Geert Wilders, the bravest man in Europe.


Richard Wiig

Recommended Posts

At no point did that mention maids,

That was good of him. Obviously there's no problem then; slaves are okay just so long as you don't touch the maids--although, there's a campaign of rape going on across Europe in the cause of Jihad. The latest victim, being a fourteen year old girl who took her own life after being gang-raped by a group of muslims in Norway. But then that's a different story, because it's not maids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

LM:

Some crazy Russian lady created the parable of the Oak tree in the first chapter of Atlas. It clearly supports your argument, unfortunately.

The Oak Tree represents the United States. He describes the tree, "Its roots clutched the hill like a fist with fingers sunk into the soil, and he thought that if a giant were to seize it by the top, he would not be able to uproot it, but would swing the hill and the whole of the earth with it."

This passage aptly describes the financial and technological power of the United States. The reference to giants is interestingly coincidental, or perhaps not. Perhaps the reference is purposeful warning us of the return of the Nephilim. This is also the second reference to lightning in the book. The first describes, "High on the side of a tower there was a crack in the shape of motionless lightning, the length of ten stories." The second reference to lightning splits the oak tree in half.

Eddie remembers childhood summers on the Taggart estate with the Taggart children, for whom he now works. During Eddie's childhood, a hundred-year-old oak tree stands on a hill over the Hudson River. At age seven, Eddie feels safe in the tree's strength. Then it is struck by lightning, breaking it in half, revealing an empty shell. The trunk was only an empty shell; its heart had rotted away long ago; there was nothing inside – just a thin gray dust that was being dispersed by the whim of the faintest wind. The living power had gone, and the shape it left had not been able to stand without it.

The above section is a compilation of critical analyses of the parable in Atlas.

Adam

I know Shayne will not cede that this parable is an argument, but of course it is.

Wow! Very Interesting! I'm glad that she agreed..

Though I'm not quite sure why that is unfortunate? In the fact that it has become like this or that she agreed with me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! Very Interesting! I'm glad that she agreed..

Though I'm not quite sure why that is unfortunate? In the fact that it has become like this or that she agreed with me?

LM:

Lol!

Unfortunate that is has become like this of course.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LM:

Lol!

Unfortunate that is has become like this of course.

Adam

Ah yes, very unfortunate. Democracy is a responsibility, it is the responsibility of all of us to stand up and make sure that the people we elect into power are not doing things in our name which do not represent us. It's unfortunate that we've become so engrossed in American Idol, MTV, Reality TV, Football etc that we no longer pay attention to this..

Some would argue that because it is a democracy, we are ultimately responsible for what is done in our name, and that we share guilt for those actions.. At the very least I believe it makes us criminally negligent.. Especially when people overseas suffer due to our nation's actions in the region..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the Wahabbis have dominated Sunni Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood has influenced not only the Sunni but largely the Shia sect their point of view will be the dominate voices in the faith. Hence, the radicalization of Muslims and the hatred the fundamentalists espouse will not go away.

I read one statistic that over 80% of the Mosques around the world and the madrasas that teach the religion in Middle Eastern countries are dominated by Wahabbist teachings and Wahabbi scholars. By default they and the Ikhwan make up what is to be known as Islam. The only way to stop this so other points of view in Islam can emerge are to force the Saudis supporting the Wahabbis and the Syrians and Iranians who support the Muslim Brotherhood to shut their funding spigots shut off.

William,

Europe has had a huge influx of Wahhabi settlers with massive funding from Saudi Arabia. This is the conceptual referent Wilders has and he applies it to all of the Islamic world. Once he sees Islamists, he points and says this is proof.

If Islam only equaled Wahhabism, Wilders would be right. But he makes a conceptual error of assigning the subcategory the status of the main category. That's why his kind of discourse makes it extremely hard to combat the fanatical strains within Islam.

Michael

Edited by Mike Renzulli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LM:

A significant correction. The US is not a democracy. It is a representative Constitutional republic. Huge difference, but we are still responsible for what the nation does in our names.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the Wahabbis have dominated Sunni Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood has influenced not only the Sunni but largely the Shia sect their point of view will be the dominate voices in the faith. Hence, the radicalization of Muslims and the hatred the fundamentalists espouse will not go away.

I read one statistic that over 80% of the Mosques around the world and the madrasas that teach the religion in Middle Eastern countries are dominated by Wahabbist teachings and Wahabbi scholars. By default they and the Ikhwan make up what is to be known as Islam. The only way to stop this so other points of view in Islam can emerge are to force the Saudis supporting the Wahabbis and the Syrians and Iranians who support the Muslim Brotherhood to shut their funding spigots shut off.

I disagree with the notion that Wahhabis have dominated Sunni Islam.. I also disagree with the notion that the Muslim Bortherhood has influenced the Shia..

The Wahhabis do give a lot of money, but a lot of communities raise there own. They're wary of the Wahhabis.

LM:

A significant correction. The US is not a democracy. It is a representative Constitutional republic. Huge difference, but we are still responsible for what the nation does in our names.

Adam

I'm sorry Selene I was referring in general to the West, that they are inherently democratic nations with the ability to elect representatives and leaders to act in their name.

Not in the purest form of the word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so now we have the Military Industrial Complex, The International Banking Cartels, The Federal Reserve etc running the nation and as a result, the US no longer sincerely stands for the ideals of the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence..

LM,

I am no fan of these institutions (as you have often read in my posts), but my disagreement with you is over the phrase "running the nation." Those interests are not "running the nation." They are not even running the government, although they are entrenched and have a toxic damaging influence on freedom. Unelected bureaucrats are the ones who actually run the USA government. And the American citizens "run the nation." The big financial interests are merely playing a con game and getting away with a lot. But they are not "ruling" the country in the sense dictators rule. Oh, there are plenty of cases of abuses of power, but I don't see the wholesale oppression dictators impose.

It has been hijacked and this is the reason why I stated that Americans need to take the US back from the hands of those tyrants..

I fully agree that we need to throw the bums out and cut their ability to use the USA Treasury and Military for their insanity. But I do not agree that they "hijacked" the US. Hitler hijacked Germany. I don't see anything close to that happening here. And I say that while fully detesting the abuses that do exist.

Until this happens America is and will continue to be "over"..

I totally disagree with this. America is simply waking up right now.

In USA history, we keep going through cycles where people get on with their lives and neglect politics as prosperity reigns. Then the monkey-shines kick in from the political side (with big businesses also trying to get unfair favor from government protections). We get near a tipping point. Then the people wake up and make a big stink. They throw the bums out and resolve the issue. Whew! That was something, but now it's over. Prosperity starts kicking in, then people go back to their lives and neglect politics. Then the monkey-shines kick in again and people start waking up again. And so on.

I don't see where that cycle is "over." Not by a long shot.

We are smack dab in the middle of the upswing

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. Killed over one million Japanese non-combatants in the Pacific War. So sorry. Maybe the Japanese should have thought of that before they bombed Pearl Harbor.

In a word, collateral damage does not bother me one little bit.

Maybe the USA should have considered all this before it put an embargo on Japan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. Killed over one million Japanese non-combatants in the Pacific War. So sorry. Maybe the Japanese should have thought of that before they bombed Pearl Harbor.

In a word, collateral damage does not bother me one little bit.

Maybe the USA should have considered all this before it put an embargo on Japan.

Chris:

Are you arguing that the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a word, we have been sucked into the vortex of the Forever War. The United States and Americans do not have the balls the Romans did. We are unfit to pursue a Pax Americana. We just do not have the cojones for it. We should have taken the advice of George Washington and avoided entangling alliances. Not because it is moral, but because it is practical.

Our downfall was this: 1. We won WW2 almost intact with relatively small losses.

I disagree completely. I am largely convinced that WW2 was very destructive for this country, in spite of "victory." WW2 gave us income-tax witholding. It gave us more lasting bureaucracies than the New Deal did. It probably indirectly destroyed the American auto industry--as they became crony capitalists who produce cars that aren't half as good as Japanese. After WW2, we got the GI Bill. WW2 basically resulted in a long extension of adolescence. Worst of all, WW2 gave us Rosie the Riveter and working women, which led to the modern feminist movement.

That's how the "victory" destroyed this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a word, we have been sucked into the vortex of the Forever War. The United States and Americans do not have the balls the Romans did. We are unfit to pursue a Pax Americana. We just do not have the cojones for it. We should have taken the advice of George Washington and avoided entangling alliances. Not because it is moral, but because it is practical.

Our downfall was this: 1. We won WW2 almost intact with relatively small losses.

I disagree completely. I am largely convinced that WW2 was very destructive for this country, in spite of "victory." WW2 gave us income-tax witholding. It gave us more lasting bureaucracies than the New Deal did. It probably indirectly destroyed the American auto industry--as they became crony capitalists who produce cars that aren't half as good as Japanese. After WW2, we got the GI Bill. WW2 basically resulted in a long extension of adolescence. Worst of all, WW2 gave us Rosie the Riveter and working women, which led to the modern feminist movement.

That's how the "victory" destroyed this country.

I agree. War was not all that good for business. Our material losses in WW2 were relatively small. Our moral hazard was gigantic.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree completely. I am largely convinced that WW2 was very destructive for this country, in spite of "victory." WW2 gave us income-tax witholding. It gave us more lasting bureaucracies than the New Deal did. It probably indirectly destroyed the American auto industry--as they became crony capitalists who produce cars that aren't half as good as Japanese. After WW2, we got the GI Bill. WW2 basically resulted in a long extension of adolescence. Worst of all, WW2 gave us Rosie the Riveter and working women, which led to the modern feminist movement.

That's how the "victory" destroyed this country.

The benefits of the G.I. bill were a small repayment for the danger and pain we put our fighting men through. They were dragooned and shanghai-ed into service. Paying for school and giving them a small break on buying a house was a very small compensation and indemnity for the wrong with did them. The dead could never have been compensated, the living not half enough.

The troops may have been boys when they went off to fight (and some of them killed and maimed) but they all came back men. It is an insult to imply their adolescence had been extended. They were robbed of their adolescence and youth.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of the Wahhabi influence in the religion, the facts clearly speak for themselves.

A 2007 article in the UK Independent (link below) is one of many articles and studies published about the sect's influence in Islam. The Wahhabi's have had the support of the Saudi monarchy when they took power and even before that. During the 18th century the scholar Muhammad al-Wahhab was taken under the wing of the House of Saud when the cleric taught two of ibn-Saud's brothers. The Saudi chief later made a pact to implement the cleric's teachings in the places the Saudi's controlled and conquered.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wahhabism-a-deadly-scripture-398516.html

As far as the Muslim Brotherhood's influence in Shi'a it is quite extensive. Clerics or scholars from the Ikhwan, for example, influenced Ayatollah Khomeini. If you noticed Iran publicly supported the uprising against Hosni Mubarak obviously because they knew the MB had something to do or ultimately benefit from the rebellion.

I believe Islam as practiced in Egypt (while officially Sunni) resembles Shi'a Islam more.

I disagree with the notion that Wahhabis have dominated Sunni Islam. I also disagree with the notion that the Muslim Brotherhood has influenced the Shia..

The Wahhabis do give a lot of money, but a lot of communities raise there own. They're wary of the Wahhabis.

Edited by Mike Renzulli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

You might be talking about the funding of mosques and Islamic spreading initiatives in Europe, USA, etc. It is true that Saudi Wahhabi funding has out-topped--by a lot--all other Muslim sources. This gives the impression that Wahhabism is greater than it really is.

In the Muslim world, however, the Wahhabi influence is not all that strong. Not even in Saudi Arabia.

When I first started reading about this, I came across a very good analogy. Imagine if the KKK suddenly came into the oil wealth that the Saudi royalty has. They start funding schools and so forth throughout the rest of the world on a massive scale. Then the people in those countries start complaining that the USA people are nothing but KKK bigots.

They would say that because that is what they would see next door.

(Incidentally, not all Saudi royalty is Wahhabi fundamentalist.)

I believe you and LM are talking past each other because of this.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Muslim world, however, the Wahhabi influence is not all that strong. Not even in Saudi Arabia.

When I first started reading about this, I came across a very good analogy. Imagine if the KKK suddenly came into the oil wealth that the Saudi royalty has. They start funding schools and so forth throughout the rest of the world on a massive scale. Then the people in those countries start complaining that the USA people are nothing but KKK bigots.

Michael

Trouble is, it is not just Wahhabism that endorse Jihad. Every mainstream of Islamic jurisprudence endorses it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 2007 article in the UK Independent (link below) is one of many articles and studies published about the sect's influence in Islam. The Wahhabi's have had the support of the Saudi monarchy when they took power and even before that. During the 18th century the scholar Muhammad al-Wahhab was taken under the wing of the House of Saud when the cleric taught two of ibn-Saud's brothers. The Saudi chief later made a pact to implement the cleric's teachings in the places the Saudi's controlled and conquered.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wahhabism-a-deadly-scripture-398516.html

Hmmm Wahhabism only has money behind it.. Nothing more, if it weren't for that their influence would be a great deal smaller. If anything, the influence of Wahhabism is diminishing now with the Arab revolutions and in terms of Europe, the influx of Turkish immigrants into Europe is taking away much of that influence...

As far as the Muslim Brotherhood's influence in Shi'a it is quite extensive. Clerics or scholars from the Ikhwan, for example, influenced Ayatollah Khomeini. If you noticed Iran publicly supported the uprising against Hosni Mubarak obviously because they knew the MB had something to do or ultimately benefit from the rebellion.

I believe Islam as practiced in Egypt (while officially Sunni) resembles Shi'a Islam more.

What do you base such assertions on? I've never ever heard someone make such claims about the Ikhwan.. I think perhaps you might be confused with the differences in the ideologies of the Ikhwan vs Shia Islam.. They're quite different..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this is good to know. I came to understand that the Wahhabi sect was very strong but at least since this brand of Islam is only being exported and not practiced whole heartedly in the Muslim world means that there maybe a slight chance to undermine the orthodox strains of Islam from within the religion.

It would take time and a lot of work but it could be done.

However, there is still the Muslim Brotherhood. I get the impression they are have been and still are very influential in Islam at least mostly in the Shi'a sect. Of course the group has helped influence not only Khomeini but also helped establish a number of groups such as CAIR and MSA in the US as well as supported groups like Hamas. I think they had a hand in helping to bring about the uprisings we saw in Egypt and possibly other Muslim countries.

Mike,

You might be talking about the funding of mosques and Islamic spreading initiatives in Europe, USA, etc. It is true that Saudi Wahhabi funding has out-topped--by a lot--all other Muslim sources. This gives the impression that Wahhabism is greater than it really is.

In the Muslim world, however, the Wahhabi influence is not all that strong. Not even in Saudi Arabia.

When I first started reading about this, I came across a very good analogy. Imagine if the KKK suddenly came into the oil wealth that the Saudi royalty has. They start funding schools and so forth throughout the rest of the world on a massive scale. Then the people in those countries start complaining that the USA people are nothing but KKK bigots.

They would say that because that is what they would see next door.

(Incidentally, not all Saudi royalty is Wahhabi fundamentalist.)

I believe you and LM are talking past each other because of this.

Michael

Edited by Mike Renzulli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The benefits of the G.I. bill were a small repayment for the danger and pain we put our fighting men through. They were dragooned and shanghai-ed into service. Paying for school and giving them a small break on buying a house was a very small compensation and indemnity for the wrong with did them. The dead could never have been compensated, the living not half enough.

The troops may have been boys when they went off to fight (and some of them killed and maimed) but they all came back men. It is an insult to imply their adolescence had been extended. They were robbed of their adolescence and youth.

This is not how I mean that the GI Bill was destructive. It was destructive in the sense that I created a boom in college attendance which has never really stopped since then.

Before WW2, a man was often expected to get a job after high school. In many respects, it may have even been after the eighth grade. And people actually did do quite well in many professions with just that level of schooling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came to understand that the Wahhabi sect was very strong but at least since this brand of Islam is only being exported and not practiced whole heartedly in the Muslim world means that there maybe a slight chance to undermine the orthodox strains of Islam from within the religion.

Mike,

There's not only a slight chance--it's actually happening. I mentioned somewhere that I believe that Islam is going through its own version of what happened to Christianity a few centuries ago. We don't see it produce instant results because these things take a long time to impact an entire culture. Basically, the way I see it happening, the older people die off as the younger break out of the bonds of inherited dogma through an increasing amount of literature and other media for spreading ideas. Marginalizing fundamentalism to the edge of the fringe does not happen from one day to the next, but it does happen.

Think about this. Not all Islamist fundamentalism involves Wahhabism.

But all rabidly antisemitic Islamist fundamentalism involves an intellectual mixture of Islam + Nazism.

I often get frustrated when I see people ignoring the Nazi part. That's a truly toxic source of evil in the mix.

By analogy, Islam (like any religion or philosophy) is like nuclear power. It can be used for good or for blowing up stuff. You need the people who want to blow up stuff to use it for that, just as you need the people who want to light up cities to use it for that.

Islam in the hands of people of good character tends to have a good influence on them. They have their communities, they live normal lives in peace, etc. There are hundreds of millions of people the world over to look at who are like this. All anyone has to do is look.

Islam in the hands of people of bad character results in bigoted hatred, brainwashing, suicide bombing, etc. That's easy to see, too. We certainly get help with looking at that part through the media.

My point is that hatred is not inherent in a body of ideas, but instead in the people who choose to hate.

So what about Nazism? Is this true here, also? The way I see it, Nazism as a formal body of ideas has been eradicated, but there were many people left over who had adopted genocide, thinking with fists, etc., from the Nazi culture as intimate parts of their epistemology. These people flourished in the Islamic world--with the help of the USA and England, I might add (we hired them as spies against the communists). When they organized, is it any wonder that they sought an interpretation of their religion that focused on genocide, thinking with fists, etc.?

People ignore this. I don't know why, but it's like quicksand. You can get folks to see it for a day or two, then it gets sucked down into to earth as folks go back to overgeneralizing about the entire religious culture and targeting good people along with the bad.

One thing is for sure. If you aim at the wrong target, you will probably miss the one you should have taken out.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People ignore this

Which people ignore this? The collaboration between fundamentalist Islam and the Nazis is well noted and documented by those at the forefront of opposing Islamic jihad. How does that equate to ignoring it? What is different between you and them is the importance you attach to the influence of the nazis. You seem to be saying that without a Nazis influence Islam would be peaceful and co-exist harmoniously with non-muslims. Such a view ignores the history of Islam pre-nazi era. What is happening today is actually a revival of Islam as it was pre-nazi. Jihad is nothing new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came to understand that the Wahhabi sect was very strong but at least since this brand of Islam is only being exported and not practiced whole heartedly in the Muslim world means that there maybe a slight chance to undermine the orthodox strains of Islam from within the religion.

Mike,

There's not only a slight chance--it's actually happening. I mentioned somewhere that I believe that Islam is going through its own version of what happened to Christianity a few centuries ago. We don't see it produce instant results because these things take a long time to impact an entire culture. Basically, the way I see it happening, the older people die off as the younger break out of the bonds of inherited dogma through an increasing amount of literature and other media for spreading ideas. Marginalizing fundamentalism to the edge of the fringe does not happen from one day to the next, but it does happen.

Think about this. Not all Islamist fundamentalism involves Wahhabism.

But all rabidly antisemitic Islamist fundamentalism involves an intellectual mixture of Islam + Nazism.

I often get frustrated when I see people ignoring the Nazi part. That's a truly toxic source of evil in the mix.

By analogy, Islam (like any religion or philosophy) is like nuclear power. It can be used for good or for blowing up stuff. You need the people who want to blow up stuff to use it for that, just as you need the people who want to light up cities to use it for that.

Islam in the hands of people of good character tends to have a good influence on them. They have their communities, they live normal lives in peace, etc. There are hundreds of millions of people the world over to look at who are like this. All anyone has to do is look.

Islam in the hands of people of bad character results in bigoted hatred, brainwashing, suicide bombing, etc. That's easy to see, too. We certainly get help with looking at that part through the media.

My point is that hatred is not inherent in a body of ideas, but instead in the people who choose to hate.

So what about Nazism? Is this true here, also? The way I see it, Nazism as a formal body of ideas has been eradicated, but there were many people left over who had adopted genocide, thinking with fists, etc., from the Nazi culture as intimate parts of their epistemology. These people flourished in the Islamic world--with the help of the USA and England, I might add (we hired them as spies against the communists). When they organized, is it any wonder that they sought an interpretation of their religion that focused on genocide, thinking with fists, etc.?

People ignore this. I don't know why, but it's like quicksand. You can get folks to see it for a day or two, then it gets sucked down into to earth as folks go back to overgeneralizing about the entire religious culture and targeting good people along with the bad.

One thing is for sure. If you aim at the wrong target, you will probably miss the one you should have taken out.

Michael

I'm not sure that the term Nazism is correct Michael.

Nazism was an ideology that believed that the Aryans were a superior race to any other. The ideology of the extremists does not only not believe that about the Aryans, but doesn't believe it about the Arabs either. In fact, out of any Muslim group you will find a much greater diversity of racial groups and the least amount of racism amongst the Salafis, Wahhabis and Takfiris.

Nazis also believed in exterminating other groups and races like the Gypsies and the Jews, the extremists don't see this as their goal either. Such extremism doesn't promote genocide. Rather it sees the 'Christian West' and the 'Israeli Jews' as a huge threat to the Muslim world and believes that they must fight against them. It doesn't promote killing every single one but rather would prefer to fight them until the threat no longer exists in its current form. For example, the End of US influence in the Middle East and support of dictators in the region and the liberation of Palestine from Israeli military occupation..

I think you'll find that Baal is more of a Nazi than those extremist groups with his genocidal ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trouble is, it is not just Wahhabism that endorse Jihad. Every mainstream of Islamic jurisprudence endorses it.

Jihad means struggle or extra-ordinary effort. There are at least two ways the term is used:

1. Jihad = Holy War

2. Jihad = the struggle an individual must make to overcome his base inclinations. This is regarded by some Muslims as the greater Jihad.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trouble is, it is not just Wahhabism that endorse Jihad. Every mainstream of Islamic jurisprudence endorses it.

Jihad means struggle or extra-ordinary effort. There are at least two ways the term is used:

1. Jihad = Holy War

2. Jihad = the struggle an individual must make to overcome his base inclinations. This is regarded by some Muslims as the greater Jihad.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes both of you are correct.

There are many different forms of Jihad..

The greatest Jihad is the Jihad against one's sinful desires, because it is a battle that we must constantly face and no matter where we go, they'll always be there..

The lesser Jihad, is the Jihad of the Sword and every Islamic school endorses the Jihad of the Sword as acceptable and in fact obligatory when it comes liberating occupied lands under attack and occupation by non Muslims.. A smaller group of scholars say that it is also obligatory when the Muslim leadership becomes oppressive..

Jihad is not just an Islamic concept, it's a universal concept.. If the USA was invaded and occupied then the ensuing resistance against occupation would be considered a Jihad too.. When you fight to protect your nation from invaders in a defensive war to defend your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from oppression then there could be no greater Jihad of the Sword.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now