I am astounded that Horowitz pulled it, he is the author of the book:
***********************************************************
|
First, there is nothing critical about Moslems in this article beyond things that I have previously published at FrontPage. Second, the article is not primarily about Moslems but about the West's response, or rather lack of response, to them. I therefore find the notion that there is nothing new or worthwhile in the article troubling. I argue that the West, faced with the challenge of growing unassimilable and jihadist Moslem populations in its midst, is in effect limiting itself to just two responses: the liberals' response, which is to retreat from the Moslems (as many Dutch are now doing by emigrating from the Netherlands); and the conservatives' response, which is point out the serious threat Western Moslems pose to us (which convinces the conservative grassroots that the conservative elites are on top of the issue), but then to propose doing nothing about this threat except to call for yet further efforts at "assimilating" the Moslems. Of course, any real assimilation is impossible, given the fact that the Western nations have culturally and spiritually cancelled themselves out of existence (so that there is nothing for Moslems to assimilate themselves into, even if they wanted to), while the Moslems are on fire with their own religion and culture. No one in any influential position in the West is calling for the cessation of Moslem immigration into the West and the removal of jihad-supporting Moslems from the West.
Here is the article, in exactly the form in which it was published this morning at FrontPage:
Ping
Here's what I've gathered on this subject:
Islam versus Holland- Red Cresent Rising?
various FR links | 11-13-04 | The Heavy Equipment Guy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1279355/posts
Your opinion?.....pong
I am astounded that Horowitz pulled it, he is the author of the book:
***********************************************************
|
"as they decide what to make of this large and growing minority in their midst, particularly the Islamists who aspire to colonize them."
This for me hits the nail on the head. Most immigrants coming to the West/US want to adopt american ways, not impose themselves on us. There are a few you could argue, but the vast majority want the ideals of what we have to offer. It is the Islamists who aspire to colonize us that I am wary of.
Actually, I can understand why he pulled it.
You accuse the Bush administration of doing "nothing", which is inaccurate. A number of arrests have been made and mosques closed and organizations shut down.
You also make statements like this....."further efforts at assimilation--something which most Muslims have no desire to do,"
"Most muslims"? Really? You have numbers?
I'm feeling a bit under the weather today, or I'd go thru this article more thoroughly and point out more examples of why Horowitz yanked it. But it's not hard to understand why he did.
It is, at best, tritely negative.
I wish someone would examine the effect of Europe's tradition of feudalism on it's assimilation of Moslems, vis-a-vis the relative success of the US in assimilating them.
What a great post! Thanks for the news, especially since it is not available from the source. I hope it's not pulled on FR, too.
I would like to add some observations. While much of what I see here is quite accurate and perceptive, there are a few points that are weak. I picked up an anniversary souvenir book on mosques around the world at the local library, a "free book" that was getting recycled. In it, some interesting distinctions about the Mohammedan false religion are clarified for me. Perhaps you would like to know about them.
For one, when they say, "mosque," they are not necessarily talking about a dedicated building. For a Mohammedan, a mosque can be any building. It is merely a place where they congregate for common prayer. The Mohammedans are obliged to pray privately practically all the time, so they say, but sometimes they gather together in one place to pray in common. The "mosque" can be a warehouse, a cave, a library, a house, a barn, a gymnasium, or even an abandoned church.
Since Mohammedans do not conduct any ritual sacrifice or rite in their houses of worship, they don't need any church-like structure with anything resembling an altar or such things. I had often wondered why pictures of mosque interiors are so stark and empty-looking. Also, they think of statues or pictures as being distracting to the prayer of those who assemble, therefore, they don't have any such reminders of people or events inside. Ironically, they do have such phrases as "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet" hidden in the ornate filigree around doorways and other architectural elements. I don't know how they can say that doesn't remind them of a person: Mohammed.
It seems odd to me that this religion, based on the teaching of Mohammed, is often called something other than Mohammedanism.
They also consider incense a distraction against prayer, so they don't use it in a mosque. When you go inside a mosque, there is an abiding locker room-like smell hanging around. That comes from the fact that Mohammedans do not change their clothes much, which they wear in layers to protect them from the heat of the desert climates to which they are indiginous. They use the draped garments as a form of natural air-conditioning, so that perspiration and/or other added moisture can evaporate to effect cooling. It's a pretty cost-effective way to stay cool! But it has its drawbacks, I suppose: without any incense allowed, the mosque retains the abiding smell of body odor.
One more thing. They say in this souvenir book that their great goal is to promote world peace and the unity of man. Then, elsewhere in the book they assure the reader, whoever it might be, that unity of man is attainable only by worldwide embrace of Mohammedanism, because it must be that all other religions are subservient to it. (Is that why they kill Christians in the Sudan?) This "mosques around the world" issue celebrates the steady advance of their religion into all nations of the world, through the construction of mosqes, some of which are depicted on its pages.
But if they don't need a dedicated building, what is the real purpose of building "mosques" all over the world? The book does not explain.
What a great post! Thanks for the news, especially since it is not available from the source. I hope it's not pulled on FR, too.
I would like to add some observations. While much of what I see here is quite accurate and perceptive, there are a few points that are weak. I picked up an anniversary souvenir book on mosques around the world at the local library, a "free book" that was getting recycled. In it, some interesting distinctions about the Mohammedan false religion are clarified for me. Perhaps you would like to know about them.
For one, when they say, "mosque," they are not necessarily talking about a dedicated building. For a Mohammedan, a mosque can be any building. It is merely a place where they congregate for common prayer. The Mohammedans are obliged to pray privately practically all the time, so they say, but sometimes they gather together in one place to pray in common. The "mosque" can be a warehouse, a cave, a library, a house, a barn, a gymnasium, or even an abandoned church.
Since Mohammedans do not conduct any ritual sacrifice or rite in their houses of worship, they don't need any church-like structure with anything resembling an altar or such things. I had often wondered why pictures of mosque interiors are so stark and empty-looking. Also, they think of statues or pictures as being distracting to the prayer of those who assemble, therefore, they don't have any such reminders of people or events inside. Ironically, they do have such phrases as "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet" hidden in the ornate filigree around doorways and other architectural elements. I don't know how they can say that doesn't remind them of a person: Mohammed.
It seems odd to me that this religion, based on the teaching of Mohammed, is often called something other than Mohammedanism.
They also consider incense a distraction against prayer, so they don't use it in a mosque. When you go inside a mosque, there is an abiding locker room-like smell hanging around. That comes from the fact that Mohammedans do not change their clothes much, which they wear in layers to protect them from the heat of the desert climates to which they are indiginous. They use the draped garments as a form of natural air-conditioning, so that perspiration and/or other added moisture can evaporate to effect cooling. It's a pretty cost-effective way to stay cool! But it has its drawbacks, I suppose: without any incense allowed, the mosque retains the abiding smell of body odor.
One more thing. They say in this souvenir book that their great goal is to promote world peace and the unity of man. Then, elsewhere in the book they assure the reader, whoever it might be, that unity of man is attainable only by worldwide embrace of Mohammedanism, because it must be that all other religions are subservient to it. (Is that why they kill Christians in the Sudan?) This "mosques around the world" issue celebrates the steady advance of their religion into all nations of the world, through the construction of mosqes, some of which are depicted on its pages.
But if they don't need a dedicated building, what is the real purpose of building "mosques" all over the world? The book does not explain.
Nice article. Thanks for publishing/posting.
Although I agree with your basic position, I think you overlooked two key points.
The first is that Europe is already lost. Europe simply does not have the ability to reverse the policies that let the barbarians in. European leaders would have to admit how wrong their core beliefs turned out to be, which they will never do. But even if a new cadre of leaders can be found, the native Europeans are too few and too old to throw out the young and vigorous barbarians they have invited in. The Europeans have passed the demographic point of no return.
The second point is that the U.S. is not lost, but we are close. The U.S. is almost evenly divided and could easily fall. Whatever is done must not tip the balance to the wrong side.
I believe we have to try what we are doing now first if we are to avoid tipping the balance to the wrong side. In my opinion, John Kerry would have won if the general population had thought President Bush was too hard on Muslims. And John Kerry would have taken the U.S. the way of Europe.
Yes, trying to maintain peace with Islam in general is difficult. It may even be impossible in the long term. Yes, the "moderate" Muslims the liberals think are out there are awfully hard to find. But right now, anything else would fail to receive enough domestic support to sustain.
We are trying to isolate the conflict to a few "radical" Muslims, thus avoiding a war with the entire Muslim world. So far, against all odds, we are succeeding.
If this high stakes gamble fails, a general war against Islam will eventually ensue. Many of our "allies" will try to make peace with our enemies (as they already are). Many Americans will side with our enemies as well (as they already are). We will stand almost alone in the world, and divided at home. We will need all the unity we can muster, or we too will fall.
In other words, I think the high stakes gamble we are engaged in right now is our only current option. If it fails, it will have paved the way for greater unity when a wider conflict emerges.
I pray that conflict does not come, but I have plenty of ammo.
Excellent article, thanks.
Thanks for posting this. I could not find it even though I had the link to Front Page for it. Now I know that David Horowitz got rid of it ... for whatever reason
(And about that 'War On Terror' thing . .)
=========================================
Freedom House recently published a report about the Saudi-funded propagation of virulent anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Jewish exterminationist ideology in thousands of Saudi-funded Wahhabi mosques throughout the U.S.
The Bush administration has done nothing about this, but continues to admit Saudi immigrants and travelers into the U.S. and to maintain good relations with the Saudi Kingdom.
Nice article.
I think Horowitz is having a bad week. Also I vaguely remember that CAIR is suing him so perhaps there is a need to be circumspect. CAIR is suing all over the place. The Muslims know all too well how to use the systems they despise.
I had a conversation with a Dutch woman in the week after the killing of van Gogh and her grief was at the outburst of anti-Muslim feeling which to her was a sign of the dying "liberalism" of her country. When I pointed out that the Muslims had killed the liberalism, what else can you call murdering a filmaker because you don't like his film, police removing the Ten Commandments from the murder scene because it "offends" Muslims, she did not get it.
Interesting article and thread.
BTTT
Thanks Ernest for the ping. I suggest everyone save a copy of this column for posterity.
I found it to be truthful, not hostile.
Hostility would be Koranic verse toilet paper.
Hmm... not a bad idea...
bttt
Unholy Alliance 