Thursday, April 30, 2009

I'm With Geert Wilders

Rusty at the Jawa Report has analyzed Geert Wilders' recent speech and concludes that Wilders has "fascist tendencies." Wilders has recommended a ban on further Muslim immigration and has called for the banning of Islamic schools and mosques and the Qur'an.

Rusty, on the other hand, argues that we should welcome liberal Muslims as immigrants into the United States and that we should not ban the building of mosques in the west, nor should we ban the Qur'an -- even though he admits it is as hateful as "Mein Kampf" or more so.

I am going on the public record that we should ban the immigration of Muslims into the U.S. and that Europeans should do the same for Europe. Islam is not a "religion" in the ordinary sense of the word; it is a totalitarian ideology that is based on irrational Jew hatred and holds as its central religious precept the conquest and forced conversion of all the world. What possible good could more Muslim immigration accomplish? Not much. Many Muslims see immigration into the west as a form of "stealth jihad," the name of Robert Spencer's book on the subject. They do not come to assimilate, they come to undermine, to infiltrate and ultimately, to replace our otherwise pluralistic democracy with sharia -- the harsh Muslim law that requires stoning of adulterers and the amputation of limbs from thieves, as well as capital punishment for apostates and gays.

In other words, I agree with Geert Wilders. Calling his recommendations "fascist" is incredibly dumb, and I am used to better thinking out of Rusty. It isn't "fascism" to oppose the Islamization of the west; it is simply a strategy of national and cultural survival. Or as a recent blog ad humorously suggested: it isn't Islamophobia when they really are trying to kill you.

Not all Muslims are violent, but violence is central to their religion. Not all Muslims are violent, but certainly a lot of them are and some of their future offspring will be as well. The Muslim terrorists who committed the atrocity in England a couple of years back are a good illustration of this fact. Geert Wilders has to be constantly accompanied by bodyguards because of the many Muslim threats to murder him. In France Muslims have taken over entire neighborhoods that have become "no go zones" even for the police; in England the Muslim communities are unassimilable and hostile to the culture of the host country.
Oh yes, we need more of these people. More of them to commit honor killings of their daughters, to beat their wives, and genitally mutilate young girls.

Many Muslims are not violent, but many of them protect and support those who are. I don't want them here. However, the Qur'an can stay, as long as there are few Muslims to read it and carry out its violent commandments. The practices and beliefs of Muslims are well established after 14 centuries and it is naive to believe that they will be abandoned by all Muslims when they become U.S. citizens.

The argument that any "religion" or culture should be welcome in the United States is sophomoric. Would Rusty apply the same standard to cannibals? Head hunters? How about Aztecs (or other cultures) who want to practice human sacrifice?

Somewhere "tolerance" has to draw the line.

No comments: