Freedom from Islam
FRONTPAGEMAG.COM: In 1941, FDR proposed his famous Four Freedoms. Some seventy years later it may be time to add a fifth freedom to that list. Freedom from Islam.

Freedom from Islam would have seemed like an unlikely candidate back in 1941 when the worry was over secular ideologies, but as the West and its ideologies have fallen into a soporific state of decline, the fascism that concerns us no longer wears a military uniform or any of the trappings of nationalism, but instead wraps itself in the turban of religion.

Of those four freedoms, three are directly endangered by Islam. We have seen Freedom of Speech being burned in effigy across the Muslim world, and even in the urban centers of Western nations. The Muslim bomb plots aimed at synagogues and the specter of America’s first, albeit unofficial, blasphemy trial, warns us that our Freedom of Worship is also under threat.

Coptic Christians, who for many centuries were forced to live in an atmosphere of terror, subject, like all Christians in the Muslim world, to blasphemy trials as tools of persecution, have found that their land of refuge here is not so different a place from their old homeland after all. As Coptic Christian churches are patrolled against the threat of Muslim violence and one of their own is on trial for offending Muslims, they cannot help but wonder what happened to the vaunted freedoms to worship and believe, to speak and be free, that first drew them to this country.

And third, Freedom from Fear, not a right but the outcome of a well-managed system of government, has been under attack by decades of Muslim terrorism whose purpose is to terrorize the non-Muslim into surrendering to its demands. Instead of freeing us from Muslim terror, government authorities have universalized it, spreading it about as much as possible to avoid offending Muslims by drawing attention to the motives and religion of their terrorists.

Finally, there is Freedom from Want, which like Freedom from Fear, was an example of positive rights being snuck into a national compact based on the negative rights of minimal government, and yet it is interesting to note how the liberal mega-state has failed to uphold even its own four freedoms. » | Daniel Greenfield | Tuesday, Octobre 16, 2012

A Tale of Two European Remarks: De Gucht and Sarrazin
CANADA FREE PRESS: In August, Thilo Sarrazin a member of the board of the German Central Bank, and a critic of Islamic immigration, mentioned that Jews and Basque and some other ethnic groups have a common gene. What followed was a storm of protests and accusations that Sarrazin was anti-Semitic. Sarrazin was dismissed from his position on the board, and newspaper articles explained that it was for remarks that he had made about Muslims and Jews.

Last week, Karel De Gucht, the European Commissioner for Trade, gave a radio show his considered opinion of Jews. Naturally De Gucht put on his best jackboots, and explained that there will be no peace because the Jews run America, that Jews believe they are always right, and that it’s impossible to have a conversation with even a “moderate Jew”. While a few Jewish groups have protested, the European Commission has shrugged, and the media has shrugged too. The odds that De Gucht will be forced out of his job, the way that Sarrazin was are minimal.

But the difference between Sarrazin and De Gucht, was that Sarrazin said something truly unacceptable about an untouchable group. Muslims. While De Gucht mainly expressed a popular view among European elites about the Jews. The ferocious charges of Anti-Semitism against Sarrazin hinged only on him stating a casual fact that Jews are genetically related to one another. It isn’t Anti-Semitism, it’s Science. Sarrazin was not charged with Anti-Semitism because of what he had said about Jews, but because of what he had said about Muslims.


The media did not bother to report that Sarrazin had said that he would prefer immigration “if it was by eastern European Jews with a 15-percent-higher IQ than the German population.” An odd remark for an “Anti-Semite” to make. It would indeed seem that Thilo Sarrazin has a more positive view of Jews, than Karel De Gucht does. But it’s not really about the Jews. It’s about Muslims.

The Jews were used as cover by the advocates of multiculturalism to charge Sarrazin with bigotry. And there was a reason for that. Sarrazin had described himself as a mongrel, with French, Italian and Polish ancestry. His criticism of Muslim immigration was not genetic, but based on their refusal to integrate into Germany. Sarrazin had pointed out that other immigrants from Eastern Europe and Vietnam were productive members of society. Muslims however were not.

Muslims are not a genetic group, but a cultural and ideological one. The media couldn’t charge him with racial hatred for pointing out the cultural problems of Muslim immigrants. And discussing his remarks too much, would raise the danger that people might agree. And so the media was forced to treat Sarrazin’s offhand remark about Jews and Basque sharing genes as some sort of Third Reich throwback in order to charge him with racism. Except that there are Basque and Jewish genetic markers. But again this wasn’t about Jews or the Basque—it was about Muslims. >>> Daniel Greenfield | Saturday, September 04, 2010

The Towers of Barbarism
CANADA FREE PRESS: The Saudis have unveiled a plan to define Mecca as the center of the world by building a giant clock tower in Mecca. The Bin Laden group’s Royal Mecca Clock Tower which reads “In the Name of Allah”, aims to replace GMT time, with “Mecca Time”. The Royal Mecca Clock Tower, which looks like something you expect to pass on the way to Disneyland, like Dubai’s Burj Tower, or its world islands are pathetic attempts to buy the facade of civilization with petrodollars.

The Royal Mecca Clock Tower is emblematic of the inability of the Muslim world to do the hard work of actually becoming civilized. Instead they build Pharaoh-like monuments to their own glory using imported slave labor. And they finance all that using money given to them by civilized countries in exchange for a particular resource that happens to be located on their territory. A resource that was discovered and developed for them by companies belonging to civilized countries.

The barbaric thinking behind the Royal Mecca Clock Tower is that if they build a really big clock tower, it will become a global standard and the infidels will acknowledge the Koran’s Islamic science “zero magnetism zone” claims for Mecca. That sort of thinking demonstrates a basic incomprehension of how civilization works. It shows no understanding of why Greenwich Mean Time serves the function that it does, which isn’t because England spent money given to it by more civilized countries to build a really big ugly tower that impressed everyone. >>> Daniel Greenfield | Monday, August 16, 2010

Religion of Peace
CANADA FREE PRESS: Words are tricky things. Virtually every tyrant, no matter how bloody, has talked about his plans for conquest in terms of “peace”. For example in 1939, Nazi Germany and the USSR signed a declaration in which they described their conquest of Poland as creating “a sure foundation for a lasting peace in Eastern Europe”. The same year that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he delivered a speech at the Amman Summit in which he insisted that; “the Arabs seek peace and justice throughout the world”. And how can one argue with peace?

The Romans had the Pax Romana, which meant peace under Roman dominion. The “peace” that Hitler, Stalin and Saddam had in mind, was of that same nature. Dictators and tyrannies, national or ideological, frame the world as chaotic and requiring order. Only under their leadership and only their way will the world finally experience peace.

When Lenin stated that; “without overthrowing capital it is impossible to end the war by a truly democratic peace”, he was laying out the same basic thesis of every tyrant, and of Islam as well. That there can be no “true peace”, without the creation of a society that follows his ideology. For Lenin, everyone had to submit to Communism. For Hitler, to Nazism. For Mohammed, to Islam. Each spoke about peace, but they defined peace only in terms of their own ideology and rule.

When apologists insist that Islam is a religion of peace, they are correct. Insofar as it believes in peace through conquest, and its intended state of peace is to reduce non-Muslims to second class status. But since Islam is global and it recognizes no limit to its borders—its form of “peace” is to engage in constant wars to conquer the territory of non-Muslims and Muslims whose legitimacy they do not recognize in order to achieve “peace”.

Islam’s peace has as much in common with what most people think of as peace, as Hitler and Stalin’s assurance that they had laid a foundation for a lasting peace, by conquering Poland does with reality. Islam’s peace, like Hitler’s peace, was and is an expression of a Will to Power, a belief that the world would not be right without Mohammed or Adolf, or their followers running it. >>> Daniel Greenfield | Wednesday, August 04, 2010

Can We Ban Islam? - Legal Guidelines for the Criminalization of Islam in the United States
CANADA FREE PRESS: Geert Wilders’ recent call at a Palm Beach synagogue to ban Islam has stirred up all sorts of controversy, with more “moderate” blogs speaking out in opposition to it. So let’s take a closer look at the issue of banning Islam.

Banning Islam is more difficult in the United States than in Europe, because of the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

On the surface of it this is a fairly straightforward formulation barring the legislative branch from taking any action to create a state religion or barring the practice of any religion.

The founders were English citizens and well aware of the way in which religion could stoke political violence. In the late 18th century, Cromwell was not ancient history, neither were the Covenanters or the Gunpowder Plot. While they did not anticipate like the rise of an Islamic insurgency in America, they understood quite well that religion and violence could and would intersect.

That of course was one of the reasons for barring a State Church, to avoid giving the government control over religion, a situation that had resulted in much of the religious violence in England. By giving religion independence, but not political power, the First Amendment sought to avoid a repeat of the same ugliness that had marked centuries of wars in Europe.

That of course is a key point. The separation of church and state was meant to protect the integrity of both, and avoid power struggles between religious groups. There was to be no state religion, the government could not leverage religious authority and religious factions could not begin civil wars in a struggle to gain power or autonomy. For the most part it worked.

Until now the only real acid test for this approach involved the Mormon Church, an ugly history on both sides that has mostly been buried under the weight of time. More recently Scientology flared up as a cult turned church that demanded its own autonomy and did its best to make war on the government and its critics.

And then there is Islam. The first problem with using the First Amendment in defense of Islam-- is that its goal is to violate the First Amendment. Islam’s widely stated goal is to become a State Religion, around the world and in America as well. >>> By Daniel Greenfield | Monday, May 4, 2009

Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com