regularly) there are such grotesque examples of hypocrisy that simply boggle the mind. This is one such instance... the British have welcomed with open arms all sorts of jihadists and Islamists who spend their government welfare checks in furtherance of the destruction of British society. Spewing hate, these ignorant thugs are allowed to reside in the UK, gleefully going about their dirty business, while one of the few men with the intestinal fortitude to stand up to this brand of hate is banned for preaching "hate". What form of sick self loathing has overcome our societies that we are unable to call a spade a spade, in fact a spade that calls itself a spade? It is a bit of comedy, this liberal defense of Muslims. The Muslims themselves spew this hate, citing their texts, whilst the useful idiots try to tell the rest of the infidels that this isn't really what the Muslims mean. And all the while Muslims listen to preachers who say "this is precisely what we mean". These useful idiots must feel like an attorney on the steps of the courthouse who proclaim their client's innocence to the media, while this very client stands round back confessing to a litany of crimes.

Do these politicians feel no shame as they sell out their peoples? Not just the non-Muslims, but the Muslims who wish a better life. Muslims who escaped the cesspools of the Islamic world to come to a place that respects individual rights. Won't these brave souls be surprised to learn that after escaping the clutches of this 7th Century fascism, that those they have trusted to help them make better lives have sold them out. Revolting.

With any luck the Islamists shall be hoisted by their own petard.