I'm really pleased to see......

.....that Geert Wilders has had such a great welcome in the United States.

Here

Here

and here.

It's too bad that our own government here in the UK didn't have the cojones to let this brave, principled and much-maligned man speak truth to power.

At least his political party is currently #1 in the opinion polls in the Netherlands - Woo Hoo!!!

If only we could swap him for the malodorous one-eyed Scottish git currently occupying 10 Downing Street (as Jeremy Clarkson might have said.)

Just in case you were wondering.....

.....why it's so important to take out Iran's nuclear facilities NOW.....

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/03/beginning-of-end.html

I have a small side bet going on with my recently-promoted Equality and Diversity Director to the effect that if Iran is allowed to continue development of nuclear weapons, then within five years, Israel will be hit with nuclear bombs. That's March 2014, if anyone wants to take me up on it.

And if Israel goes down, all Freedom Loving Infidels will be next.

My Equality and Diversity Director thinks otherwise. He thinks that an international initiative of peace and love, followed up with generous shipments of processed chicken and tuna steaks to the people of Iran to show our goodwill, will avert such an apocalyptic scenario.

But then, he is a cat after all. I'm not so sure that I should trust his political instincts. Particularly as he's taken to reading the Guardian (a left-leaning newspaper here in the UK, subscribed to mostly by loony liberals.) Although he assures me he only does it for the crossword.

The value of a human life.....

.....not so very much, when put into context with maintaining a Muslim peer's reputation.

Is anybody else as outraged as I am over this light sentence?

Banning Wilders

A must-read article by Theodore Dalrymple.

When I was a prison doctor, not a few prisoners would demand tranquillizers from me, claiming to be so agitated that they would soon kill someone if they were not calmed down.

This was the kind of blackmail to which some of the doctors, especially the younger ones, did give in; but I quickly learned that it was both morally wrong and inexpedient in practice to do so.

The conversations would go something like this:

‘I need my valium, doctor.’
‘Why?’
‘I’m all wound up.’
‘What about?’
‘If I don’t get my valium, I’ll kill someone.’
‘I advise you very strongly not to.’
‘If I don’t get valium and I kill someone, it’ll be on your conscience.’
‘No it won’t. It is you who will be guilty. I am not responsible for your actions.’

If the man persisted in his threat, I assured him that I should still eat my dinner and sleep soundly even if he carried out his threat.

I appeared firmer than I felt. I had little doubt that if he did commit a murder, not my conscience but the official enquiry afterwards would blame me, because officialdom and professionals are now deemed to be in loco parentis to all those who come under their purview, and therefore responsible for their actions.

No man did carry out his threat, however; and I knew from experience that if I gave in to their blackmail I would never hear the end of it.

In writing a prescription, I would have created a rod with which to beat my own back: before long, the man would return, claiming that the amount I had prescribed was insufficient to ‘hold’ him, that he needed more, and for longer, indeed for ever; and the ensuing scenes in my office would grow ever more desperate and threatening. I discovered that the best policy was to let your nay be nay, as the Good Book puts it; indeed, I became known as ‘Dr No,’ and in time the threats died out. I sought not popularity, which in those circumstances, as in so many others, is akin to contempt, but respect; a reputation for doing all in my medical power to assist the genuinely ill and suffering, allied to an absolute refusal to be led down any garden path.

Let us now turn from the sublime (prison) to the ridiculous (the British government). In its wisdom, that august institution declared that the Dutch member of parliament, Geert Wilders, who is invariably designated as being of the far-right, a prohibited immigrant, and refused him entry into our green and pleasant land. The Mother of Parliaments is fast turning into the Step-mother of Parliaments.

As everyone knows by now, Mr. Wilders made a short film called Fitna (Struggle), arguing in a powerful rhetorical way a causative connection between certain verses in the Koran and brutal acts of modern terrorism. The film is uncompromising, to put it mildly; and whether or not Mr. Wilders’ interpretation of the verses is correct, few could deny that at least some Moslems have taken it to be correct. They have differed from Mr. Wilders only in their moral evaluation of the injunctions that they have both found in them. He thinks cutting off the heads of unbelievers is a bad thing, they think it a good thing.

Those who argued for the exclusion of Mr. Wilders from our haven of peace and prosperity claimed that his presence would stir up trouble, perhaps even violence, and that (therefore) he and his film constituted an incitement to hatred.

This, of course, is ludicrous. I have no doubt that Mr. Wilders despises Islam; he probably thinks that its prophet, far from being a model for mankind, is presented as a man with many and serious faults; its holy book a derivative mish-mash with bad passages thrown in, practically unreadable to all but believers; its influence in the world wholly deleterious, imprisoning hundreds of millions of people in a world view that is incompatible with modernity.

But it is his right to think and to say all this; and at no point has he ever suggested that anyone should harm a Moslem, nor would anyone believe that it were an extenuation of such an attack that the perpetrator had seen his film or listened to his pronouncements. His view of Islam, while crude and provocative, is no more crude or provocative than that of the views expressed by many Moslems of what they call Hindu polytheism.

Of course, Mr. Wilders is not a man who believes that free speech should have no limits. He has himself argued for the banning of the Koran on precisely the grounds that it is an incitement to hatred, violence and murder; I need hardly rehearse the arguments against this preposterous proposal.

It is obvious that if anyone were moved to violence by the presence of Mr. Wilders in the country, the responsibility would be the perpetrator’s and the perpetrator’s alone. In a free society, you are at liberty to be as indignant and offended as you choose, by whomever and whatever you choose; but you have to conform your conduct to the law. You have no right to consider your own indignation as evidence in itself of incitement. That way totalitarianism lies.

The contemptible moral cowardice of the British political class was perfectly illustrated by an article that appeared on the website of The Guardian newspaper by the prominent Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, Christopher Huhne. His utter pusillanimity is evident in the following: Fitna’s shocking images of violence and its emotional appeals to anti-Islamic feeling risk causing serious harm to others.

As so often with sentences written by the pusillanimous, it would take an entire essay to reveal all the evasions, equivocations and underlying false assumptions. Let me merely point out that an appeal to anti-Islamic emotions (based, incidentally, upon undeniable, if slanted, evidence) is not incitement to harm Moslems, any more than an appeal to anti-socialist or anti-conservative emotions is an appeal to harm socialists or conservatives. So it is not incitement.

Nor does Mr. Huhne specify which people will be harmed by the images and the feeling. One suspects very strongly that what Mr. Huhne really means is this: that a group of Moslems of undefined size would commit acts of violence if Mr Wilders were allowed in the country. If he had been a prison doctor, Mr. Huhne would have prescribed valium for all he was worth, for whoever demanded it.

The contemptible Mr. Huhne makes his cowardice even more clear when he writes: I have in the past defended [the right of] people with some particularly odious views [to come to this country], such as the recent case of the Australian Holocaust denier Dr. Gerald Toben.

So what are the differences between the cases of Dr. Toben and Mr. Wilders? It seems to me that there are two: the first is that while holocaust denial is completely irrational, Mr Wilders has at least some evidence for what he says. There are verses enjoining violence in the Koran, and there are Moslems who are violent in the way enjoined, even if the connection between the two is very much more complex than Mr. Wilders suggests.

The second, and much more important, difference is that while the Jews in Britain were unlikely to cause any violence as a result of Dr. Toben’s presence in the country, a few Moslems might possibly (by no means certainly) have caused violence if Mr. Wilders had been let in. In other words, the implicit threat of violence is what for Mr. Huhne made
the difference. A fine principle to set before the country, a real basis for lasting peace and security.

The most heartening thing about this article was the response, particularly by Moslems (or those with Moslem names, whom I assume to have been Moslems).

One said that Mr. Wilders was right and that the offending passages of the Koran should henceforth be removed (voluntarily, not by decree). Of course such tampering with a book that is supposed by the faithful to be the direct word of God presents some logical difficulties; but it so happens that I was speaking not long ago with an enlightened Moslem woman, who claimed to be religious, who told me (not in connection with Mr Wilders) that the Koran had to be interpreted in the light of the fact that it was written many centuries ago in a society very different from any existing now.

Two other Moslems wrote in to say that, while they disliked Mr. Wilders intensely, they felt that Moslems could deal with his argument by argumentation. In other words, they acknowledged that he had an argument, but thought it was mistaken and could be shown to be false.

By banning Mr. Wilders from entry into the country, then, the British government revealed that, at heart, it agrees with, or even went beyond, him: that Moslems are predominantly violent irrational bigots, incapable of holding their own in argument, and of whom it, the government, is physically afraid.

Americans should not be complacent. A few days before last Christmas, I went to one of the Indian restaurants in my small town in England, which is owned and run by Moslems. It was hung with Christmas decorations, and when I left the staff wished me a Merry Christmas and handed me a Christmas card. And then I thought of the Christmas cards I had received from America, with their snivelling, pusillanimous greeting of Happy Holidays, not one of them daring to mention Christmas.

---------

Theodore Dalrymple rarely wastes a word when writing his essays - so I have reproduced this article in full. The time will come when we will realise the truth of his words. Sooner than you may think.

Who Exactly Is Lord Ahmed?

In the wake of the hugely anti-democratic barring of Geert Wilders from the UK last week by the ex-primary school teacher "Jackboot" Jacqui Smith, the British author Paul Weston makes some trenchant observations:

Who is Lord Ahmed?

Britain has shed a great deal of blood and made a great deal of sacrifice in order to stand defiant, proud and undefeated (at home at least; away matches are always more difficult) since its defences were last breached in 1688 when a Dutchman, William of Orange, deposed King James II.

In the 321 years since then, despite the best efforts of the Napoleons and Hitlers of this world, Britain has remained free, enabling its great triumvirate of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Monarchy to preside over and mould one of the greatest democracies the world has ever seen.

Until February 2009 that is, when the ancient and venerable House of Lords was put to the test by a middle-aged rotund individual with a beard, after which the edifice of British sovereignty came crashing to the ground in a woeful display of liberal appeasement.

Who is this single-handed slayer of British democracy? How can he cause such destruction? What power does he wield that can force the submission of a core component of Britain’s constitution?

Step forward, Lord Ahmed, the aforementioned rotund individual with a beard, albeit a beard of such straggling inconsequence that one suspects he could never have risen to such unlikely heights of power in his native Muslim lands, where the serious power brokers have an unspoken yet mandatory requirement to sport beards of astonishing length and luxuriance.

But enough of his follicular failing. It is time for a brief look at Ahmed’s résumé.

Born in Mirpur, Pakistan, in 1958, the young Nazir Ahmed emigrated to Britain where he took successful advantage of a free education provided by the taxpaying British public, and was subsequently accepted at Sheffield’s internationally recognised Hallam University where he studied Public Administration in between his duties as a Labour Party member.

In 1992 he founded the Muslim Councillors Forum, and was active in local politics in the north of England where he championed various Muslim causes.

In 1998 he was appointed to the House of Lords, swearing his oath of allegiance to Queen and Country on the Koran, as one does in such a vibrant, modern, multicultural and mulitfaithed country that Britain is now privileged to be. Ahmed was both the first Muslim to be appointed to the Lords, and the first Lord to lead delegations on behalf of the British government to Saudi Arabia for the Haj, or Muslim pilgrimage.

In February 2005 he hosted a book launch for the infamous anti-Semite Jöran Jermas at — wait for it — the House of Lords, where Mr Jermas launched into fundamentalist Islam’s standard tirade against those pesky imperialist Zionists.

When picked up on this by Stephen Pollard of The Times, Lord Ahmed refused to even speak about it, let alone distance himself from the contents of Jermas’s Jew-hating monologue, which is ironic given the MSM’s blanket whitewash of Lord Ahmed’s historic behaviour after Jermas accused the British Newspapers of being owned and run by Zionists!

According to the Times, Jermas’s depth of anti-Semitism runs so deep he has felt compelled to work for Zavtra, Russia’s extreme anti-Semitic publication, and is allied with the Vanguard News Network (motto: “No Jews. Just Right.”) set up by an American, Alex Linder — a man so extreme that he was even ostracised by the US neo-Nazi National Alliance.

But such affiliations hold no fear, it would seem, for Lord Ahmed, which is unsurprising as he is a man with the usual trappings associated with less-than-moderate Islam, affiliated as he also is with Dr Abdul Bari of The Muslim Council Of Britain who, like Ahmed, has very dubious friends of the anti-Semitic variety.

In July 2005, after four self-detonating Muslims in London left 52 innocent people dead and some 700 maimed, blinded and burned, the good Lord described the suicide bombers as suffering from an “identity crisis”. After exploding, no doubt there could be a case for such an argument, but not before, surely?

In August 2006 he was a co-signatory of an open letter to Tony Blair which was, in essence, a thinly veiled threat that were Britain to continue its then current foreign policy with regard to Iraq and Israel, then they could expect further terrorist attacks at home.

In January 2007 Lord Ahmed invited Mahmoud Abu Rideh to Westminster, after meeting him at the Regents Park Mosque. Abu Rideh had been recently released from Belmarsh — a British prison — for links to terrorism (he had previously been jailed in Jordan) and was subject to a control order when he met Ahmed, imposed in 2005 after he admitted to having hopped about Afghanistan with a false plaster cast within which was secreted a perfectly efficient leg along with large sums of money, weapons for the procurement of. Allegedly.

Why Lord Ahmed should invite such a man to the House of Lords raises difficult questions, which I presume is why they were not raised at all. One of them being what on earth was Ahmed doing at the Regents Park Mosque in the first place, fingered as it was in a Policy Exchange study entitled The Hijacking of British Islam which claimed that Saudi money was behind the Mosque’s drift toward fundamentalist Islam, as evidenced in the extremist literature it happily displays and sells.

Ahmed told reporters it was his “parliamentary duty” to meet Abu Rideh, although this is clearly not a duty he feels the need to extend to a non-Muslim with legal troubles on his mind, such as Geert Wilders. We must not write Ahmed off as being “non-inclusive”, however. He does not just help Muslims in the UK, he also spends a great deal of time travelling the world seeking out other disadvantaged peoples he may be able to help, the only proviso being they must be exclusively Muslim.

In 2007, he joined his old mucker Dr Bari of the MCB in denouncing the Knighthood awarded to Salman Rushdie, who, according to Ahmed “has blood on his hands” due to Rushdie’s crime of writing words on a piece of paper with a pen, thereby causing Muslims around the world to smite at the necks of their fellow Human Beings with scimitars, putting an end once and for all to that feeble Western adage that the pen is mightier than the sword.

In January 2009, Lord Ahmed pressed the British Government to call for the prosecution of British Jews who have had the temerity of serving in the Israel Defence Forces, going so far as to say:

“This is why Baroness Tongue asked the question about the number of British youth who go to religious Jewish schools and also the kibbutz. In this case, it is a double standard to allow young British citizens of whatever religion, who go to religious schools and then get involved in armed conflicts and join a terrorist state.”

In February 2009, Lord Ahmed finally managed to achieve international infamy. Unhappy with the idea that the House of Lords was intent on screening Fitna, and knowing that Islam was about to incriminate itself through images of its Holy Book’s Unholy Words and its Holy Book’s Unavoidable and Unholy Physical Actions, Lord Ahmed, acting with surprising alacrity, bounded tubbily into Islam’s version of defence code green.

A legal threat to the organising Lords here, a violent threat of 10,000 men in beards there, and his job was done. No Fitna, no Wilders, no backbone, no democracy, no questions, no comeback, no longer Great Britain.

Or so we thought.

Within days though, the ex-empire struck back. Despite Ahmed’s proud boast to the foreign press that he had won a victory for the Muslim community the House of Lords reissued an invitation to Geert Wilders and sanity appeared to resume for a brief few days, until Britain’s quisling Home Secretary Jacqui Smith banned Wilders from the UK on the grounds his mere presence may cause British Muslims to tut disapprovingly and shake their heads sorrowfully.

I have no doubt a deal was struck between Ahmed and ex-primary-school-teacher-turned-Home-Secretary Jacqui Smith, whereby the Lords could still screen Fitna, but Wilders would remain banned as long as there were no men in beards anywhere near the Houses of Parliament, as indeed there were not. Nor were there any nervous looking policemen alongside their newly issued riot vans — one forward gear, four reverse. This was way above street level agitation and organisation.

Given all the above, it is clear that Lord Ahmed’s loyalties lie with Islam and the greater Muslim world, rather than anything that could remotely be described as British. To threaten the British government itself, and to get away with it with nary a peep from the press is extraordinary. To boast about it and get away with it is even more so. He may take pride in a Muslim victory, but indigenous Brits should feel shame for a British defeat, which this event undoubtedly was.

Now I think such a man should be taken outside the House of Lords and given a thoroughly vigorous admonishment, part of which would include the explanation of the words “sedition” and “treason”.

Someone also needs to explain to our present Home Secretary the magnitude of what she has allowed to happen. Perhaps she should be taken to a war cemetery where she can pause and reflect on what she has done, as she looks at the headstones of the brave young men she has betrayed, along with her country.

Several Views on Dealing With Piracy in Somalia

Roger Middleton - The Independent, 18 February 2009:

International navies are patrolling Somali waters looking for pirates. This action, while welcome, is only addressing the symptoms of Somalia’s collapse. It is not a solution to piracy and nor will it resolve Somalia’s instability. If we want to secure the sea and contribute to peace in Somalia we need imaginative approaches. What Somalia needs more than a naval force is an international coastguard. Sending navies to fight piracy in Somalia is a way of being seen to take the “right” kind of action but with minimal risk to life or equipment.

However, it does not alter the fundamental factors driving people into piracy; the ability to make thousands of dollars per operation, in a country with a GDP per head of $600 is far greater than the disincentive of arrest.

Piracy cannot be defeated by navies. That can only happen when law is established and alternatives are presented to the pirates. Navies can certainly help to contain piracy and do perform an indispensable role protecting the delivery of food aid, but they cannot end this problem from the sea. A coastguard, however, is better designed for what is a law and order issue, and as part of a comprehensive approach to Somalia’s instability offers a real prospect for progress.

Why are so many nations then sending their ships and sailors to the eastern Indian Ocean? Some say they are attempting to protect fishing fleets trawling for tuna – pirates have often used illegal fishing as an excuse – but they are drawn by the money and not a desire to protect coastal fishermen.

Somalia’s problems are greater than piracy. It is chronically unstable and dangerous and millions of its citizens need humanitarian aid. The naval presence off Somalia’s coast is a good thing for sailors and shipping companies; it makes them less likely to be attacked and means that someone will be on hand during any period in captivity. The fundamental causes of piracy are not being addressed however: there must be a political settlement on land. A coastguard that combats piracy and protects Somali fishing could be the waterborne element of a wider diplomatic strategy to bring peace and stability to Somalia.

Jeffery Gettleman, New York Times, 05 February 2009:

NAIROBI, Kenya — The saga over the Ukrainian arms freighter hijacked off Somalia’s coast more than four months ago drew to a close on Thursday almost exactly the way the pirates had predicted: with the booty.

According to the pirates and maritime officials in Kenya, the ship’s owners paid $3.2 million — in cash, dropped by parachute — and on Thursday evening the last of the heavily armed pirates made their way off the ship.

“The fact that this took so long, that’s not good,” said one of the pirates, Isse Mohammed, in a telephone interview. “But we got the cash in hand, and that’s good. That’s what we’re interested in.”

Mr. Isse added that his gang would continue “hunting ships” because “that’s our business.”

But first, Mr. Isse said, he had to escape. Ever since the Ukrainian ship was hijacked by Somali pirates in dinghies, it had been ringed by American warships determined to keep the pirates from unloading the weapons.

Mr. Isse said that the pirate leaders were divvying up the money in Xarardheere, a notorious pirate den near the ship’s anchorage, and that he and his colleagues had deputized young gunmen to stay aboard until all the pirate leaders had gotten away. Only then, he said, would the ship be released.

Late Thursday, Viktor Nikolsky, the acting captain of the ship, called the Faina, said it was finally under the protection of the United States Navy and would head to Mombasa, Kenya, the Associated Press reported.

More than 100 ships have been attacked in Somalia’s pirate-infested seas in the past year, but no hijacking has attracted as much attention as this one. It stirred fears of a new epoch of piracy and precipitated an unprecedented naval response. Warships from China, India, Italy, Russia, France, the United States, Denmark, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Greece, Turkey, Britain and Germany have all joined the antipiracy campaign.

The Ukrainians’ doomed voyage began in late August, when the Faina departed the Ukrainian port of Oktyabrsk, near the Black Sea, bound for Mombasa. It was a tall, lumbering freighter. Its captain was Russian and its 21 crew members were mostly Ukrainian. Its cargo was secret.

On Sept. 25, the Faina broadcast an S O S. Three small speedboats were heading straight at it fast — the typical pirate swarm.

On Sept. 26, the news broke: The Faina had been hijacked 200 miles off Somalia’s coast, and its cargo, revealed reluctantly by the Kenyan government, included 33 T-72 Soviet-era tanks, 150 grenade launchers, 6 antiaircraft guns and heaps of ammunition.

American officials worried that Islamist insurgents ashore could get the weapons and drastically change the dynamic in Somalia, where a weak transitional government has been trying to resist militant Islamist groups.

By early Thursday night, United States Navy officials said no weapons had been unloaded. But witnesses ashore reported pirates removing grenade launchers. Mr. Isse said the pirates had tossed some antiaircraft guns overboard “so we can get them later.” He seemed unaware of saltwater’s corrosive effects.

The pirates always said they were in it for the money — initially they had demanded $35 million. There were mixed reports about their treatment of hostages. The captain died mysteriously after a few days, which the pirates attributed to illness. They kept his body in a refrigerator.

The destination of the weapons remains unclear. The Kenyan government says that it owns them, but the pirates and Western officials have said that the arms are destined for former rebels in southern Sudan and that Kenya was the transit point.

Piracy is a huge business in Somalia, which has limped along since 1991 without a functioning central government. Many maritime officials have criticized ship owners who pay ransoms, saying that only leads to more attacks.

Hugh Fitzergerald - New English Review, 05 February 2009:

You have armed men on every ship. You blast every small boat out of the water if it comes within several hundred yards. You do not pick up survivors. You locate, and then bomb from the air, the villas of all known pirates (agents on the ground can locate them), and all of their relatives,their friends, their relations. You do this, again and again. You seize their assets in banks. You prevent them from leaving Somalia. You prevent their relatives from leaving Somalia. You make their lives hell, and the piracy comes to an end the way other cases of piracy have been brought to an end. The only other way is to seize the whole country, the way the French felt compelled, after decades that followed centuries, of enduring the Barbary Pirates, to do in 1830 with Algeria. But that, today, is not desirable nor practical. From afar, from the air, but making sure that no pirate is left to enjoy his loot, either because his loot (and what it paid for) has been destroyed, or because he has.

Tiger - Feline Equality and Diversity Co-ordinator for Infidel Enterprises: Yeah, what Hugh said. Now, where's my tuna?

An Israeli Soldier Writes To The Gazan Arab Family In Whose House He Stayed

With thanks to The New English Review:

The following letter first appeared, in Hebrew, in Maariv, and has just appeared in an English translation:

An Open Letter to A citizen Of Gaza:
I Am the Soldier Who Slept In Your Home:
By: Yishai G (reserve soldier)
ygoldflam@gmail.com


Hello,

While the world watches the ruins in Gaza, you return to your home which remains standing. However, I am sure that it is clear to you that someone was in your home while you were away.

I am that someone.

I spent long hours imagining how you would react when you walked into your home. How you would feel when you understood that IDF soldiers had slept on your mattresses and used your blankets to keep warm.

I knew that it would make you angry and sad and that you would feel this violation of the most intimate areas of your life by those defined as your enemies, with stinging humiliation. I am convinced that you hate me with unbridled hatred, and you do not have even the tiniest desire to hear what I have to say. At the same time, it is important for me to say the following in the hope that there is even the minutest chance that you will hear me.

I spent many days in your home. You and your family's presence was felt in every corner. I saw your family portraits on the wall, and I thought of my family. I saw your wife's perfume bottles on the bureau, and I thought of my wife. I saw your children's toys and their English language schoolbooks. I saw your personal computer and how you set up the modem and wireless phone next to the screen, just as I do.

I wanted you to know that despite the immense disorder you found in your house that was created during a search for explosives and tunnels (which were indeed found in other homes), we did our best to treat your possessions with respect. When I moved the computer table, I disconnected the cables and lay them down neatly on the floor, as I would do with my own computer. I even covered the computer from dust with a piece of cloth. I tried to put back the clothes that fell when we moved the closet although not the same as you would have done, but at least in such a way that nothing would get lost.

I know that the devastation, the bullet holes in your walls and the destruction of those homes near you place my descriptions in a ridiculous light. Still, I need you to understand me, us, and hope that you will channel your anger and criticism to the right places.

I decided to write you this letter specifically because I stayed in your home.

I can surmise that you are intelligent and educated and there are those in your household that are university students. Your children learn English, and you are connected to the Internet. You are not ignorant; you know what is going on around you.

Therefore, I am sure you know that Qassam rockets were launched from your neighborhood into Israeli towns and cities.

How could you see these weekly launches and not think that one day we would say "enough"?! Did you ever consider that it is perhaps wrong to launch rockets at innocent civilians trying to lead a normal life, much like you? How long did you think we would sit back without reacting?

I can hear you saying "it's not me, it's Hamas". My intuition tells me you are not their most avid supporter. If you look closely at the sad reality in which your people live, and you do not try to deceive yourself or make excuses about "occupation", you must certainly reach the conclusion that the Hamas is your real enemy.

The reality is so simple, even a seven year old can understand: Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip, removing military bases and its citizens from Gush Katif. Nonetheless, we continued to provide you with electricity, water, and goods (and this I know very well as during my reserve duty I guarded the border crossings more than once, and witnessed hundreds of trucks full of goods entering a blockade-free Gaza every day).

Despite all this, for reasons that cannot be understood and with a lack of any rational logic, Hamas launched missiles on Israeli towns. For three years we clenched our teeth and restrained ourselves. In the end, we could not take it anymore and entered the Gaza strip, into your neighborhood, in order to remove those who want to kill us. A reality that is painful but very easy to explain.

As soon as you agree with me that Hamas is your enemy and because of them, your people are miserable, you will also understand that the change must come from within. I am acutely aware of the fact that what I say is easier to write than to do, but I do not see any other way. You, who are connected to the world and concerned about your children's education, must lead, together with your friends, a civil uprising against Hamas.

I swear to you, that if the citizens of Gaza were busy paving roads, building schools, opening factories and cultural institutions instead of dwelling in self pity, arms smuggling and nurturing a hatred to your Israeli neighbors, your homes would not be in ruins right now. If your leaders were not corrupt and motivated by hatred, your home would not have been harmed.

If someone would have stood up and shouted that there is no point in launching missiles on innocent civilians, I would not have to stand in your kitchen as a soldier.

You don't have money, you tell me? You have more than you can imagine.

Even before Hamas took control of Gaza, during the time of Yasser Arafat, millions if not billions of dollars donated by the world community to the Palestinians was used for purchasing arms or taken directly to your leaders bank accounts. Gulf States, the emirates - your brothers, your flesh and blood, are some of the richest nations in the world. If there was even a small feeling of solidarity between Arab nations, if these nations had but the smallest interest in reconstructing the Palestinian people - your situation would be very different.

You must be familiar with Singapore. The land mass there is not much larger than the Gaza strip and it is considered to be the second most populated country in the world. Yet, Singapore is a successful, prospering, and well managed country. Why not the same for you?

My friend, I would like to call you by name, but I will not do so publicly. I want you to know that I am 100% at peace with what my country did, what my army did, and what I did. However, I feel your pain. I am sorry for the destruction you are finding in your neighbourhood at this moment. On a personal level, I did what I could to minimize the damage to your home as much as possible.

In my opinion, we have a lot more in common than you might imagine. I am a civilian, not a soldier, and in my private life I have nothing to do with the military. However, I have an obligation to leave my home, put on a uniform, and protect my family every time we are attacked. I have no desire to be in your home wearing a uniform again and I would be more than happy to sit with you as a guest on your beautiful balcony, drinking sweet tea seasoned with the sage growing in your garden.

The only person who could make that dream a reality is you. Take responsibility for yourself, your family, your people, and start to take control of your destiny. How? I do not know. Maybe there is something to be learned from the Jewish people who rose up from the most destructive human tragedy of the 20th century, and instead of sinking into self-pity, built a flourishing and prospering country. It is possible, and it is in your hands.

I am ready to be there to provide a shoulder of support and help to you.

But only you can move the wheels of history."

Regards,
Yishai, (Reserve Soldier)

Absurd Britannia

A foster parent who has cared for 80 children over 10 years has been struck off the council rolls for allowing a child in her care to convert from Islam to Christianity.

Here is a little gem for you from the Daily Mail - also picked up on here:-

Would any foster parent be so cruelly treated if the child in question had converted from Christianity to Islam?

The answer, obviously, is NO. Any guesses on the background of the council officials involved? (I'm guessing they weren't evangelical Anglicans.)

There are so many forces at work undermining our Judaeo-Christian heritage it is difficult to know where to begin. Here at the Freedom Loving Infidel blog we can at least make a start by reporting on the worst excesses of the abuse of power within our political establishment. Say a prayer for this lady when you have a moment.

Equality and Diversity

Apparently it is now compulsory for all businesses within the purlieu of Birmingham City Council that fall within certain criteria to have a permanent Equality and Diversity Co-Ordinator. As Managing Director of Infidel Enterprises (in my spare time of course, when not writing blog posts as Freedom Loving Infidel), I have considered it my solemn duty to select a candidate with the highest qualifications for this important position.

For several days now, I have been extensively trawling through my workforce, leaving no branch unexamined and no stone unturned in the search for the perfect candidate. After exhaustive research, I am happy to announce that after a series of intensive interviewing sessions, complete with psychological profiling and not to mention positive vetting, that Tiger (my own personal bodyguard, companion, bon viveur and also - after his latest self-empowerment class - recently promoted to Infidel Cat of the First Order) has been appointed as Feline Equality and Diversity Co-Ordinator for Infidel Enterprises.

His first task has been to write to Birmingham City Council to complain about the exclusively (and of course unacceptably) 100 per cent white nature of the snow that we have received thus far this year. He informs me that he expects a written apology in due course, complete with an Equality and Diversity action plan to deal with any unfortunate re-occurrences.

A spokesperson for Infidel Enterprises is on record as saying - "We feel sure that Tiger's appointment will usher in a new era of equality and diversity within Infidel Enterprises and shine as a beacon of light in the West Midlands for all other businesses to emulate."

Robert Spencer on Freedom of Speech

A powerful argument by the incomparable Robert Spencer on the merits of freedom of speech in the face of the Stealth Jihad currently being waged against us - here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024625.php#respond

It comprises a 30 minute speech and a 15 minute Q&A session. It might take up most of your lunch hour but it's time well spent. Don't miss it.

We Are All Geert Wilders Now

An excellent article from Jeffrey Imm - here:

A great man once warned that we "cannot sit idly by" and "not be concerned about what happens" in other places as injustice happens, equality is crushed, and liberties are threatened. He told us that: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."

That great man dared to defy an ideology of identity-based supremacism, an ideology based on denying equality to all men and women, an ideology based on the lie that some are inherently superior to others simply based on their race, religion, creed, or national origin. That great man challenged a supremacist ideology whose "ugly record of brutality is widely known," and he did not fear to name it or protest against its oppression of others. As a result, he was threatened and charged by some with actions that would "incite to hatred and violence." Those against him felt that a line had to be drawn to stop his protestations and stop his message of defiance against supremacism. That man was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a man in America, who is still celebrated today and honoured today as a courageous leader in defending equality and liberty.

But just a few days after the United States' annual honouring of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s life and courage in defying supremacism, another man in another part of the world in another era, was being charged once again with inciting hatred for defying another supremacist ideology. That man was Geert Wilders, a legislator in the Netherlands, who has dared to defy the ideology of Islamic supremacism. Mr. Wilders has challenged Islamic supremacism because of its leaders' threats against humanity, because of Islamic supremacism's goals to conquer the Earth, and because of Islamic supremacism's refusal to acknowledge the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty.

Like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not fear to recognize that this problem dealt with the identity-based supremacist ideology of "white supremacy," so Geert Wilders has also not feared to address the identity of those who would promote an Islamic supremacy. Like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. challenged whites, so Geert Wilders has challenged Islam. Defying any supremacist ideology requires the honesty to name the problem, so that humanity can find a solution. Whispering among ourselves in the dark in the face of a brutal supremacist ideology will only ensure that no one can gather the courage to light the first candle of wisdom to help humanity find the answers we desperately need.

In the case of Geert Wilders, a court was repulsed by his comments comparing Islamic supremacism's beliefs to those expressed in Hitler's Mein Kampf. That court was not repulsed by the daily calls for killing Jews by Islamic supremacists. That court was not repulsed by the anti-Semitic hate that is regularly channelled in the Islamic supremacist media. That court was not repulsed by the regular calls for the destruction of Israel by Islamic supremacists. That court was not repulsed by the references to the anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion promoted in Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf within the very charter of the Islamic supremacist Hamas organization, a group defended by protesters in the Netherlands over the past few weeks. That court was not repulsed by other Netherlands politicians defending calls for an intifada against Israel, while Amsterdam crowds called for "Jews to the gas."

Closing its eyes and plugging its ears to the reality around it, the Netherlands court extended an accusation against Geert Wilders of inciting hate for defying an Islamic supremacist ideology that is itself based on hate. Like those who charged Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. with inciting hate for defying white supremacism, no doubt they believe that if they just silence this one man - they will set an example to others causing "friction and unrest." No doubt they hope to persuade those who would defy supremacism that they need to find a more "realistic approach" and accept "forbearance" of the supremacist cause.

We have seen such tactics to silence defiance to supremacism before. We have seen them in 1963 in Alabama. We have seen them in the decades of covenants of security by nations that have harbored and tolerated Islamic supremacism around the world. We have seen them in the United Nations where Islamic supremacist groups seek to silence dissent and free speech against such supremacism. We have seen them in the halls of Congress in the United States in our present day, by those lobbying for "engagement" and "reconciliation" with Islamic supremacist organizations and leaders. Now we see them in the nation of the Netherlands by a court that seeks to turn a blind eye to the incitement of hatred throughout its nation by Islamic supremacists and instead focuses its blame on Geert Wilders, a leader of freedom who would dare defy such supremacism.

We know these tactics, and we know the frightened people behind them. We know those who would sell out their values and principles to totalitarian ideologues for the hope that they can declare "peace in our time." We know how much they dread acknowledging the reality that appeasement of supremacist ideologies will never quench the endless thirst for equality and liberty in humankind. We know how supremacists desperately cling to the lie of their superiority, for without it, they must acknowledge the harsh reality that their society is built on a hopeless delusion. We know how much the frightened people just desperately want to be left alone, and not be forced to have to face the difficult decisions that a world of mutuality must make to recognize the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty.

Most of all, we understand the frightened people, because even though we oppose their tactics, we know that they are fellow human beings, and because if our fate had been different they could have been us.

But our destiny is different and our future is based on who we are, not what we fear. Our destiny is not to live a lie of supremacism, but to embrace the truth of humanity's inalienable right of equality. Our destiny is not to depend on the whims of the merciless, but to extend our courage of equality and liberty to the hopeless and the helpless. Our destiny is not to find solace by cowering in a dark corner, but to shine a torch of truth even in the darkest night. Our destiny is not to ignore Islamic supremacism's war on equality and liberty, but to stand ready to defend these human rights.

We have not sought out conflict, but we have been challenged to prove the courage of our convictions. In the struggle of promoting equality and liberty against Islamic supremacism, we have been handed the responsibility to prove our dedication to humanity's inalienable rights. The decision over whether we will defend the principles of freedom or submit to the lie of Islamic supremacism is more than a war of ideas - it is a measure of our generation's willpower and resolve.

It is more than a debate by learned individuals referencing documents, organizations, actions, people, and history. It is more than an argument of who, what, where, and when. It is more than debating those who live in denial over the threat of Islamic supremacism, more than debating those who believe equality and liberty are merely relative values, and more than debating those who believe that humanity has no purpose or value at all.

Most of all, the fight for equality and liberty is a struggle to protect humanity's very identity in freedom, and a commitment to preserve and protect our inalienable human rights for the helpless, the hopeless, those without a voice, and for the next generation. It is a test to see if the flame of courage in our hearts will burn bright against the darkness of a supremacist ideology that seeks to envelop our civilization.

It is a challenge to see if we really believe that all men and women are created equal and that all human beings have the inalienable right of liberty, or if those are just words on a piece of paper.

It is a defining moment in history - not just for free speech, not just for a free press, not just for freedom of conscience, and not just for equality among all people.

It is a defining moment in history for determining who and what we are as a free people.

History will remember our choices. Will we stand as free men and women responsible for equality and liberty? Or will our resolve be blown away by those who can't see the gathering storm around humanity?

It is our choice, our destiny, our legacy - the outcome will define our identity.

But as for me, I say, that those who live in free lands and who cherish equality and liberty, have no real option for the survival of our society in this war of ideas. We cannot steal away quietly and hope that someone else will pick up the shield.

We must realize that we are all Geert Wilders now.

If we accept the silencing of him, then we know they will silence one of us next, and then another, and another, and another... until our defiance to Islamic supremacism and our commitment to equality and liberty is reduced to a handful of voices, then a whimper, then a whisper, and then not at all. That is a silence that we cannot accept, a defeat that we cannot stomach, a surrender we cannot live with.

This battle chose us because it knew who and what we are, the sons and daughters of free men and women who lived, fought, and died for the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty we hold so dear and that is fundamental to our identity.

It chose us because it could see within our society of freedom a light of courage that could shine around the nation and around the world - to the darkest places, to the most rejected places, and to the most hopeless places. It chose us because it knew what that light could mean to those oppressed by Islamic supremacists, what that light could mean to those who lived in fear of Islamic supremacism's brutality and terror, what that light could mean to those who had given up for a chance to have equality and liberty in their generation. It chose us because it knew we had no choice - that as free men and women responsible for equality and liberty we are compelled to defend such inalienable human rights - because we cannot accept a world, a humanity, and a future without them.

Those who would silence us, those who would threaten us, those who would terrorize us - you have no power over our commitment to the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. Your efforts to block the light of resistance by the sentinels of equality and liberty are as hopeless as trying to block the rays of the sun from reaching the very Earth itself. Your efforts to divide us, crush us, and silence us - will only strengthen our resolve and our commitment. Silence one of us and another will take his place, and another, and another, and another.

We are all Geert Wilders now.

Lord Ahmed the Nazi

An absolutely incredible story has broken out here, here and here in the blogosphere - reproduced on at least seven or eight other different sites. I have yet to receive confirmation of it in the mainstream media, but if true, it drags our parliamentary system here in the UK to rock bottom. To say nothing of the freedom of speech so precious to our liberal democracy and Judaeo-Christian civilisation.

The bottom line would appear to be that Lord Ahmed, a Labour peer, has single-handedly bullied the House of Lords into cancelling a showing of Geert Wilders' short film "Fitna", accompanied by a speech from Geert Wilders himself and a subsequent discussion in the House of Lords, with the threat of some ten-thousand-strong Muslim "rent-a-mob" thugs to besiege the Houses of Parliament.

Lord Ahmed, if this is true, you are a disgrace. We simply don't do things like this in England. This is precisely why we have freedom of speech laws, to protect us from unprincipled fascists like yourself. If you had a shred of integrity, you would resign immediately. I won't hold my breath, though.

On an unrelated note, I am sure I am not the only person to wonder why you are not already in prison after pleading guilty to the dangerous driving charge that resulted in the death of an innocent motorist. Text messaging in the fast lane of a motorway. You really are a nasty piece of work, aren't you? I guess it goes to show that it's not what you know, it's who you know.

More on Lord Ahmed here:

2009: A Year to Defend Free Speech - Or Lose It

More on the persecution of Geert Wilders, and its wider ramifications here:

Aisha and Nawal

Well, never let it be said that as Freedom Loving Infidels (TM) here at Infidel Towers (TM) we don't appreciate a little light-hearted humour - :)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Dyujx4t2fYQ

Straight out of Monty Python. I'd cry if it wasn't so funny. And so true.

The Persecution of Geert Wilders

The Dutch parliamentarian, Geert Wilders, is perhaps the only politician in Europe today who has the guts to speak up concerning the threat of Islam to our Judaeo-Christian Western civilisation. Now he is facing prosecution merely for speaking the truth, because the speaking of truth "hurts the feelings of" and "incites hatred towards" - yup, you guessed it - Muslims.

This is going to be a pivotal moment in European history and for the Western world. If criticism of Islam is to be outlawed, our ability to defend our civilisation against Islam will vanish. Only through honest, frank and open discussion, and the dissection and critical analysis of the Islamic texts, can we expose exactly what the totalitarian, supremacist agenda of Islam means for all decent and civilised people.

Extensive discussion of this case is taking place on many of the blogs listed on the right-hand side of this page. One of my favourites is Pat Condell speaking here:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EJKRF2uB8xU

Don't miss it.

Enough of Radical Islam Already

In the absence of any meaningful reporting in the mainstream media (MSM) concerning the threat that Islam poses to our civilisation, the ability to search the Internet has never been more important and more necessary. A relatively new writer here encapsulates what all Freedom Loving Infidels (TM) have been saying for years.

---------------------------------------------------

Enough with the pseudonyms. Western civilization isn't at war with terrorism any more than it is at war with grenades. Western civilization is at war with militant Islam, which dominates Muslim communities all over the world. Militant Islam isn't a tiny minority of otherwise goodhearted Muslims. It's a dominant strain of evil that runs rampant in a population of well over 1 billion.

Enough with the psychoanalysis. They don't hate us because of Israel. They don't hate us because of Kashmir. They don't hate us because we have troops in Saudi Arabia or because we deposed Saddam Hussein. They don't hate us because of Britney Spears. They hate us because we are infidels, and because we don't plan on surrendering or providing them material aid in their war of aggressive expansion.

Enough with the niceties. We don't lose our souls when we treat our enemies as enemies. We don't undermine our principles when we post more police officers in vulnerable areas, or when we send Marines to kill bad guys, or when we torture terrorists for information. And we don't redeem ourselves when we close Guantanamo Bay or try terrorists in civilian courts or censor anti-Islam comics. When it comes to war, extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Enough with the words. Talking with Iran without wielding the threat of force, either economic or military, won't help. Appealing to the United Nations, run by thugs and dictators ranging from Putin to Chavez to Ahmadinejad, is an exercise in pathetic futility. Evil countries don't suddenly decide to abandon their evil goals — they are forced to do so by pressure and circumstance.

Enough with the faux allies. We don't gain anything by pretending that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are true allies. They aren't. At best, they are playing both sides of the table. We ought to be drilling now in order to break OPEC. Building windmills isn't going to cut it. We should also be backing India to the hilt in its current conflict with Pakistan — unless Pakistan can destroy its terrorist element, India should be given full leeway to do what it needs to do. Russia and China, meanwhile, are facilitating anti-Western terrorism. Treating them as friends in this global war is simply begging for a backstabbing.

Enough with the myths.

Not everyone on earth is crying out for freedom. There are plenty of people who are happy in their misery, believing that their suffering is part and parcel of a correct religious system. Those people direct their anger outward, targeting unbelievers. We cannot simply knock off dictators and expect indoctrinated populations to rise to the liberal democratic challenge. The election of Hamas in the Gaza Strip is more a rule than an exception in the Islamic world.

Enough with the lies. Stop telling us that Islam is a religion of peace. If it is, prove it through action. Stop telling us that President-elect Barack Obama will fix our broken relationship with the Muslim world. They hate Obama just as much as they hated President George W. Bush, although they think Obama is more of a patsy than Bush was. Stop telling us that we shouldn't worry about the Islamic infiltration of our economy. If the Saudis own a large chunk of our banking institutions and control the oil market, they can certainly leverage their influence in dangerous ways.

Enough. After the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the plane downed in Pennsylvania, the endless suicide bombings, shootings and rocket attacks in Israel, the Bali bombings, the synagogue bombing in Tunisia, the LAX shootings, the Kenyan hotel bombing, the Casablanca attacks, the Turkey synagogue attacks, the Madrid bombings, the London bombings, and the repeated attacks in India culminating in the Mumbai massacres — among literally thousands of others — it's about time that the West got the point: we're in a war. Our enemies are determined. They will not quit just because we offer them Big Macs, Christina Aguilera CDs, or even the freedom to vote. They will not quit just because we ensure that they have Korans in their Guantanamo cells, or because we offer to ban “The Satanic Verses” (as India did). They will only quit when they are dead. It is our job to make them so, and to eliminate every obstacle to their destruction.

So enough. No more empty talk. No more idle promises. No more happy ignorance, half measures, or appeasement-minded platitudes. The time for hard-nosed, uncompromising action hasn't merely come — it's been overdue by seven years. The voice of our brothers' blood cries out from the ground.

----------------------------------------------------

Those Who Ignore History Are Condemned To Repeat It

From an American History student (and bearing in mind that what happens in America is likely to be repeated here in spades):-

-------------------------------------------------------

I am a student of history. Professionally. I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied it all my life. I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.

Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten - fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.

We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?

We learn just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has “loaned” two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the 700B we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of “we the people,” who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not.

We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why?

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?). We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is medicare and our entire government, our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about)–the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x ten. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.

And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska. All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more important.)

Mr. Obama’s winning platform can be boiled down to one word: change. Why?

I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.

This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.

And that is only the beginning.

And I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his “brown shirts” would bully them into submission. And then, he was duly elected to office, a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world.
He did it with a compliant media–did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and . . . change. And the people surely got what they voted for.
(Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.)

Read your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though.

Don’t forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years–a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency–it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me.

Some people scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe–and why I believe it.

I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am.

---------------------------------------------

There is a storm coming.

Thanks be to (the Judaeo-Christian) civilisation that I have been brought up in, I have lived all of my life to date insulated from the effects of such a storm. But my children and grandchildren, and your children and grandchildren, will not have that luxury. The least that we can do is forewarn them.

Learn about Islam. Tell them about Islam at every opportunity. Make it a priority for them to learn about Islam. Don't learn about it from Muslims, who will gloss over the unpleasant, inconvenient facts. Rather, learn about it from the likes of Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald, Andrew Bostom, Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Brigitte Gabriel, Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders, Ali Sina, all of whom have published extensively in books and on the Internet.

Recognise the necessity of criticising Islam, of having an honest, rational and dispassionate discussion on the subject of Islam. To do so is not racist, bigoted or Islamophobic. After all, Islam is not a race. There is no such thing as Islamophobia. It is not irrational to be concerned about the deleterious effects that Islam is having on our society. And to discuss Islam dispassionately, with the dissecting tools that Western philosophy has granted to us, is not bigoted. It is a necessity, without which our civilisation might well fall.

The truth is out there. The best antidote to Islam is exposure to the light of truth - all we have to do is to resist the politically-correct multiculturalists who would curtail our freedoms and have us believe that Islam is simply a religion of peace.

So do it - and do it now. You owe it to future generations. And if you think that I am exaggerating, you only have to look at the history of Islam over the past 1400 years, and the fate of those civilisations that encountered it. There is no compromising with Islam. There is no bargaining with Islam. Left to its own devices, it simply will not stop - until we are all either converted, subjugated, or killed. Is that what we want? Because that's what we will get if we don't act now.

Eyeless in Gaza

Over the past three weeks, I have been struck by the tendency of presenters in the mainstream media, and in particular the BBC, to implicate Israel in perpetrating a “disproportionate assault” that underlies the current humanitarian disaster in Gaza. While these doubtlessly well-intended individuals seek the moral high ground in calling for “an immediate cessation of hostilities,” they unfortunately ignore the realities of the situation. I would be remiss if I did not attempt to provide a clearer picture of the reality in Gaza, as the invocation of an alleged “moral voice” in the face of a complex political situation without a full understanding of the facts is irresponsible and unprofessional.

A brief chronology of the latest saga of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is crucial to a proper appreciation of the issues involved in the current war. In August 2005, after five years of fighting in the Second Intifada with no resolution in sight, Israel unilaterally withdrew all of its soldiers and citizens from the Gaza strip in hopes of fostering a lasting peace. Since the Israeli withdrawal, however, Hamas, an internationally recognized terrorist organization funded by Iran, has fired over 6,000 deadly rockets from Gaza targeting Israeli civilians. It is against these war crimes, the indiscriminate targeting of innocent civilians, that the Israeli military has been forced to respond.

As President-elect Obama asserted in a campaign visit to Israel in July 2008, "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing." After years of restraint and after exhausting all diplomatic avenues, it is this very principle of defending its civilians, one of the foundational tenets of a democratic nation, which has driven Israel to take up arms against Hamas.

There is no question that the loss of Palestinian life in Gaza is terribly tragic and that every effort should be made to avoid civilian casualties and to provide medical aid and supplies to those suffering. While no party is blameless for the tragic Palestinian death toll, the stark contrast between Israel's and Hamas' treatment of the people in Gaza must be unequivocally asserted.

Israel's defense of its own citizens has gone hand in hand with extraordinary efforts to protect the civilians of Gaza. Israel distributes leaflets, sends voicemails and text messages, and uses radio and TV announcements to warn Gazan civilians to clear areas of imminent attacks. Israel seeks to minimize civilian casualties through surgical strikes on military objectives, and frequently aborts key missions due to concerns for civilian casualties. Moreover, since the beginning of the war, Israel has transported thousands of pounds of food and medical supplies to ease the Gazans’ plight.

Unfortunately, Israel's efforts to minimize harm to the civilians of Gaza have been confounded by Hamas which consistently places civilians in the line of fire. Hamas, in clear violation of international law, gathers women and children around military targets to use them as human shields. This terrorist regime endangers the people of Gaza by using civilian homes, schools, mosques and hospitals as launching grounds for rockets fired at Israeli civilians and prides itself on the number of its own people martyred to the destruction of Israel. It preys on the moral conscience of the democratic world, which places a premium on innocent lives, knowing that Israel seeks to avoid killing the very same Palestinian civilians whom Hamas militants hide behind and deem dispensable. It is these abominable tactics of Hamas that leads to the "disproportionate" number of Palestinian civilian casualties and which should evoke international condemnation and outrage.

Obviously there are hardships and painful losses incurred by both sides of this conflict, but simplistic solutions based on distorted facts are not the answer. Blind calls for an “immediate cessation of hostilities” outside the context of a viable and sustainable security are short-sighted. While this may seem to be an attractive and “humanitarian” solution in the short term, it will not alleviate the plight of Palestinians who suffer under the policies of the Hamas regime nor bring safety to the civilians of Israel who currently live in terror of Hamas rockets.

Every decent, civilized person on the planet should rightly be pained by the death and suffering of innocent people wherever they may be. Nevertheless, espousing moral indignation in the face of a skewed and one-sided picture of an immensely complex situation simply delays finding appropriate solutions. How can presenters in the mainstream media, especially the BBC, whilst calling for humanitarian and civilian protection, point to Israel’s “brutal attacks” while ignoring the countless Israeli efforts to protect Gazan civilians? Why is it deemed irrelevant to mention the significant role of Hamas in the number of Gazan civilian deaths? How can they attempt to value the lives and security of one people over the lives and security of another, and to express solidarity with some innocents while ignoring others?

Personally, I hope for a speedy and viable resolution so that both Gazans and Israelis can live in peace and safety, but the onus is on Hamas to cease its daily rocket attacks into Israel. I’m not holding my breath, though.

A German's View of Islam

I was recently sent this by a very good friend of mine (you know who you are!) and although I had seen it before on a number of websites, it bears repeating. If you want to do your bit in the war against the Global Islamic Jihad (not quite as catchy as the "War on Terror" I know, but far more accurate and to the point) please forward it to as many people as you can.

................................

A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

"Very few people were true Nazis 'he said,' but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

"We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history."

"It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the 'peaceful majority', the 'silent majority', is cowed and extraneous."

"Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people."

"The average Japanese individual prior to World War ll was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilian s; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet."

"And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?"

Just to put this into perspective, 1400 years of the so-called "Religion of Peace" so far has led to the deaths of over 270 million people worldwide at the hands of Muslims who were happy to kill non-Muslims in the name of Islam and for the glory of Allah. And it's not nearly over yet.

"History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun."

"Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghan is, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late."

"As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life."

"Lastly, at the risk of offending, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems of expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world wide, read this - think about it - and send it on."

...........................................

I would end by saying only that our ancestors, yours and mine, shed blood, sweat and tears to bequeath us the Western Judaeo-Christian civilisation that we have today. It may not be perfect, but it is undoubtedly better than anything that has gone before, and infinitely preferable to the nightmare that would descend upon us should Islam and Shari'ah ever come to predominate. But our civilisation, with all its drive, innovation and sophistication, is infinitely fragile, and therefore needs the defence of all decent, civilised human beings to protect it in these difficult times. This is not just our civilisation. We will bequeath it in turn to our children, our grandchildren and all future generations. They don't know it yet, but they are depending on us. What will you say to them when they ask you - "Grandad, why didn't you do more to stop the Global Islamic Jihad in the war?"