I
inJESUS
Guest
Le Figaro magazine: ( am afraid it will attacked and burned soon
)
What should the free world do in the face of Islamist intimidation?
The reactions caused by the analysis of Benoit XVI on Islam and violence highlight the underhanded maneuver carried out by the same Islam to stifle that which the West has, of more value than anything which exists in any Moslem country: the freedom to think and to express oneself.
Islam tries to impose on Europe its rules: opening of swimming pools at certain hours exclusively for women, prevention of caricaturing this religion, requirement of a particular dietary treatment for Moslem children in canteens, the battle to wear the veil at school, accusations of Islamophobia against free spirits.
How can one explain the ban on the wearing of thongs on Paris-Beaches*, this summer? The reasoning put forth was bizarre: the risk of “disturbing public order”. Did this mean that bands of frustrated youths would become violent, faced with displays of beauty? Or were they scared of Islamist demonstrations by the brigades of virtue on the approaches to Paris-Beaches?
Moreover, the non-prohibition of the veil on the street is, by inviting complaints for upholding the oppression of women more properly “disturbing public order” than the wearing of a thong. It is not inappropriate to think that this ban represents an Islamization of sensibilities in France, a more or less conscious submission to the diktats of Islam. Or, at the very least, that it is the outcome of the insidious Muslim pressure on the senses: even those who protested the introduction of a “Jean Paul II Square” in Paris would not be opposed to the construction of mosques. Islam attempts to force Europe to yield to its vision of humanity.
As in the past with Communism, the West finds itself under ideological scrutiny. Islam presents itself, in the image of defunct Communism, as an alternative to the western world. In the manner of Communism before it, Islam, to conquer spirits, plays on a sensitive nerve. It prides itself on a legitimacy which troubles the western conscience, attentive to others: to be the voice of the oppressed of the planet. Yesterday, the voice of the poor pretended to come from Moscow, today it comes from Mecca! Today again, intellectuals embody the outlook of the Koran, as they embodied the outlook of Moscow yesterday. They excommunicate people for Islamophobia, as yesterday they did for anti-communism.
In the opening up to others, specific to the West, a secularization of Christianity appears, whose bottom line is summarized as follows: the other person must always pass in front of me. The Westerner, the heir to Christianity, is to be the one to make his soul exposed. He runs the risk of passing himself off as weak. With the same ardor as Communism, Islam treats generosity, broadmindedness, tolerance, gentleness, freedom of women and of manners, democratic values, as signs of decadence.
These are the weaknesses that it seeks to exploit, by means of “useful idiots”, those of good consciences imbued with fine sentiments, in order to impose the Koranic order on the Western world itself.
The Koran is a book of unparalleled violence. Maxime Rodinson states, in Encyclopedia Universalis, some truths as equally important as the tabus in France. On one hand: “Mohammed revealed in Medina unsuspected qualities of political leader and military chief (…) He resorted to private war, then the current institution in Arabia (…) Mohammed soon sent small groups of partisans to attack the Meccan caravans, thus punishing his unbelieving compatriots and simultaneously acquiring the booty of a wealthy man.”
Additionally: “Mohammed profited from this success by eliminating from Medina, by means of massacre, the Jewish tribe which resided there, the Quarayza, whom he accused of suspect behaviour.” Finally “After the death of Khadija, he married a widow, fine domestic, (called) Sawda, and also little Aisha, barely ten years old. His erotic predilections, held in check for a long time, led him to embark on ten marriages jointly.”
complete article on :
westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003001.html
What will the West do? stay politically correct or defend itself from these intruders?
)What should the free world do in the face of Islamist intimidation?
The reactions caused by the analysis of Benoit XVI on Islam and violence highlight the underhanded maneuver carried out by the same Islam to stifle that which the West has, of more value than anything which exists in any Moslem country: the freedom to think and to express oneself.
Islam tries to impose on Europe its rules: opening of swimming pools at certain hours exclusively for women, prevention of caricaturing this religion, requirement of a particular dietary treatment for Moslem children in canteens, the battle to wear the veil at school, accusations of Islamophobia against free spirits.
How can one explain the ban on the wearing of thongs on Paris-Beaches*, this summer? The reasoning put forth was bizarre: the risk of “disturbing public order”. Did this mean that bands of frustrated youths would become violent, faced with displays of beauty? Or were they scared of Islamist demonstrations by the brigades of virtue on the approaches to Paris-Beaches?
Moreover, the non-prohibition of the veil on the street is, by inviting complaints for upholding the oppression of women more properly “disturbing public order” than the wearing of a thong. It is not inappropriate to think that this ban represents an Islamization of sensibilities in France, a more or less conscious submission to the diktats of Islam. Or, at the very least, that it is the outcome of the insidious Muslim pressure on the senses: even those who protested the introduction of a “Jean Paul II Square” in Paris would not be opposed to the construction of mosques. Islam attempts to force Europe to yield to its vision of humanity.
As in the past with Communism, the West finds itself under ideological scrutiny. Islam presents itself, in the image of defunct Communism, as an alternative to the western world. In the manner of Communism before it, Islam, to conquer spirits, plays on a sensitive nerve. It prides itself on a legitimacy which troubles the western conscience, attentive to others: to be the voice of the oppressed of the planet. Yesterday, the voice of the poor pretended to come from Moscow, today it comes from Mecca! Today again, intellectuals embody the outlook of the Koran, as they embodied the outlook of Moscow yesterday. They excommunicate people for Islamophobia, as yesterday they did for anti-communism.
In the opening up to others, specific to the West, a secularization of Christianity appears, whose bottom line is summarized as follows: the other person must always pass in front of me. The Westerner, the heir to Christianity, is to be the one to make his soul exposed. He runs the risk of passing himself off as weak. With the same ardor as Communism, Islam treats generosity, broadmindedness, tolerance, gentleness, freedom of women and of manners, democratic values, as signs of decadence.
These are the weaknesses that it seeks to exploit, by means of “useful idiots”, those of good consciences imbued with fine sentiments, in order to impose the Koranic order on the Western world itself.
The Koran is a book of unparalleled violence. Maxime Rodinson states, in Encyclopedia Universalis, some truths as equally important as the tabus in France. On one hand: “Mohammed revealed in Medina unsuspected qualities of political leader and military chief (…) He resorted to private war, then the current institution in Arabia (…) Mohammed soon sent small groups of partisans to attack the Meccan caravans, thus punishing his unbelieving compatriots and simultaneously acquiring the booty of a wealthy man.”
Additionally: “Mohammed profited from this success by eliminating from Medina, by means of massacre, the Jewish tribe which resided there, the Quarayza, whom he accused of suspect behaviour.” Finally “After the death of Khadija, he married a widow, fine domestic, (called) Sawda, and also little Aisha, barely ten years old. His erotic predilections, held in check for a long time, led him to embark on ten marriages jointly.”
complete article on :
westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003001.html
What will the West do? stay politically correct or defend itself from these intruders?
. But really I felt bad about the rant. I tried not to offend, but I think that that is part of the problem. People are so afraid to offend that they are scared to ask questions or speak truth.