Category Archives: Immigration

Breaking the Numbers Down

More troublesome data on the multiculturalist front, Islamo-style.

sex_trafficking_child_victims
Muslim Child Sex Trafficking Rings Busted Across United States

MOST US MUSLIMS (65%) are first-generation immigrants. But more than a third (35%) were born in the United States. One-fifth (21%) of the native-born (or 7% of all Muslims in this country) are second generation, with one or both parents having been born outside of the U.S. The nearly two-thirds who were born outside of the United States come from at least 68 different nations, with no single nation accounting for more than 12% of the immigrants. More than a third (37%) of all foreign-born Muslim Americans arrived from the Arab region, including Arabic-speaking countries in the Middle East and North Africa. An additional 27% emigrated from the South Asian region, including Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

Another 8% come from European countries and 6% from other parts of Africa. In terms of specific countries, 12% of foreign-born Muslims arrived from Pakistan, and the same proportion from Iran. No more than 7% of first-generation immigrants were born in any other single country. A majority of the foreign-born arrived in the U.S. in the 1990s (33%) or in this decade (28%). An additional 23% came during the 1980s, while just 16% came earlier than that.

Read more.

But while the Islamic numbers, with what we know about radical Islam, raise brows to certain dangers that we have already experienced, and have been experienced worldwide, other populations are also immigrating with less than a fair start in a new country. On the heels of a major human-trafficking bust in rural South Dakota, we are assured that this is not an isolated case.

Human trafficking generates billions of dollars each year in illicit profits, in the United States and globally, through the entrapment and exploitation of millions of people, mostly women and children. The growing illegal trade in human beings for sex or forced labor isn’t limited to either rural outposts or the world’s largest cities.

Young women have been forced into prostitution over the past year through deception, fraud, coercion, threats and physical violence in Denton County, Texas; rural Tennessee; St. Paul, Minn.; Norcross, Ga.; Memphis, Tenn.; Fremont, Calif.; Harrisburg, Pa.; New York City; Los Angeles; Honolulu; Woodbridge, Va.; Gaithersburg; Annapolis; and many other cities.

Just last week, a 36-year-old Mexican national was sentenced to 40 years in prison by a federal judge in Georgia on charges that he tricked girls into leaving their families in Mexico, beat them and forced them into more than 20 acts of prostitution a night in Atlanta. The man had promised to get them jobs in restaurants. Five co-defendants previously pleaded guilty in the case.

Tincrease of heinous criminality is allowed to occur during a period of extreme relaxation, if not outright abandonment of common sense regulation of America's four borders and the visitors and newcomers within it. Let's face it, the gross liberalization of nearly the whole cloth of Uncle Sam's institutional character with its soulful neglect and misguided snubbing of societal norms has enjoyed a formidable run in the US and the West, but is now cracking at every appeal to reveal its true mettle. Chaos and decay. Savage and insincere.

It doesn't take a weatherman to chart the fear or frame the first shot of the coming national crisis, a crisis where all the pleasing familiar ways will breakdown and a much more difficult set of challenges to our cultural and personal pursuits of happiness appears unavoidable, although there are many who are busy giving us this version or that one.

A clampdown on the anarchy America is allowing to fester is surely coming our way if we continue to allow this outrage to continue only neglibly checked. Our collective consciousness demands it, trapped as we are in mad strategic cells of cloaked hatred and empirical division, false renumeration and calculated loathesomeness, and while we strongly urge as did the prophet of old that we must refrain from being the originator of this primal fury, on some sad field of unintended glory we shall soon find ourselves reaping what we have sown in our short times of corrupt generation upon corrupt generation.

In Numbers Dwell Certain Repugnant Effects

Islam The Unfaithful
Islam The Unfaithful

In numbers dwell certain repugnant effects. Around the globe fierce Islamic agitation in the public sphere is on the rise:

1/29/07 Daily Telegraph UK: 40% of Muslims, ages 16 to 24, want Sharia law; 13% admire al-Qaeda; 36% believe apostates should be executed; 75% believe that women should wear veils.
5/22/07 Reuters: 25% of young American Muslims believe in suicide bombings to fight the West.
7/10/07 worldpress.org: Poll of Muslims in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan and Indonesia indicates that 75% believe in strict application of Sharia law.
7/27/08 Sunday Times UK: 33% of Muslim students support killing for islam; 33% want world Islamic law.
12/5/10 LA Times: A new Pew Research Center poll shows that majorities in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and Nigeria would favor changing the current laws to allow stoning as a punishment for adultery, hand amputation for theft and death for those who convert from Islam to another religion.

We can't wait long to deal with them:

2/09 The Finnish Ministry of Defense published a position paper stating: In 1991 there were approximately 300 mosques in Russia; today there are 8,000, financed by Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
1/30/09 Times UK: Muslim population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society.
7/10/10 Sunday Times, UK: Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with Sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
10/28/10 Daily Mail: In 2009 Mohamed (or variations of that name) was the most popular name for newborn boys in the UK.
1/26/11 Pew Research Poll: Globally, the Muslim population is forecast to grow at about twice the rate of the non-Muslim population over the next two decades—an average annual growth rate of 1.5% for Muslims, compared with 0.7% for non-Muslims. If current trends continue, Muslims will make up 26.4% of the world's total projected population of 8.3 billion in 2030, up from 23.4% of the estimated 2010 world population of 6.9 billion.

Major Hasan Was Designated A Star Officer

We owe a debt of thanks to the Senate Homeland Security Committee for its report on the Ft. Hood jihadist massacre titled "A Ticking Time Bomb." The Wall Street Journal column below provides a compelling insight into what the Senate committee found.

Over the past three years, we have put out numerous emails highly critical of political correctness, noting that PC can be annoying and even exasperating, but that when it comes to the threat of radical Islam, it can be deadly. Just as it was at Ft. Hood. Yet, every branch of the military issued a final report on the Fort Hood massacre. Not a single one mentioned radical Islam.

By Dorothy Rabinowitz

Major_Nidal_Malik_Hasan1
Self-Proclaimed Jihadist

IN A MONTH OF MOMENTOUS CHANGE, it was easy to overlook the significance of another revolutionary event. Who would have believed that in the space of a few weeks the leaders of the three major European powers would publicly denounce multiculturalism and declare, in so many words, that it was a proven disaster and a threat to society?

One after another they announced their findings—Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel, Great Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron, and France's President Nicolas Sarkozy. Multicultural values had not only led to segregated communities: They had, Mr. Cameron noted, imposed policies of blind toleration that had helped nurture radical Islam's terrorist cells.

There can be no underestimating the in-so-many-words aspect of these renunciations. This was multiculturalism they were talking about—official established religion of the universities, the faith whose requirements have shaped every aspect of cultural, economic and political life in Western democracies for the last 50 years. Still, they were out there—words coolly specific, their target clear.

They came at a fitting moment, just as Americans had been handed a report providing the fullest disclosures so far about the multiculturalist zeal that had driven Army and medical school superiors to smooth Nidal Malik Hasan's rocky way through training, promote him, and, despite blatant evidence of his unfitness, raise not a single concern. Maj. Hasan, U.S. Army psychiatrist, would be assigned to Fort Hood where, in November 2009, he opened fire, killing 12 fellow soldiers and a civilian employee, and wounding 32 others.

In this report, titled "A Ticking Time Bomb" and put out by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, there is a detail as dazzling in its bleak way as all the glowing misrepresentations of Dr. Hasan's skills and character, which his superiors poured into their evaluations of him. It concerns the Department of Defense's official report on the Fort Hood killings—a study whose recital of fact made no mention of Hasan's well-documented jihadist sympathies. Subsequent DoD memoranda portray the bloodbath—which began with Hasan shouting "Allahu Akbar!"—as a kind of undefined extremism, something on the order, perhaps, of work-place violence.

This avoidance of specifics was apparently contagious—or, more precisely, policy. In November 2010, each branch of the military issued a final report on the Fort Hood shooting. Not one mentioned the perpetrator's ties to radical Islam. Even today, "A Ticking Time Bomb," co-authored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.) and Susan Collins (R., Maine), reminds us that DoD still hasn't specifically named the threat represented by the Fort Hood attack—a signal to the entire Defense bureaucracy that the subject is taboo.

In magical thinking, safety and good come to those who obey taboos, and in the multiculturalist world, there is no taboo more powerful than the one that forbids acknowledgment of realities not in keeping with the progressive vision. In the world of the politically correct—which can apparently include places where psychiatrists are taugh—magical thinking reigns.

For the superiors in charge of Hasan's training at Walter Reed and his two years at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the taboo was of a more complicated order—one that required elaborately inventive analyses through which Hasan's stated beliefs, ominous pronouncements, and evident unconcern with standards of behavior required of an officer could all be represented as singular virtues, proof of his exceptional value to the Army. It could not have been easy. Still, they managed.

They did so despite Hasan's astounding trail of performances, each more telling than the next. To fulfill Walter Reed's academic requirement for a presentation on a psychiatric theme, Hasan proffered a draft consisting almost entirely of wisdom from the Quran arguing for the painful punishment and liquidation of non-Muslims. Hasan evidently viewed the Qur'anic verses as a sufficient presentation—a view his superior didn't share, given its lack of any mention of a psychiatric theme. When that guide warned him the presentation was "not scholarly" and might prevent his graduation, Hasan revised. The finished product was not much different. Still, Hasan was allowed to graduate.

He went on to his medical fellowship, where he soon delivered another class lecture, this one on the Islamist theme that the West, in particular the U.S. military, had mounted a war on Islam. The presentation brimmed with views sympathetic to Osama bin Laden, the motives of the 9/11 perpetrators, and suicide bombers. It so infuriated his classmates that their outraged eruptions caused the instructor to end the presentation.

There would be more of the same to come. One classmate witness told investigators that Hasan sought every possible opportunity to share his radical Islamist sympathies. His highest obligation, he told classmates, wasn't to the Constitution, which he had sworn to protect and defend, but to his religion.

His Islamist sympathies would attract the interest of the FBI, which soon picked up on this U.S. Army major's contacts with a terrorist suspect, unnamed in the Senate report. The agency would, however, have no continuing great interest in Hasan. Among other reasons, its agents had seen the impressive evaluation reports characterizing Hasan as an authority on Islam—one whose work even had "extraordinary potential to inform national policy and military strategy," as one of his superiors put it in his officer evaluation report.

The same Hasan who set off silent alarms in his supervisors—the Psychiatric Residency Program Director at Walter Reed was one of them—would garner only plaudits in the official written evaluations at the time. He was commended in these as a "star officer," one focused on "illuminating the role of culture and Islamic faith within the Global War on Terrorism." One supervisor testified, "His unique interests have captured the interest and attention of peers and mentors alike." No single word of criticism or doubt about Hasan ever made its way into any of his evaluations.

Some of those enthusiastic testaments strongly suggested that the writers were themselves at least partly persuaded of their reasoning. In magical thinking, safety and good come to those who obey taboos, and in the multiculturalist world, there is no taboo more powerful than the one that forbids acknowledgment of realities not in keeping with the progressive vision. In the world of the politically correct—which can apparently include places where psychiatrists are taught—magical thinking reigns.

A resident who didn't represent the diversity value that Hasan did as a Muslim would have faced serious consequences had he behaved half as disturbingly. Here was a world in which Hasan was untouchable, in which all that was grim and disturbing in him was transformed. He was a consistently mediocre performer, ranking in the lowest 25% of his class, but to his evaluators, he was an officer of unique talents.

He was a star not simply because he was a Muslim, but because he was a special kind—the sort who posed, in his flaunting of jihadist sympathies, the most extreme test of liberal toleration. Exactly the kind the progressive heart finds irresistible. A decision as to whether Maj. Hasan will go to trial—it would be before a military court-martial—should be forthcoming next month. He stands charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder, committed when he turned his laser-equipped semi-automatic on members of the military at the Soldier Readiness Center. The likelihood is that the trial will go forward. If it does, the forces of multiculturalist piety, which played so central a role in advancing this Army major and concealing the menace he posed, will be the invisible presence on trial with him.

Ms. Rabinowitz, a member of the Journal's editorial board, is the author of "No Crueler Tyrannies: Accusations, False Witness And Other Terrors Our Times" (Free Press, 2003).

Reckoning By The Numbers

Posted by: blackelkspeaks
Dec 23, 07:00 AM

American Stupid
American Stupid

If the 200 year experiment in precious liberty, freedom, and constitutional republicanism collapses, it will be the fault of those who are known as white people. This has always been so, since before the creation of the country itself. White people of European origin settled this country, built its original states, and carried out its westward expansion. The construction of the greatest nation ever to appear on planet earth is due to white people. Yet today, we see that there are many self-loathing white people who align themselves with the destructive gaggle of America haters and enemies of freedom that gravitate toward the Jackass Party. Even in "red" areas where Republicans won, the numbers were not overwhelming. Usually, the Republican prevailed by a good deal less than 10% over the Jackass candidate. This does not bode well for the future of our country. In another generation or two the United States as we know it will cease to exist. The signs are already ubiquitous. And it will be the result of the voting patterns of white people, regardless of what the minority community does. If white people voted for Republicans the way that black people vote for Jackasses, then we would not now be in our current crisis. This is not a racial statement; it is just a fact.

Geert Wilders Speech In Berlin

Geert_Wilders
Tomorrow's Churchill?
Dear Friends - I am very happy to be here in Berlin today. As you know, the invitation which my friend René Stadtkewitz extended to me, has cost him his membership of the CDU group in the Berlin Parliament. René, however, did not give in to the pressure. He did not betray his convictions. His dismissal prompted René to start a new political party. I wish him all the best. As you may have heard, the past weeks were extremely busy for me. Earlier this week we succeeded in forging a minority government of the Liberals and the Christian-Democrats which will be supported by my party. This is an historic event for the Netherlands. I am very proud of having helped to achieve this. At this very moment the Christian-Democrat Party conference is deciding whether or not to approve this coalition. If they do, we will be able to rebuild our country, preserve our national identity and offer our children a better future.

Despite my busy schedule at home, however, I insisted on coming to Berlin, because Germany, too, needs a political movement to defend German identity and to oppose the Islamization of Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkel says that the Islamization of Germany is inevitable. She conveys the message that citizens have to be prepared for more changes as a result of immigration. She wants the Germans to adapt to this situation. The Christian-Democrat leader said: “More than before mosques will be an integral part of our cities.”

My friends, we should not accept the unacceptable as inevitable without trying to turn the tide. It is our duty as politicians to preserve our nations for our children. I hope that René’s movement will be as successful as my own Partij voor de Vrijheid, as Oskar Freysinger’s Schweizerische Volkspartei in Switzerland, as Pia Kjaersgaard’s Dansk Folkeparti in Denmark, and similar movements elsewhere.

My good friend Pia recently spoke in Sweden at the invitation of the Sverigedemokraterna. She said: “I have not come to mingle in Swedish domestic politics because that is for the Swedish people to be concerned with. No, I have come because in spite of certain differences the Swedish debate in many ways reminds me of the Danish debate 10-15 years ago. And I have come to Sweden because it is also a concern to Denmark. We cannot sit with our hands in our lap and be silent witnesses to the political development in Sweden.”

The same applies for me as a Dutchman with respect to Germany. I am here because Germany matters to the Netherlands and the rest of the world, and because we cannot establish an International Freedom Alliance without a strong German partner.

Dear friends, tomorrow is the Day of German Unity. Tomorrow exactly twenty years ago, your great nation was reunified after the collapse of the totalitarian Communist ideology. The Day of German Unity is an important day for the whole of Europe. Germany is the largest democracy in Europe. Germany is Europe’s economic powerhouse. The wellbeing and prosperity of Germany is a benefit to all of us, because the wellbeing and prosperity of Germany is a prerequisite for the wellbeing and prosperity of Europe.

Today I am here, however, to warn you for looming disunity. Germany’s national identity, its democracy and economic prosperity, is being threatened by the political ideology of Islam. In 1848, Karl Marx began his Communist Manifesto with the famous words: “A specter is haunting Europe – the specter of communism.” Today, another specter is haunting Europe. It is the specter of Islam. This danger, too, is political. Islam is not merely a religion, as many people seem to think: Islam is mainly a political ideology.

This insight is not new.

I quote from the bestselling book and BBC television series The Triumph of the West which the renowned Oxford historian J.M. Roberts wrote in 1985: “Although we carelessly speak of Islam as a ‘religion’; that word carries many overtones of the special history of western Europe. The Muslim is primarily a member of a community, the follower of a certain way, an adherent to a system of law, rather than someone holding particular theological views.” The Flemish Professor Urbain Vermeulen, the former president of the European Union of Arabists and Islamicists, too, points out that “Islam is primarily a legal system, a law,” rather than a religion.

The American political scientist Mark Alexander writes that “One of our greatest mistakes is to think of Islam as just another one of the world’s great religions. We shouldn’t. Islam is politics or it is nothing at all, but, of course, it is politics with a spiritual dimension, … which will stop at nothing until the West is no more, until the West has … been well and truly Islamized.”

These are not just statements by opponents of Islam. Islamic scholars say the same thing. There cannot be any doubt about the nature of Islam to those who have read the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. Abul Ala Maududi, the influential 20th century Pakistani Islamic thinker, wrote – I quote, emphasizing that these are not my words but those of a leading Islamic scholar – “Islam is not merely a religious creed [but] a revolutionary ideology and jihad refers to that revolutionary struggle … to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth, which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam.”

Ali Sina, an Iranian Islamic apostate who lives in Canada, points out that there is one golden rule that lies at the heart of every religion—that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. In Islam, this rule only applies to fellow believers, but not to Infidels. Ali Sina says “The reason I am against Islam is not because it is a religion, but because it is a political ideology of imperialism and domination in the guise of religion. Because Islam does not follow the Golden Rule, it attracts violent people.”

A dispassionate study of the beginnings of Islamic history reveals clearly that Muhammad’s objective was first to conquer his own people, the Arabs, and to unify them under his rule, and then to conquer and rule the world. That was the original cause; it was obviously political and was backed by military force. “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘There is no god but Allah,’” Muhammad said in his final address. He did so in accordance with the Koranic command in sura 8:39: “Fight them until there is no more dissension and the religion is entirely Allah’s.”

We must realize that Islam expands in two ways. Since it is not a religion, conversion is only a marginal phenomenon. Historically, Islam expanded either by military conquest or by using the weapon of hijra, immigration. Muhammad conquered Medina through immigration. Hijra is also what we are experiencing today. The Islamization of Europe continues all the time. But the West has no strategy for dealing with the Islamic ideology, because our elites say that we must adapt to them rather than the other way round.
According to the mythology, Muhammad founded Islam in Mecca after the Angel Gabriel visited him for the first time in the year 610. The first twelve years of Islam, when Islam was religious rather than political, were not a success. In 622, Muhammad emigrated to Yathrib, a predominantly Jewish oasis, with his small band of 150 followers. There he established the first mosque in history, took over political power, gave Yathrib the name of Medina, which means the “City of the Prophet,” and began his career as a military and a political leader who conquered all of Arabia. Tellingly, the Islamic calendar starts with the hijra, the migration to Medina—the moment when Islam became a political movement.

After Muhammad’s death, based upon his words and deeds, Islam developed Sharia, an elaborate legal system which justified the repressive governance of the world by divine right – including rules for jihad and for the absolute control of believers and non-believers. Sharia is the law of Saudi Arabia and Iran, among other Islamic states. It is also central to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which in article 24 of its Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, proclaims that “all rights and freedoms are subject to the Islamic Sharia.” The OIC is not a religious institution; it is a political body. It constitutes the largest voting block in the United Nations and writes reports on so-called “Islamophobia” in Western Countries which accuse us of human rights violations. To speak in biblical terms: They look for a speck in our eye, but deny the beam in their own.

Under Sharia law people in the conquered territories have no legal rights, not even the right to life and to own property, unless they convert to Islam.

Before I continue, and in order to avoid any misunderstandings, I want to emphasize that I am talking about Islam, not about Muslims. I always make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam. There are many moderate Muslims, but the political ideology of Islam is not moderate and has global ambitions. It aims to impose Islamic law or Sharia upon the whole world. The way to achieve this is through jihad. The good news is that millions of Muslims around the world—including many in Germany and the Netherlands—do not follow the directives of Sharia, let alone engage in jihad. The bad news, however, is that those who do are prepared to use all available means to achieve their ideological, revolutionary goal.

In 1954, in his essay Communism and Islam, Professor Bernard Lewis spoke of “the totalitarianism, of the Islamic political tradition.” Professor Lewis said that “The traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, … has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs. … The aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same.”

The American political scientist Mark Alexander states that the nature of Islam differs very little—and only in detail rather than style—from despicable and totalitarian political ideologies such as National-Socialism and Communism. He lists the following characteristics for these three ideologies.

* They use political purges to “cleanse” society of what they consider undesirable;

* They tolerate only a single political party. Where Islam allows more parties, it insists that all parties be Islamic ones;

* They coerce the people along the road that it must follow;

* They obliterate the liberal distinction between areas of private judgment and of public control;

* They turn the educational system into an apparatus for the purpose of universal indoctrination;

* They lay down rules for art, for literature, for science and for religion;

* They subdue people who are given second class status;

* They induce a frame of mind akin to fanaticism. Adjustment takes place by struggle and dominance;

* They are abusive to their opponents and regard any concession on their own part as a temporary expedient and on a rival’s part as a sign of weakness;

* They regard politics as an expression of power;

* They are anti-Semitic.

There is one more striking parallel, but this is not a characteristic of the three political ideologies, but one of the West. It is the apparent inability of the West to see the danger. The prerequisite to understanding political danger, is a willingness to see the truth, even if it is unpleasant. Unfortunately, modern Western politicians seem to have lost this capacity. Our inability leads us to reject the logical and historical conclusions to be drawn from the facts, though we could, and should know better. What is wrong with modern Western man that we make the same mistake over and over again?

There is no better place to ponder this question than here in Berlin, the former capital of the evil empire of Nazi Germany and a city which was held captive by the so-called German “Democratic” Republic for over forty years.

When the citizens of Eastern Europe rejected Communism in 1989, they were inspired by dissidents such as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Václav Havel, Vladimir Bukovsky, and others, who told them that people have a right, but also an obligation, to “live within the truth.” Freedom requires eternal vigilance; so it is with truth. Solzhenitsyn added, however, that “truth is seldom sweet; it is almost invariably bitter.” Let us face the bitter truth: We have lost our capacity to see the danger and understand the truth because we no longer value freedom.

Politicians from almost all establishment politicians today are facilitating Islamization. They are cheering for every new Islamic school, Islamic bank, Islamic court. They regard Islam as being equal to our own culture. Islam or freedom? It does not really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire establisment elite—universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians—are putting our hard-earned liberties at risk. They talk about equality, but amazingly fail to see how in Islam women have fewer rights than men and infidels have fewer rights than adherents of Islam.

Are we about to repeat the fatal mistake of the Weimar Republic? Are we succumbing to Islam because our commitment to freedom is already dead? No, it will not happen. We are not like Frau Merkel. We do not accept Islamization as inevitable. We have to keep freedom alive. And, to the extent that we have already lost it, we must reclaim it in our democratic elections. That is why we need political parties that defend freedom. To support such parties I have established the International Freedom Alliance.

As you know, I am standing trial in the Netherlands. On Monday, I have to go to court again and I will have to spend most of the coming month there. I have been brought to court because of my opinions on Islam and because I have voiced these opinions in speeches, articles and in my documentary film Fitna. I live under constant police protection because Islamic extremists want to assassinate me, and I am in court because the Dutch establishment—most of them non-Muslims—wants to silence me.

I have been dragged to court because in my country freedom can no longer be fully enjoyed. Unlike America, we do not have a First Amendment which guarantees people the freedom to express their opinions and foster public debate by doing so. Unlike America, in Europe the national state, and increasingly the European Union, prescribes how citizens—including democratically elected politicians such as myself—should think and what we are allowed to say.

One of the things we are no longer allowed to say is that our culture is superior to certain other cultures. This is seen as a discriminatory statement—a statement of hatred even. We are indoctrinated on a daily basis, in the schools and through the media, with the message that all cultures are equal and that, if one culture is worse than all the rest, it is our own. We are inundated with feelings of guilt and shame about our own identity and what we stand for. We are exhorted to respect everyone and everything, except ourselves. That is the message of the Left and the politically-correct ruling establishment. They want us to feel so ashamed about our own identity that we refuse to fight for it.

The detrimental obsession of our cultural and political elites with Western guilt reinforces the view which Islam has of us. The Koran says that non-Muslims are kuffar (the plural of kafir), which literally means “rejecters” or “ingrates.” Hence, infidels are “guilty.” Islam teaches that in our natural state we have all been born as believers. Islam teaches that if we are not believers today this is by our own or by our forefathers’ fault. Subsequently, we are always kafir – guilty – because either we or our fathers are apostates. And, hence, according to some, we deserve subjugation.

Our contemporary leftist intellectuals are blind to the dangers of Islam.

Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky argues that after the fall of communism, the West failed to expose those who had collaborated with the Communists by advocating policies of détente, improved relations, relaxation of international tension, peaceful coexistence. He points out that the Cold War was “a war we never won. We never even fought it. … Most of the time the West engaged in a policy of appeasement toward the Soviet bloc—and appeasers don’t win wars.”

I do know, however, that German culture, like that of neighboring countries, such as my own, is rooted in judeo-christian and humanist values. Every responsible politician has a political obligation to preserve these values against ideologies which threaten them. A Germany full of mosques and veiled women is no longer the Germany of Goethe, Schiller and Heine, Bach and Mendelssohn. It will be a loss to us all. It is important that you cherish and preserve your roots as a nation.
Islam is the Communism of today. But, because of our failure to come clean with Communism, we are unable to deal with it, trapped as we are in the old Communist habit of deceit and double-speak that used to haunt the countries in the East and that now haunts all of us. Because of this failure, the same leftist people who turned a blind eye to Communism then, turn a blind eye to Islam today. They are using exactly the same arguments in favor of détente, improved relations, and appeasement as before. They argue that our enemy is as peace-loving as we are, that if we meet him half-way he will do the same, that he only asks respect and that if we respect him he will respect us. We even hear a repetition of the old moral equivalence mantra. They used to say that Western “imperialism” was as bad as Soviet imperialism; they are now saying that Western “imperialism” is as bad as Islamic terrorism.

In my speech near Ground Zero in New York on September 11, I emphasized that we must stop the “Blame the West, Blame America”-game which Islamic spokesmen are playing with us. And we must stop playing this game ourselves. I have the same message for you. It is an insult to tell us that we are guilty and deserve what is happening to us. We do not deserve becoming strangers in our own land. We should not accept such insults. First of all, Western civilization is the freest and most prosperous on earth, which is why so many immigrants are moving here, instead of Westerners moving there. And secondly, there is no such thing as collective guilt. Free individuals are free moral agents who are responsible for their own deeds only.

I am very happy to be here in Berlin today to give this message which is extremely important, especially in Germany. Whatever happened in your country in the past, the present generation is not responsible for it. Whatever happened in the past, it is no excuse for punishing the Germans today. But it is also no excuse for you to refuse to fight for your own identity. Your only responsibility is to avoid the mistakes of the past. It is your duty to stand with those threatened by the ideology of Islam, such as the State of Israel and your Jewish compatriots. The Weimar Republic refused to fight for freedom and was overrun by a totalitarian ideology, with catastrophic consequences for Germany, the rest of Europe and the world. Do not fail to fight for your freedom today.

I am happy to be in your midst today because it seems that twenty years after German reunification, a new generation no longer feels guilty for being German. The current and very intense debate about Thilo Sarrazin’s recent book is an indication of the fact that Germany is coming to terms with itself.

I have not yet read Dr. Sarrazin’s book myself, but I understand that while the ruling politically-correct establishment is almost unanimously critical of his thesis and he lost his job, a large majority of Germans acknowledges that Dr. Sarrazin is addressing important and pressing issues. “Germany is abolishing itself,” warns Sarrazin, and he calls on the Germans to halt this process. The enormous impact of his book indicates that many Germans feel the same way. The people of Germany do not want Germany to be abolished, despite all the political indoctrination they have been subjected to. Germany is no longer ashamed to assert its national pride.

America Will Not Submit
America Will Not Submit
In these difficult times, where our national identity is under threat, we must stop feeling guilty about who we are. We are not “kafir,” we are not guilty. Like other peoples, Germans have the right to remain who they are. Germans must not become French, nor Dutch, nor Americans, nor Turks. They should remain Germans. When the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan visited your country in 2008, he told the Turks living here that they had to remain Turks. He literally said that “assimilation is a crime against humanity.” Erdogan would have been right if he had been addressing the Turks in Turkey. However, Germany is the land of the Germans. Hence, the Germans have a right to demand that those who come to live in Germany assimilate; they have the right—no they have a duty to their children—to demand that newcomers respect the German identity of the German nation and Germany’s right to preserve its identity.

We must realize that Islam expands in two ways. Since it is not a religion, conversion is only a marginal phenomenon. Historically, Islam expanded either by military conquest or by using the weapon of hijra, immigration. Muhammad conquered Medina through immigration. Hijra is also what we are experiencing today. The Islamization of Europe continues all the time. But the West has no strategy for dealing with the Islamic ideology, because our elites say that we must adapt to them rather than the other way round.

There is a lesson which we can learn in this regard from America, the freest nation on earth. Americans are proud of their nation, its achievements and its flag. We, too, should be proud of our nation. The United States has always been a nation of immigrants. U.S. President — was very clear about the duty of immigrants. Here is what he said: “We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else … But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American. … There can be no divided allegiance here. … We have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

It is not up to me to define what Germany’s national identity consists of. That is entirely up to you. I do know, however, that German culture, like that of neighboring countries, such as my own, is rooted in judeo-christian and humanist values. Every responsible politician has a political obligation to preserve these values against ideologies which threaten them. A Germany full of mosques and veiled women is no longer the Germany of Goethe, Schiller and Heine, Bach and Mendelssohn. It will be a loss to us all. It is important that you cherish and preserve your roots as a nation. Otherwise you will not be able to safeguard your identity; you will be abolished as a people, and you will lose your freedom. And the rest of Europe will lose its freedom with you.

My friends, when Ronald Reagan came to a divided Berlin 23 years ago he uttered the historic words, Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall.“ President Reagan was not an appeaser, but a man who spoke the truth because he loved freedom. Today, we, too, must tear down a wall. It is not a wall of concrete, but of denial and ignorance about the real nature of Islam. The International Freedom Alliance aims to coordinate and stimulate these efforts.

Because we speak the truth, voters have given my party, the Partij voor de Vrijheid, and other parties, such as the Dansk Folkeparti and the Schweizerische Volkspartei, the power to influence the political decision process, whether that be in opposition or in government or by supporting a minority government – as we want to do in the Netherlands. President Reagan showed that by speaking the truth one can change the course of history. He showed that there is no need to despair. Never! Just do your duty. Be not afraid. Speak the truth. Defend Freedom. Together we can preserve freedom, together we must preserve freedom, and together, my friends, we will be able to preserve freedom.

Thank you.

Geert Wilders

Let 'Em Eat Upside Down Cake

“Surely something must be terribly wrong with a man who seems to be far more concerned with Jews building houses in Israel than with Muslims building a nuclear bomb in Iran.”
Burt Prelutsky

Islam Burka Slaves
Ordinary Peace Agitators

WE ARE TOLD NOT TO CAST ASPERSIONS. We are told not not to stereotype. We are told to criticize is commit a crime. We are told not to assign blame to all Muslims for the strife, hatred and violence their cousins from the "honest" branch of the family tree produce. Sounds fabulously fair, doesn't it? However we are also asked to collectively categorize ALL Tea party marchers as middle-aged, wealthy, white racists who hate having a black president and want poor black and brown people to suffer. Funny how that works. NYC Mayor Michael's Bloomberg's pathetic remarks immediately after the car bomb was discovered are pathetic enough, but seem mild compared to the snarky scolding he issued this morning after the Islamic identity of the bomber was revealed.

Where is all that anti-Muslim backlash our politicians and CAIR keep warning us against? Have some cake...

We are instructed that it is in our best interest as part of the human race to send our money to poorer nations, to stop living in large homes, to cut down on our "carbon" footprints and to accept the science we are shown. We are told this by people who buy huge homes and make tons of money and resolutely disregard dissent.

And this administration, we are told, has a "boot to the neck" of British Petroleum?

Here, have some more cake...

Religion Of Peace Flies Off the Handle Again

Religion Of Peaceniks, hardly...
Religion Of Peaceniks, hardly...

IT'S NOT REALLY A MYSTERY, but I suppose it's time to trot out once more the dizzying fundamentals in this old discussion in the wake of the nation's most tragic jihad attack on American soil since September 11, eight years ago. Hear the excuses lobbed in like small stones wrapped in bullying threats—I'm sure he just misunderstands his religion. He's just a lone extremist. And what about the Christian right types who kill abortionists, and uh, did I mention the bloody Crusades? Who actually started them? What what they fighting for? Extra credit anyone?

The murder and attempted murder of over forty US military personnel at Fort Hood, TX, yesterday is just the latest in several attempts by jihadists to attack military personnel stateside. This most recent example of what Professor Daniel Pipes coined as sudden jihad syndrome, we should once again without equivocation point out to our cultural relativist friends that as long as Qur'an-stoked fanatics rule Islam right now, it doesn’t matter a damn if this man had been, or any other Islamic-leaning dunderhead dares claim to be among that indeterminate group called moderate Muslims…

But this was no spontaneous event. There are numerous reports that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan gave away all of his possessions and passed out the ignoble Qur'an before tackling the task he had set for himself. Neighbors described Hasan as a quiet man who began wearing "Arabic clothing" in recent weeks. Edward Windsor, a neighbor, never suspected Hasan was in the Army. Hasan's rank surprised Windsor who would never have imagined an officer with a rank of major would have lived in an apartment that rents for $350 and houses soldiers ranked as private first class....

His history speaks for itself. This particular jihadist was suspicious above and below the call of duty, and as usual to someone who takes the ROP seriously, considered himself more a devoted Islamic believer more than an American military officer. Are ALL Muslims jihadists in waiting? No. But how do we sort them out from those who wish to simply get on with life?

The majority of mid-century Germans weren’t goose-stepping Nazis. The common peoples of Communist China & gulag-infested Russia never wanted to kill nearly a hundred million of their own people, but the ruling forces did indeed. Peace loving and moderate Germans didn’t stop Hitler and his minions. Peaceful, decent Russian and Chinese people didn’t stop their communist tyrants, either. But legion were the appeasers, the apathetic, the cowards.

Clearly then, the peace loving Muslims of today don’t matter in the frenetic scheme of things. These folks, whoever they are, are irrelevant, helpless, cowed, camouflage, et cetera, brainwashed since childhood to despise the enemies of Islam, an idea reinforced with their daily devotions, and thus will never engage to stop the jihadists, but in fact are much more likely to circle the wagons to defend and praise the jihadists. Nothing mysterious. Human nature, actually.

So, it’s up to those of us who have studied both the battlefield and the combatant. We’re the only ones who have ascertained the depth of our enemy's resolve, and it is we who must stop this invasion. Stop Islamic immigration now!

The state-controlled, mainstream, limp-wristed liberal media absolutely despise Christianity, for what they erroneously believe to be puritanical, antiquated and traditional values. Obviously, if Christians don't subscribe to the wanton slaughter of defenseless babies resting comfortably inside a woman's womb, then they must not be progressive enough.

But if that's the case, as it most certainly is, then why aren't the media screaming for the defeat of ALL Muslim terrorists, who are clearly still under the wicked spell of the 7th century warlord they liken to a prophet? Instead, the media treats Islam as a favored son, to be coddled, protected and even exalted by those who should know better and do know better, but have succumbed to their own Marxist worldview and immediate fears.

In other news, the Hollywood cartel who produced the new film, "2012", takes a rip at Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and basically every religious people on earth EXCEPT that of the favored son, the loudest, the proudest, the most violent religious group ravaging the earth today—Islam. They refuse to acknowledge fundamentalist Muslim terrorists because of one reason, and that reason is mere cowardice. They fear the obligatory fatwa from these barbarians at the gate, so they simply continue to ridicule the Christians, since clearly, THESE PEOPLE will not retaliate with a bombing du jour.

Evil will triumph when good men do nothing.

As my friend Kendra Adams puts it:

Your snark doesn't offend. The dhimmified nihilist post modern left offends. And, you're right. You know, when we all opened our eyes (those of us who actually did, I mean), I thought that we would just tell the people who didn't know and that would be that-- we'd all get outraged at this and defeat it. I had NO iDEA that that is NOT what this is about. I had NO IDEA the level of anti-Americanism that existed. None. I thought the left was a bit idealistic, maybe. I didn't know they really didn't mind undermining our values.

Yes yes yes! Well, I thought even those who sympathized with communism realized that our system was better. I mean, I thought they were being idealistic, as I mentioned. So, when I'd press them, and when they realized I was unsympathetic, they easily agreed that capitalism was better. but, I think now they just didn't want to get into it with me because they weren't ready for a real discussion. I didn't know that they TRULY LIKED COMMUNISM! I thought it actually IMPOSSIBLE that someone would prefer a totalitarian society. I thought that the general consensus in the entire non-Islamic world was that totalitarianism was evil. I was very naive.

This much is true about Muslims. Take note ye apologists and appeasers, dhimmis of all stripes. This man could have chosen many paths in solving his "moral" dilemma. Afraid of deployment? Check. Afraid to strive against fellow believers. Check. When confronted with the very real decision of where one's loyalty lies, a decision that most American Muslims can defray their entire lives, this Muslim posing as an army major chooses to slay infidels.

He did NOT choose to slink off to Canada. He did not not claim any sort of conscientious objection, although he did offer we are told to buy his way out. It's been eight years since his grievance began, right after September 11; why the delay? Eight years without an opportunity to bail out seems even in these times a long uninterrupted enlistment. But let's face it, he could have easily but did not claim mental health problems. No. Alone with Allah, his choice was pre-ordained. His decision was to kill infidels.

This man, like so many others, chose to be a Muslim first.

Islam is a religion of violence which promotes lying to infidels and the murder of all of those who stand in Islam's way. When the media reports on a person being a "pious Muslim" this MUST start sending up red flags in the minds of all of us. Unlike a pious believer in Jesus Christ, who most likely would attempt to emulate Jesus' pacifistic, non-violent and charitable lifestyle, the "pious Muslim" seeks to emulate the life of Muhammad, a pedophile who married and raped 9-year old girls, a man who tortured and murdered anyone who disagreed with him, a man who employed genocide and ethnic cleansing against the Jews and infidels of Arabia in the 7th Century, and a man who sought to dominate and destroy every non-Islamic society and individual on Earth.

If we were to look at religion as a computer operating system, then we need to be extremely concerned whenever the Islamic mental operating system gets fired up in someone's mind because the first lines of code that get executed during boot-up are the destruction of democracy, the subordination of women, and the eventual destruction of all non-Muslims through one-on-one violence or global Islamic jihad. Yes, Nidal Malik Hasan is a pious Muslim, and by all accounts rapidly getting more pious.

And the ultimate consequence of his increasing Islamic piety? A mass assassination of non-Islamic Americans whom he viewed—as a pious Muslim—as the enemies of Allah.