The heart of this book seems to be Part Two, an extended refutation of the lie that the chaos we see "has nothing to do with Islam." The 13 lies are:President Barack Obama is the most prominent liar, as he said in a 2009 prepared speech:
#1-Islam is a religion of peace ...
#2-Islam is not much different than Christianity or Judaism
#3-Jihad is a peaceful, internal struggle ...
#4-Muslims don't actually seek to live under sharia ...
#5-America is safe from sharia law
#6-The caliphate is a fanciful dream
#7-Islam is tolerant toward non-Muslims
#8-Addressing frustration, poverty, and joblessness ...
#9-Critics of Islam are bigots
#10-Islam respects the rights of women
#11-Iran can be trusted with a nuclear weapon
#12-The Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate, mainstream Islamic group
#13-Islam respects freedom of speech
Mr Beck clearly explains what is wrong with each statement, with plenty of examples.
So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.Only Moslems believe that Islam was "revealed". There is no "partnership between America and Islam". Most stereotypes are true, according to social science research. It is not the responsibility of the President to defend Islam, and certainly not to argue against true stereotypes.
Here is more evidence about Obama's religion.
The review also says:
4: Reestablishing the CaliphateI do wonder whether the West has the will to stand up to Mohammedan aggression.
According to a book published in 2005, September 11th, 2001 was one of the first steps in al-Qaeda's twenty-year plan to bring about the apocalypse:
I: The Muslim Awakening (2000-2003), provoking the West
II: Opening Eyes (2003-2006), recruitment to the cause
III: Arising and Standing Up (2007-2010), expanding the fight to Syria and other places
IV: Collapse (2010-2013), the collapse of western-style regimes in the Arab world
V: Caliphate (2013-2016), the reestablishment and gradual growth of the Caliphate
VI: Total Confrontation (2016-2019), the West's final, dying breath
VII: Definitive Victory (2020), the Caliphate will become the "world's lone superpower"
Beck reminds us that although the final result might seem absurd, "the first five phases have been right on schedule." This is especially worrisome when we observe this summer's [2015] vast, unchecked invasion of "refugees," many of whom are carrying fake Syrian passports.
4 comments:
It is hardly likely that Western style regimes could survive ruling over non-Western people as Western regimes are a result of Western people, not otherwise. It is not likely that the imposition of Western style regimes will ever last in Islamic regions.
Islam is a result of the people of the region not a cause of them. Thousands of years of cousin marriage along with disproportionate fecundity of the more violent males of the region are the real background to this problem. I would guess that Islam originated with the more peaceful elements in that region trying to rein in the more violent elements. However, over time the pattern reasserts itself since the causes were not addressed. In other words, if it were not Islam, it would be something else that might look on the surface to be different, but would be similarly expressed in the way Islamic extremism is. The people are the way they are because its in the genes.
The stuff about a European Caliphate is a joke. One will see a rise in Right Wing Paramilitarism to fill the void of ineffectual Left leaning governments in Europe that are unwilling to do what is necessary. I expect a lot of strife in cities over the next decade. The most peaceful way would be deportation. Give the Muslims money for their property and businesses and return them to the region of their origin. But that is very unlikely without firstly the dissolution of the European Union, and promotion of racial consciousness.
Of course, all of this could have been avoided had it not been for many decades of the demonization of racial consciousness in Europe. It has taken constant propaganda to get Europe to this point, but the people just are not buying it anymore. And since the European population is aging it will disproportionately veer to the right, just as the pattern of individuals is often left leaning and rebellious when young but gradually turning right wing with age. It is somewhat ironic that it is Jewish power in Europe that has been behind this multicultural experiment, since the rise in anti-semitism is largely due to the large influx of Muslims. Jews should, like Muslims, be encouraged to leave Europe. Jews have their own ethnic state in Israel. Europe will have its own period of ethnic nationalism. At this point it looks inevitable.
I am not convinced that European ethnic nationalism is inevitable. I think that it is more likely that they will let immigrants transform Europe into something else.
Yes, the Jews and the Christians seem to be working against their own interests.
So you think that a minority of non Europeans are going to be allowed to transform Europe into "something else". That "something else" excludes a return to a greater national self interest, a resurgence of racial consciousness, and a strong influence of ethnic nationalism. So what do you think that "something else" might be?
You have the issue of the Euro. How can it survive when Greeks do not want to learn German and move to Germany to take jobs there? Similar for the Spanish, Portuguese and the extremely insular Italians. They are suffering from an overvalued currency to the same extent that the Northern European countries are benefiting from a devalued one. It does not bode well for the Eurozone. Native Europeans actually quite like living at home. When they are away for any length of time, it might just be more land, but it sure feels different. A return home is instantly felt, even in the air you breathe.
The Balkans separated into more ethnically homogeneous states. When the Soviet Union broke up, it broke up into regions more representative of ethnicity. The only issue there is the spread of Russians into those different regions. Though, considering Ukraine, Belarus and Russia are ethnically and racially similar, in those cases the differences are more to do with recent history than with long term ethnic conflict. In Central Europe, Czechoslovakia broke up along ethnic lines. Go back much earlier and Ireland separated along ethnic lines, and those differences are relatively minor considering the high level of homogeneity in the British Isles.
With the European economies stagnant as Emerging Economies develop and grow and soak up capital from Elites, it hardly seems likely to me that self-interest will become a lesser issue in Europe for the European natives in general. The working classes have been abandoned by the Left with the Left thinking that they get those votes automatically anyway. That won't last forever with the Left encouraging more and more non European immigration.
I reckon older patterns reassert themselves rather than "something else" developing, unless that "something else" is very similar to the older patterns.
A couple of years ago, I would have agreed with you. But why is Merkel still in office? Where is the political will to stop the migrants?
Post a Comment