printGeert Wilders included. So says anti-mosque activist, Pamella Geller. Yet the media is silent. Did you hear anything? I did not. Who are the bums working for?
UPDATE (Sept. 13): I did not read Geert’s speech. Larry Auster contends that in it, “Wilders Was Not Wilders.” Auster postulates that the dictates of the Geller-Spencer duo account for Wilders’ weak, soft message. Some time ago, I delineated clearly how America’s incoherent anti-Islamization contingent differs from the fierce and focused Wilders.
In “Dhimmis At Ground Zero?”, I pointed out that by requesting kindness and consideration from those they regard as conquistadors, these anti-mosque activists run the risk of sounding like dhimmis.
“Such pleas,” I pointed out, “remind me of the victim impact statement so popular in our Courts. How humiliating and futile is it to plead for contrition from sadists who’ve amply proved they are incapable of such sentiment, and derive sadistic pleasure from watching their victims squirm.”
Nor am I convinced that the Washington Post was wrong when it implied that, by prancing around with Pamella, Spencer, a serious scholar of Islam, was undermining his well-established bona fides.
Writes Auster:
Moreover, this is the first time to my knowledge that Wilders has ever done this. In his career as an internationally known Islam opponent over the last six years, he has adopted consecutively harder-line positions on Islam, never reverting to an earlier, weaker position once he had taken a stronger position. Among Wilders’s many admirable traits is his remarkable consistency. So I found his speech on Saturday not only disappointing, but unsettling.
Pamela Geller, a passionate activist, deserves credit for having driven the mosque issue. But the way she has driven the mosque issue may well have had the effect of weakening the anti-Islamization cause, by reducing the meaning of anti-Islamization to “no mosque at Ground Zero.”
HARBITUDE – the antidote to dhimmitude!
Very impressive and Ms.Geller explained some things that I had been confused about. The fact that in his country the writings of hate speech such as that of Hitler are banned and all that Wilders is saying is that the Koran is in common with Hitler’s rants and should also be banned. Makes sense to me.
Further in Ms. Geller’s article, she mentions that ‘Geraldo At Large’ did a hatchet job on her. The Judge calls Beck and Geraldo ‘great libertarians’ I think Fox has totally turned.
[Fox has never been much good. Research this site for its documenting of Fox, from war to welfare.]
The non-violent, well-behaved Anti-Islam sensitive busybodies do not get media attention because they are not as “sensitive” (e.g. burning tires, screaming death threats) as the Islamic sensitive busybodies. Peaceful protest gets denounced as racist while violent protest gets a response of people bowing down for forgiveness (such as pathetic General Petraeus).
It isn’t as if Islam does not do terrible things (ask the forcibly exiled Christians of Iraq or the children of Sderot) but Moslems buying a Burlington Coat Factory down the street from a strip joint and 2 blocks from Rockefeller Eminent-Domain abuse does not top my personal list of Islamic offenses. It probably doesn’t make the top 100! The libertarian in me would prefer a world where all the sensitive busybodies would attend to the log in their own eye rather than focusing on dust in their neighbors (Matthew 7-3).
As far as insensitive Islamic community center builders, Pamela Geller, and Koran burners go, the Orthodox Libertarian in me says: Blessed are the insensitive, Praiseworthy are the vulgar, and Exalted are the obnoxious – for they dine at the Table of Liberty.
In re: FOX News, just remember that one of its prime financial backers is a Saudi Prince: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/saudi-royal-backs-imam-and-fox-news/ I believe I recall reading that if the Florida pastor did go ahead with the book burning, FOX would not cover it (even though they did cover the run-up to the (non)event.)
Good that Geller had her own cameras there yesterday.
What a great quote at the end Myron! Bravo.
Incidentally, have you read Walter Block’s Defending the Undefendable? In the same spirit!
CONTEMPLATIONIST: Browsed the first 20+ pages of Block. He understands Liberty.
It reminds me of some TV Commercial by Lockheed with a 4th of July parade celebrating “our liberties” – and I made the ironic comment that burning a flag celebrates our liberties. The commies and Nazis were far superior than us when it came to parades and flag worship.
In any case, we’ve seen 2+ bad wars in a silly reaction to agression. We cannot fight something (violent Islam)by losing our principles.
With all due respect, I’ve never been more disappointed with thoughts expressed by someone whom I’ve respected for many years.
I’ve been a life-long supporter of Israel and her right to defend herself. I am no fan of the Mullah’s and think that the local culture in much of the Islamic world is harsh by modern Western standards. That said, it is clear beyond question that there is a deliberate and orchestrated campaign to demonize 1.3 billion Muslims.
There is a valid analogy to be made with Hitler, as one poster on this blog did, but he has it exactly backwards. The only difference between Hitler’s hate campaign against the Jews and the current campaign against all of Islam is the choice of religious targets. It won’t surprise me if the next sound we hear is herding American Muslims into “detention centers” as Japanese Americans were in World War II. It is especially unacceptable that many of the loudest voices in this campaign are descendants of Holocaust survivors. They, of all people, should know better.
List for me, please, all of the Christian countries that have been occupied by Islamic nations since 1529? How is it that until that fateful morning of 09-11-2001 it occurred to virtually no one that the West was threatened by Islam?
Oh, boy, here we go again with “Muslims are the new Jews” nonsense…Anyone with even a mild grasp of Islamic doctrine and history knows this is an analogy as false as the proverbial $3 bill.
How, I ask are muslims being demonized? By pointing out the truth that the “harsh local culture” is in total accordance with mainstream islam? By saying another truth, that islamic scripture commands that islamic religion and law be spread wherever possible, by any and all means necessary? By stating the historical truth that, save few exceptions, islam has always been spread by the sword?
Islamic conquests of Christians since 1529: Lebanon, Balkans, part of Cyprus, part of the Phillipines. Not that it is relevant to the discussion because actions by individual muslims or even muslim societies do not constitute islam. Islam is what it’s sacred texts say and how they are intepreted by acknowledged islamic scholars. And it is, more or less, what I wrote above.
Some historians think that the World War One fascist Islamic Turk death march genocide causing the death of a million Christian Armenians was an inspiration for World War Two fascist Japanese death marches, and fascist Nazi genocide of Jews and others. Burning Hitler’s book “Mein Kampf”, as the inspiration for Nazi genocide, would be allowed today, but burning the supposedly “holy book” Koran/Quran, as the inspiration for Islamic murder of Christians and Jews, is stupidly forbidden by liberals pleading for tolerance of Evil, who would have the most to fear from a future victory by the most anti-liberal and intolerant religion in the world.
“List for me, please, all of the Christian countries that have been occupied by Islamic nations since 1529?”
We could start with Kosovo, there were a couple more countries that turned over without more than a passing notice on the back page of a newspaper; but, I didn’t think to record them at the time. 9-11-2001, was a wakeup call, when a few people noted that Muslims had three policies in their religion. Conquer-occupy (Immigrate)-establish Sharia Law, as ways to expand their religion. It has been noted that the Muslims (not non-religious Arabs or Iranians) in Europe and the US do not assimilate but retain their home identity through generations. Even to the point of treating the host country as if it were a state belonging to the home country. Most non-religious, become part of the communities they move to and no one is against them as long as they are legal.