It's Not Enough to Repeatedly Say "Stop Muslim Immigration"

Kathy Shaidle is repeatedly posting on her popular blog Five Feet of Fury "Ban Muslim immigration to Canada," or "Stop Muslim immigration to Canada today."

I sent her an email yesterday with this suggestion:

Hi Kathy,

First a belated Merry Christmas and (a timely) Happy New Year!

I am glad that you are consistently mentioning a radical approach to the Muslim issue - stopping Muslim immigration into Canada.

Most people these days will not come up directly with that approach. But your popular blog will surely give people something to think about.

If I can make a suggestion. I think most readers would like some kind of strategic approach to the problem. They might get frustrated at simply saying: stop Muslim immigration. How, when, why etc. might be their questions. It is a blanket statement like: Muslims are destroying our civilization.

I have linked on my blog to a comprehensive strategy which conservative writer Lawrence Auster has established. It not only looks at immigration, but also:

- what to do with Muslims already here. Part of many people's rationale is that Muslims are already here, they are "assimilating" and we cannot do anything about them.

- how to approach jihadi and sharia infiltration

- And even what to do with our "diversity" institutions such as multiculturalism

But, rather than re-write it, it is better that you read the whole thing yourself.

You can find more information on Auster's writings about "What to do about Islam" here.

Plus, one other suggestion, Geert Wilders already has clear policies he has set up for the Netherlands, for which he is getting incredible popular support. Perhaps you could also use examples from his strategies on how to deal with Muslims in the West.

People are eager to know what to do. Most writers and politicians are not giving them the information and background that they want.

Let me know if I can be of help.

Kidist.

Is Protecting Freedom the Ultimate Cause for our War Against Islam

In my previous post on Lars Hedegaard's ordeal in Denmark, I referred to the video of the interview which caused all the commotion. The video is worth watching, as Hedegaard presents a lucid account of Islam, based on his new book The 1400-year war.

But, I neglected to pursue the final part of the interview where the interviewer asks "how should we fight this war?" Hedegaard talks about internal measures, such as shutting down mosques which preach jihad, reducing the power of Imams, and making sure that political and violent messages aren't preached or passed on to Muslims. He doesn't once mention immigration restrictions.

As I wrote in this blog post, Denmark had reduced its immigration levels in 2004 to 20% of its 2001 levels. So, probably, immigration isn't such a big issue as it is in Canada or the US.

But, another issue I've always had with free speech and freedom of expression advocates is that they base much of Western civilization around these concepts, as does Hedegaard, when he says: "Basically our civilization is based on the notion of freedom, personal choice, free speech…"

It is interesting that the most vocal free speech/freedom of expression advocates, including Ezra Levant, reached their public position these days because of their interaction with Islam. Even the Danish Free Press Society calls Islam: "the most dangerous threat at the moment."

Islam, of course, want to silence the press and speech in general because it doesn’t want its intentions uncovered, which is that it is fighting a civilizational war against the West, and not just a war against free speech.

I will be elaborating on this narrowing down of the war against Islam based only on free speech and freedom of the press and expression, which this specialized and active group is fronting, as I come up with more coherent thoughts on the idea. But, my premise is that it is not enough to have free speech (and freedoms in general) as our main cause for which to fight against Islam. The issues are bigger, more complex and more intertwined. Freedom is important, but it isn’t the only factor.

The Danish Free Press Society Should Now Have a Renewed Resolve for the Truth

My only source of information for the outrageous distortions of Lars Hedegaard's interview that I wrote about in my last post was The Copenhagen Post. Since then, I have dug up more information, and the International Free Press Society website also posted an article Hedegaard wrote to discuss (explain is too submissive) his interview.

Hedegaard’s 30-minute interview with the website Snaphanen is here. It is an interesting and lucid commentary by Hedegaard, and is based on the new book that he co-wrote titled The 1400-year War.

The exaggerated comments that were reported on The Copenhagen Post were revised editions of comments made by blogger Lars Pilegaard, which were published at the online 180Grader by its editor-in-chief Ole Birk Olesen. Pilegaard has accused Hedegaard of "revolt, lynching and war" against Muslims and that he has defamed them by calling them rapists and liars (I've addressed these two distorted interpretations of Hedegaard's words in my previous post, and Hedegaard also addresses them in his article).

Hedegaard’s direct quotes printed in The Copenhagen Post are from the Snaphanen interview. One of them, on lying, is slightly incorrect, or incomplete. It should be:

"Whenever it's advisable for a Muslim to hide his true intentions, to lie, to [inaudible] false oaths in his own interest and in the interest of Islam, he is either advised to do so or he's ordered to do so..."

Besides three members of the Danish FPS quitting, an outside personality, the deputy chairman of Arhus integration council Yilmaz Evcil, has filed a complaint against Hedegaard to the police for his "racist comments" during the Snaphanen interview. The IFPS website calls it "charges for 'hate speech.'"

This is a serious development in the small world of counter-jihad leaders who are also fighting for freedom of the press and of speech. Clearly, criticizing Islam has its repercussions, however soundly, moderately and thoughtfully one does so. Even freedom of the press advocates, such as the three advisory board members who quit, are willing to suppress the press (and speech) if they feel that a line has been crossed when discussing Islam and Muslims. The suppression is of course based on anti-discriminatory principles, rather than reporting falsehoods.

If criticizing Muslims (and other foreigners and immigrants) is not acceptable, and gets in the way of reporting and discussing the truth of their situations, then the various FPSs have a lot of work to do. But perhaps it is good that the "bad seed" of the Danish FPS have been weeded out. This incident should give Hedegaard and his remaining team more resolve to fight the truth-squelching Muslims and their allies, and to battle on with the difficult and dangerous job of exposing the truth. And by extension, it should be a lesson to us all.

Viking Spirit at Christmas Time

The Copenhagen Post headlines the following news as an "Uproar in Free Press." It makes the event much more dramatic than it is. What happened was the President of the Danish Free Press Society (and also the International Free Press Society) merely said:

quote:

Whenever it is prudent for a Muslim to hide his true intentions by lying or making a false oath in his own or in Islam’s service, then it is ok to do it

And quote:

When a Muslim man rapes a woman, it is his right to do it

The online news story describes Hedegaard as going on

a veritable tirade against Muslims in an interview with website Snappen, accusing them of raping their own children, lying without conscience and basically having no morals whatsoever.

The direct quotes provided by The Copenhagen Post disprove this exaggerated version. Hedegaard is merely describing Taqiyya, a form of covert warfare carried out by Muslims allowing them to lie to their opponents, and the rape of women simply refers to the cultural norm in Islam where the woman is the property of the man.

Several members have quit Hedegaard's Free Press Society, and one Christian minister threatened to do so unless Hedegaard was dismissed from his post. The organization dismissed her instead.

So, on the Eve before Christmas, a Christian minister is more concerned about protecting a belligerent, aggressive, determined, anti-Christian religion, that promises to destroy Christians (and other non-Muslims), rather than pay heed to the words of one of her countrymen.

I met Lars Hedegaard during my travel in New York. I was with him and other members of the International Free Press Society on a long ride (traffic was very bad BOTH ways) to and from Princeton to participate in Kurt Westergaard's presentation at the University. Mr. Hedegaard is an educated, sophisticated man, who has no illusions about what immigration, and especially Muslims, are doing to his country.

I said to him that something of the feisty Danish Vikings, who settled in early England, must have rubbed off onto the English, who repeated this feistiness ten-fold with their own world domination (in language, science, military).

Of course, the English have long lost that spirit, as has much of Europe. But it is good to see it revived, in Westergaard and now Hedegaard. What the world needs now is more of this Viking spirit.

Merry Christmas!

How Much Influence Did Orientalism Have on Western Art?

Henri Matisse, Purple Robe and Anemones; 1937

Matisse's interior takes on a flat,
extended dimension, where the woman's
fabric, the wallpaper, the carpet and
even the patterned table blend together
to eliminate three-dimensional space.

Ibn Warraq, from The New English Review has an article about the influence of Orientalism on Western art. He does this while reviewing a biography of Mozart: Mozart The Dramatist, by Brigid Brophy.

One small quibble I have with his review (which is of course the theme of the writer who penned the biography): Western artists may have been leaning on Oriental themes to find the subjects for their works (paintings, music, literature), but the structure and composition of the works ended up being very much the creations of these artists.

I have been interested in the attraction towards exoticism that induced painters to study Arab culture, and even travel to and live in Arab lands. One such painter was Matisse. The evolution of his paintings is a complex topic, where he goes from three-dimensional depictions to two-dimensional ones so that his paintings look like layers of flat textile on canvass.

One of his interests, which stemmed from his family's textile business, was Arab interior decoration, where the homes were draped with endless carpets and textiles, hiding three-dimensional space behind a plethora of cloth. Rooms look flat and extensive. And colorful too.

Matisse used these experiences and examples to create his own two-dimensional canvasses. His development from three dimensions to two was part of Western art's questions and queries at the time, and not Eastern art edging in on those ideas. I think it was just fortuitous that Western artists traveled to the Orient and found what they were looking for; at least Matisse did. But even then, he brought it back and incorporated it into his own artistic/philosophical ideas, and never ventured to make Oriental art.

In the end, whether it is Mozart’s Die Zauberflöte or Matisses’s Purple Robe and Anemones the works are decidedly Western. I will also venture to say that any influences that occurred were superficial, like the Oriental table or the kaftan-clothed woman in Matisse's Purple Robe and Anemones. Matisse could have executed his ideas without putting either of these objects in his painting.

Keeping Our Eye on the Ball

The Human Rights Commissions (I have a special link for all my posts on the HRCs at the right hand column of this blog) are associated with the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They were, as were the other institutions, installed to dampen the effects of diversity and the conflicts that multicultural and diverse communities can incur. They predictably arrived right after the amended immigration policies of 1967, which allowed non-white immigrants to enter into Canada without any restrictions.

Recent high-profile cases have involved pastor Boissoin and his letter to his local Alberta paper on homosexuals, and Marc Lemire who was put before the Commissions for comments on the website that he monitors. But the most vocal and belligerent cases have by far been by Muslim groups trying to silence writers and commentators on Muslim issues and news.

I have written here that while the task of dismantling these HRCs should still continue, (and also the repealing of hate speech laws, although I am not sure if that is even possible), we should not ignore these most aggressive of opponents that exposing the wrongs of HRCs has unveiled for us.

One way or another, Muslims are determined to push their culture and religion into Canadian society. If kangaroo HRCs courts won't work, they will go through normal legal procedures; if overt measures are pushed back, they will continue with their ever-covert activates of taking over one square inch at a time.

One of their most effective measures is to use the current systems and institutions to further their cause. The HRCs are one, multiculturalism is another, and diversity is the way in which they can hide behind, and soften, their effects. Immigration is what adds fuel to this fire.

These battles of the last few years on the "freedom front" have actually disclosed clearly and unequivocally a hostile force. As I wrote in my previous post, it is important to straighten out these institutions, but alongside that, we have a difficult and deceptive opponent to contend with in Islam, and we shouldn't lose sight of it.