The Politics Thread...
didn't have anywhere to park this, so started a new thread :)
hey AV, you might very well see your dream come true....
"The Chance for a New World Order:"
"That opportunity involves a seeming contradiction. On one level, the financial collapse represents a major blow to the standing of the United States. While American political judgments have often proved controversial, the American prescription for a world financial order has generally been unchallenged. Now disillusionment with the United States' management of it is widespread."
"At the same time, the magnitude of the debacle makes it impossible for the rest of the world to shelter any longer behind American predominance or American failings."
"Every country will have to reassess its own contribution to the prevailing crisis. Each will seek to make itself independent, to the greatest possible degree, of the conditions that produced the collapse; at the same time, each will be obliged to face the reality that its dilemmas can be mastered only by common action." "Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being. It will fragment disastrously if the various priorities cannot be reconciled."but in apparent contradiction, Obama from his inauguration speech:
"Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents."interesting times for sure...
this is a good read, even if you don't like the authors... worth thinking about
The Obama Presidency: Here Comes Socialism
Thanks. In the first post, I fail to see "apparent contradiction". They are 2 different types of statements, and not mutually exclusive.
I began the second post with humor - prepared to probably disagree overall, but see some of the points. However, I have not finished reading it yet - I have to cool down first, because the hubris of these people, not conjecturing about what might be, but stating as fact, what "will be", just made me start to steam. So I'll be back later, after a nice cup of "Relax" tea, and a bit of chanting and meditation..... grrrrrr...
I guess my point in post 1 - Obama: "America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents." is that the ideals of our forebears was not a new world order. But still Kissinger - a known one-world architect who has had his nose in several administrations - says some interesting things. If Obama believes in remaining faithful to our forebears, will he capitulate out of percieved necessity to the one world vision?
A Very Real New World Order
by Chuck Baldwin
January 27, 2009
It is hard to believe, but a majority of Americans (including Christians and conservatives) seem oblivious to the fact that there is a very real, very legitimate New World Order (NWO) unfolding. In the face of overwhelming evidence, most Americans not only seem totally unaware of this reality, they seem unwilling to even remotely entertain the notion.
On one hand, it is understandable that so many Americans would be ignorant of the emerging New World Order. After all, the mainstream media refuses to report, or even acknowledge, the NWO. Even "conservative" commentators and talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or Joe Scarborough refuse to discuss it. And when listeners call these respective programs, these "conservative" hosts usually resort to insulting the caller as being some kind of "conspiracy kook." One host even railed that if anyone questions the government line on 9/11, we should "lock them up and throw away the key." So much for freedom of speech!
This is an area--perhaps the central area--where liberals and conservatives agree: they both show no patience or tolerance for anyone who believes that global government (in any form) is evolving. One has to wonder how otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people can be so brain dead when it comes to this issue. It makes one wonder who is really pulling their strings, doesn't it?
The list of notable personalities who have openly referenced or called for some kind of global government or New World Order is extremely lengthy. Are all these people "kooks" or "conspiracy nuts"? Why would world leaders--including presidents, secretaries of state, and high government officials; including the media, financial, and political elite--constantly refer to something that doesn't exist? Why would they write about, talk about, or openly promote a New World Order, if there is no such thing?
Many of us recall President George Herbert Walker Bush talking much about an emerging New World Order. For example, in 1989, Bush told the students of Texas A&M University, "Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations."
Later, Bush, Sr. said, "We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order . . .. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders."
Bush, Sr. also said, "What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea--a new world order."
Bush, Sr. further said, "The world can therefore seize the opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a new world order . . ."
What was President G.H.W. Bush talking about, if there is no such thing as an emerging New World Order? Was he talking out of his mind? Was he hallucinating?
England's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said, "We are all internationalists now, whether we like it or not." He continued saying, "On the eve of a new Millennium we are now in a new world. We need new rules for international co-operation and new ways of organizing our international institutions." He also said, "Today the impulse towards interdependence is immeasurably greater. We are witnessing the beginnings of a new doctrine of international community."
In 1999, Tony Blair said, "Globalization has transformed our economies and our working practices. But globalism is not just economic. It is also a political and security phenomenon."
What is Tony Blair talking about, if there is no emerging New World Order? What does he mean by "a new doctrine of international community"? What does he mean by "new world"? How can one have globalism, which includes "a political and security phenomenon," without creating a New World Order? Is Tony Blair hallucinating?
Likewise, former President George W. Bush penned his signature to the Declaration of Quebec back on April 22, 2001, in which he gave a "commitment to hemispheric integration and national and collective responsibility for improving the economic well-being and security of our people."
By "our people," Bush meant the people of the Western Hemisphere, not the people of the United States. Phyllis Schlafly rightly reminded us that G.W. Bush "pledged that the United States will 'build a hemispheric family on the basis of a more just and democratic international order.'"
Remember, too, that it was G.W. Bush who, back in 2005, committed the United States to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which is nothing more than a precursor to the North American Community or Union, as outlined in CFR member Robert Pastor's manual, "Toward a North American Community."
If there is no such thing as an emerging New World Order, what was G.W. Bush talking about when he referred to "a hemispheric family" and an "international order"?
The public statements of notable world leaders regarding an emerging New World Order are copious. Consider the statements of former CBS newsman, Walter Cronkite.
In his book, "A Reporter's Life," Walter Cronkite said, "A system of world order--preferably a system of world government--is mandatory. The proud nations someday will see the light and, for the common good and their own survival, yield up their precious sovereignty . . ." Cronkite told BBC newsman Tim Sebastian, "I think we are realizing that we are going to have to have an international rule of law." He added, "We need not only an executive to make international law, but we need the military forces to enforce that law." Cronkite also said, "American people are going to begin to realize that perhaps they are going to have to yield some sovereignty to an international body to enforce world law."
If there is no emerging New World Order, what is Walter Cronkite talking about? Can there be any doubt that Cronkite is talking about global government? Absolutely not!
Now, when Bush, Sr. talks about fulfilling "the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders," he was talking about the same thing former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali was talking about when he said, "The time for absolute and exclusive sovereignty . . . has passed."
The United Nations has been on the forefront of promoting the New World Order agenda since its very inception. In 1995, the UN released a manual entitled, "Our Global Neighborhood." It states, "Population, consumption, technology, development, and the environment are linked in complex relationships that bear closely on human welfare in the global neighborhood. Their effective and equitable management calls for a systematic, long-term, global approach guided by the principle of sustainable development, which has been the central lesson from the mounting ecological dangers of recent times. Its universal application is a priority among the tasks of global governance."
If there is no emerging New World Order, what is "global governance" all about?
"Who are the movers and shakers promoting global government?" you ask. Obviously, it is the international bankers who are the heavyweights behind the push for global government. Remember, one cannot create a "global economy" without a global government to manage, oversee, and control it.
In a letter written to Colonel E. Mandell House, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."
"Old Hickory" did his best to rid the United States from the death grip that the international bankers were beginning to exert on this country. He may have been the last President to actually oppose the bankers. In discussing the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of bankers in 1832, Jackson said, "Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out."
Unfortunately, the international bankers proved themselves to be too formidable for President Jackson. And in 1913, with the collaboration of President Woodrow Wilson, the bankers were given charge over America's financial system by the creation of the Federal Reserve.
Ever since the CFR and Trilateral Commission were created, they have filled the key leadership positions of government, big media, and of course, the Federal Reserve.
In his book, "With No Apologies," former Republican Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater wrote, "The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power-- political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future." Was Goldwater a prophet or what?
And again, the goals of the global elite have been publicly stated. Back in 1991, the founder of the CFR, David Rockefeller praised the major media for their complicity in helping to facilitate the globalist agenda by saying, "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
How could Rockefeller be any plainer? He acknowledged the willful assistance of the major media in helping to keep the elitists' agenda of global government from the American people. To this day, the major media has not deviated from that collaboration. And this includes the aforementioned "conservative" talking heads. They know if they want to keep their jobs, they dare not reveal the New World Order. The NWO, more than anything else, is the "Third Rail" to the national media.
Is it any wonder that President Barack Obama has stacked his government with numerous members of the CFR? Among these are Robert Gates, Janet Napolitano, Eric Shinseki, Timothy Geithner, and Tom Daschle. Other CFR members include CFR President Richard Haass, CFR Director Richard Holbrooke, and founding member of the Trilateral Commission and CFR member Paul Volcker. Obama even asked a CFR member, Rick Warren, to deliver the inaugural prayer.
Still not convinced? Just a few days ago, when asked by a reporter what he thought the most important thing was that Barack Obama could accomplish, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said, "I think his task will be develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a New World Order can be created. It's a great opportunity; it isn't just a crisis."
This is the same Henry Kissinger, you will recall, who said back in 1991, "Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were [sic] an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."
Even Gideon Rachman, the chief foreign affairs commentator for the Financial Times, wrote an editorial expressing his support for world government. In his column he said, "I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. . . . But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.
"A 'world government' would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.
"So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might."
Rachman then goes on to explain the reasons why he believes world government is plausible.
Do you now see why it does not matter to a tinker's dam whether it is a Republican or Democrat who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? For the most part, both major parties in Washington, D.C., have been under the dominating influence of the international bankers who control the Federal Reserve, the CFR, and the Trilateral Commission. And this is also why it does not matter whether one calls himself conservative or liberal. For the most part, both conservatives and liberals in Washington, D.C., are facilitating the emerging New World Order. It is time we wake up to this reality.
Presidents Bush, Sr., Bill Clinton, and Bush, Jr. have thoroughly set the table for the implementation of the NWO, as surely as the sun rises in the east. All Obama has to do is put the food on the table--and you can count on this: Barack Obama will serve up a New World Order feast like you cannot believe!
That a New World Order is emerging is not in question. The only question is, What will freedom-loving Americans do about it? Of course, the first thing they have to do is admit that an emerging New World Order exists! Until conservatives, Christians, pastors, constitutionalists, and others who care about a sovereign, independent United States acknowledge the reality of an emerging New World Order, they will be incapable of opposing it. And right now, that is exactly what they are not doing.
By the way - Obama was the 43rd man to be sworn in as president. Grover Cleveland was sworn in as the 22nd and the 24th president.
hee he he... "The program focuses on religious re-education for young men..." And the US might model a program after it? Now, just what will that look like - the big R word and all that? Now step back a second.... just what would the headlines be in the US were a proposal for criminal rehab to be, for example, fundamental Christian re-education? Now that would be fun to watch..
'Jihadi rehab' possibility for post-Gitmo - CNN.com
Chloesdad- great article:thumbsup:
Im a bit hesitant to join in this without Krattys final word on the social group but I will make one brief comment - and later go back and read all of that (whew).
My "wish" DR is the same as that of Christ - The Kingdom of Heaven where the lion will lay down with the lamb - our swords will be beaten into ploughshares - there will be no Jew, Gentile or anything other than Christ in all and all in Christ.
^^^This smacks of a NWO, lol - now THAT is a conspiracy.
Now the huge dilemma here is whether to interpret Revelation literally (whatever that means - it is so incredibly cryptic and able to be twisted into saying many different things to many different generations..[hmmmm.. which it has]), or to put it in its proper cultural and historical context and recognize it as Jewish apocalyptic literature.
With that said, there is this fascinating disdain for any notion of world unity within the Christian evangelical community. Is this Christ like?
Is it possible that - using an evangelical concept here - the Church is being deceived into not recognizing that the Kingdom of Heaven is going to come about by the steady and progressive spiritual evolution of the entire world - a true working of the Holy Spirit that will culminate in a peaceful and pure society that has put aside its swords and healed from its horrific past - mutually recognizing the ONE God, Yahweh, Allah, Christ, Etc?
Is it possible that this interpretation of Revelation is another manifestation of "many will come in my name and say that I am He" - and that this message is evil in sheep's clothing?
I accuse the church of planting seeds of distrust in a world unification and I resent the implication that a NWO is something bad.
Whats more, IF THE EVANGELICAL INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT, then GET EXCITED for "your redemption draweth nigh"!!! Shut up and help the process along.
If you do that, then either way, you will be right.
ChloesDad - Thanks for an interesting read. Our take on this notion is somewhat different, but the outcome appears much the same. We feel that the "new world order" has been well under way since the Industrial Revolution, and the birth of the super-wealthy class of robber barons, magnates and tycoons. It is alive and well today, and is a "family" and class unto itself.
Since it consists of families from many nations, and since they are all mutual supporters and friendly rivals in the mighty chess game, we essentially already have our "World Order" - it is, as everything has become, all based on money, with money being power and influence. The Bushes have been a part of this global cartel since Prescott Bush. They are good friends with the Saudis and the bin Ladens.
At their level, it is all tidy, because they have foot-soldiers to do all the dirty work, and drones to clean up. The political portion of it - there's no big rush - by keeping countries chauvenistic and isolationistic, they divert attention from the fact that we are being dumbed down and sumblimated, and eventually we will all become serfs to the global lords. It is a scary prospect, totally unlike the happy and inter-active, mutually supportive "World Community" many of us hoped for in the 60's and 70's, reading On Walden's Pond and other delightful fairytales.
What we really need from a world union is population control, resource management, support of renewable resources, climate and pollution management, etc. But until there is an awakening in people, realizing that we are being totally manipulated by money mongers, and the only way to change the power balance in the world is to "Think Globally, Act Locally" - family farms, green energy, local jobs, etc., I fear we have evolved as merely pawns. Shades of The Time Machine, Eloi and Morlocks.
I'm probably ridiculously pie-eyed, but I am hoping all the enthusiasm for this election, all the "Hope" and "Change" chants don't die back, and that people really do take more interest in what's going on, and demand some accountability from there government for a change. People are not supposed to be sheep. And religion should NOT be used to mesmerize people, and herd them whichever way suits a sect. It is supposed to uplift, enlighten and teach. You can't be enlightened if you are encouraged not to think for yourself, but merely follow dogma.
here's a good one...
"There were 1.5 million people at the inauguration and only 14 missed work."
No-one has to "go"... if people have fewer children, it will happen naturally over time. I am not an advocate of the Chinese mandate, 1 child per couple only. However, in that model, each generation would halve, until population was more in line with the natural resource availability.
Here is an update from Kratty on the progress:
I spent the last few days going over the vBulletin site to get information about the social group and I found that right now, its very limited of what we can do with it. They never put much into it to begin with, and not very thought out. No real documentation I can find. As far as adding those interface options, they say they might implement those features, you requested, in version 4.0 of vBulletin, so we don't have that option with our current version. So the thanks button is not possible at this time and until I get access to the templates, i won't know if I can make it work more like the public forum.
I did enable the use of standard BBcode features though, so you can try using the tags for the standard items, but it will be a manual thing and not like the buttons we are used to using. I also upped the character count to 5,000 characters, so let me know it this works out.
My suspicions were correct on my access to do changes. I need to have Super Admin right to be able to access the templates for more modifications, but I do not have that ability right now. I have requested to TD to get me those rights and he told me he would, but I have not received that yet. Not sure when I will get them.
Not the news you wanted to hear, but this is what I was able to figure out so far.
Im up to my eyeballs in school the last two days - 3 tests and a paper due today - and Im in class for 13 hours on Thurs...uggh.
See you all tomorrow (or if I get bored in my lab [probably] from 7:30-10:30 tonight, Ill log in on my laptop, lol.)
today on Clipclop's "Double Standard" watch :
Flash back to GWB trying to open a door that wasnt a door... endless media play... this guy is so stupid he cant figure out how to open a door.
Obama tries to go through a window in the White House and I only heard about it on one news source. Nice.
Bush gets crap for working from Crawford... Obamas new schedule doesnt show him arriving to work until 9am... two hours later the GWB was always in.
That is all ;)
Just received this in an e-mail. What is your opinion of it?
THE ISLAMIZATION OF EUROPE
Written by Geert Wilders
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
[You may have seen news stories, such as on Fox News, about the Dutch member of parliament, Geert Wilders, being prosecuted in Dutch courts for "insulting Islam." Recently, Mr. Wilders delivered this speech in New York. After reading it, you may watch his 15-minute film Fitna. Geert Wilders is a hero of Western Civilization, and he may go to jail for it. ]
I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West.
The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.
The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Rome's ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.
But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see - and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Moslem mass-migration.
All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Moslem neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well.
It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity.
These are Moslem ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Moslem neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.
There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region.
Many European cities are already one-quarter Moslem: just take Amsterdam, Marseille, and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities over 50% of the under-18 population is Moslem.
Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Moslem neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal (Moslem kosher) food to all pupils.
In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Moslems. Non-Moslem women routinely hear "whore, whore." Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in their country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Moslems, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin.
The history of the Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Moslem sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Moslems in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan.
I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.
A total of fifty-four million Moslems now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Moslem just 12 years from now. [Note: There are some 2.7 million Moslems in the US or less than 1%; the US and Western Europe - which is what Mr. Wilders is talking about, not Eastern Europe - have a comparable population size of 300 million.]
Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Moslem-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Moslems see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Moslems do not object to suicide attacks.
The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Moslem students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Moslems admit they "understand" the 9/11 attacks. Moslems demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up.
In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Moslem holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Moslem majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.
Moslem demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus.
Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Moslem intifada. I call the perpetrators "settlers." Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.
Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Moslems, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Moslems are now a swing vote not to be ignored.
Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself.
Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Koran. The Koran is Allah's personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet.
This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Koran is Allah's word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Moslem and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam.
Sure, there are a lot of moderate Moslems. But a moderate Islam is non-existent. The Koran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Koran calls for Moslems to kill non-Moslems, to terrorize non-Moslems and to fulfill their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Moslem, Islam is to rule the world - by the sword. The Koran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.
The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Moslems and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem.
But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, and a pedophile. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves.
Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side.
[Note: Doesn't this sound exactly like the morality of Communism? See Marx and Mohammed.]
Koran as Allah's own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a hereafter, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology.
It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia.
If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies. This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe.
Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam "the most retrograde force in the world," and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Koran: Mein Kampf, he said, is "the new Koran of faith and war."
Which brings me to my movie, Fitna.
I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Koran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.
Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there was a political storm, with government leaders, across the continent in sheer panic . The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Moslem population.
The Dutch branch of the Islamic organization Hizbut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack. Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie.
In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out.
A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of Fitna.
It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Moslem immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties.
Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.
This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europe's history, our elites are supposed to lead us. To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To honor our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level.
Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in what President Reagan so aptly called: "the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom."
If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment.
Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Moslems as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity.
I don't think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries. Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls.
The same is true of all similarly-minded parties in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time. Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences.
It may be the start of something big. Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe's last chance. It is called the Alliance of European Patriots.
This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose Jihad and Islamization. This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks to its location, it is safe from jihad and sharia.
But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger, an even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing.
The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.
Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives.
All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe's children in the same state in which it was offered to us.
We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so. This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have e seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before.
And yet, then, freedom prevailed. These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1941:
"Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."
I hadn't seen this specifically, though I've similar reports on talk radio, etc. I suppose in the inevitable one world vision to save humanity from itself, we should embrace demographic certainties like this, afterall we are all humans sharing this planet (it takes a village) and we are after the same things, right? [some sarcasm intended] Oh, and I might add, all they or anyone really needs, afterall, is a big liberal we love you hug! ;)
Here's another really interesting article:
Relax: There Will Be No Depression
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:38 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
@2005 - 2008 DobermanTalk.com