Lizard Watch

With thanks to JW & Pamela:

charles-johnson Little Green Drama Queen Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs

“Robert Spencer posted a veiled threat today to attack me physically.” 
Charles Johnson, LGF April 26, 2009

How pathetic is that?

Looks like the Charles Johnson’s derangement syndrome is infecting others, Rusty Shackleford from the Jawa Report seems to have caught a dose of it. Sometimes you think there are people who do get it, and the next moment you realize they’re almost as clueless as the next guy.

But Robert Spencer can speak for himself:

Geert Wilders a fascist?

Rusty over at the Jawa Report has asked me to respond to his post here, entitled, “Cheers for Geert Wilders’ Bravery at Standing Against the Islamist Tide, Jeers for his Fascist Tendencies.”

Fascist tendencies? I’ve already explained, in this post, that Wilders’s call to ban the Qur’an is simply a call for consistency: his native Netherlands bans Mein Kampf as hate speech, and yet pays no attention to the manifest power of the Qur’an to incite to violence. The Netherlands should either stop banning books altogether or be consistent about it.

But Rusty is also concerned about a couple of elements in a speech Wilders gave several days ago in Florida, the text of which I posted here.

2. Stop pretending that Islam is a religion. Islam is a totalitarian ideology. In other words, the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam.

So, Wilders wishes to do what exactly to Islam? I think there is something about “free exercise” in the First Amendment. But maybe Wilders has a different Bill of Rights than I do?

Even if Islam isn’t strictly a “religion” in the way we normally define religion in the West. Even if it is a totalitarian ideology, so what? How is banning a political ideology any better than banning a religious ideology? […]

What we need in the fight against political Islam are not laws making us less free. This is an ideological fight. Ideas need to be fought with ideas. We didn’t ban the CPUSA, yet we won the Cold War anyway.

I disagree with Wilders’s statement that Islam is not a religion. Islam is certainly a religion — a belief-system that, like other religions, purports to relate human beings to the divine. But at the same time, I understand why he says that Islam is not a religion — because the strictly religious aspects of Islam are actually of no concern to unbelievers at all. It makes no difference to me if a Muslim wants to pray five times a day, or read the Qur’an, or believes that Muhammad is a prophet —except insofar as it impinges me as a political program that demands my conversion, subjugation, or death.

The U.S. indeed did not outlaw the Communist Party of the USA, but it did move actively to suppress Communist activity, driving the party almost completely underground after World War I and always working energetically against Communist subversive activity in the United States. The religious aspects of Islam obscure the fact that Islamic jihadists are pursuing a political program that seeks, no less unmistakeably than did the Communists, to replace the U.S. Constitution with a system that would deny many basic rights guaranteed by that Constitution.

The political program of Islam is generally not recognized in the U.S. today, but nonetheless there are many groups dedicated to carrying it out. They should not be allowed the protection of a religious cover to obscure their criminal and seditious activity. Section 2385 of the federal criminal code states that “whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.”

I don’t believe that is a fascist law. And this already existing law — revised as of January 2, 2006 — could and should be applied to Islamic groups that call for implementation of Sharia in the U.S., and work toward that implementation. In short, just as freedom of religion was not deemed to be a sufficient justification for Mormon polygamy in the late nineteenth century, so now freedom of religion should not be deemed to be sufficient justification for agitation on behalf of a system of laws that would deny freedom of speech and the equality of rights of all people before the law.

And there is nothing fascist about saying so.

Rusty also objects to this from Wilders’s speech:

The inconsistencies get even worse. Recall that Wilders also called for freedom of assembly in yesterday’s press release. But look at number 9 on his list of things Europe must do to stop Islamization:

9. Stop the building of new mosques. As long as no churches or synagogues are allowed to be build in countries like Saudi-Arabia we will not allow one more new mosque in our western countries. Close all mosques where incitement to violence is taking place. Close all Islamic schools, for they are fascist institutions and young children should not be educated an ideology of hate and violence.

So, Muslims will not be given freedom of assembly either? I’m not sure what else a mosque represents other than a place for Muslims to freely assemble.

Well, let’s see. What does a mosque represent other than a place for Muslims to freely assemble? Recently we have seen mosques used to preach hatred; to spread exhortations to terrorist activity; to house a bomb factory; to store weapons; todisseminate messages from bin Laden; to demand (in the U.S.) that non-Muslims conform to Islamic dietary restrictions; to fire on American troops; to fire upon Indian troops; to train jihadists; and much more.

And let’s look at what Wilders actually said. Did he say close all the mosques and deport all the Muslims? No, he did not. His ninth point makes three recommendations. First is “stop the building of new mosques. As long as no churches or synagogues are allowed to be build in countries like Saudi-Arabia we will not allow one more new mosque in our western countries.”

This is a call for reciprocity that many others have made. Even Russia, ordinarily a friend of the jihad, asked the Saudis to allow the building of a church in Saudi Arabia in exchange for a mosque in Moscow. The Roman Catholic bishop of Mainz, Germany, asked to celebrate Mass in Saudi Arabia, in light of the presence of so many mosques in Europe. Is asking that non-Muslims be accorded the same respect and consideration in Muslim countries that Muslims are accorded in the West essentially a fascist request? I don’t see why.

Second, Wilders says: “Close all mosques where incitement to violence is taking place.” Is Rusty seriously objecting to this? Incitement to violence should just continue in these places, because they are religious? It is “fascist” to want to close down places that preach violence against innocents? I don’t buy it. Wilders is not saying to close all the mosques. Why not make the distinction be that those that do not teach hatred of the Infidel and the need to subjugate him, by violence if necessary, are free to stay open? That’s fascist? Come on.

And finally, Wilders says: “Close all Islamic schools, for they are fascist institutions and young children should not be educated an ideology of hate and violence.” Here again, it is true that in many Islamic schools children are educated in an ideology of hate and violence. Iranian textbooks teach children to fight against Allah’s enemies by learning combat techniques; an Islamic school in Ottawa was teaching hatred of Jews; Islamic schools in West Africa have been hubs of human trafficking; Pakistani Islamic schools are jihad factories; an Islamic school in the U.K. was shut down for ties to terrorism and for preaching hatred of Christians and Jews; and an Islamic school in Virginia taught that adulterers and apostates should be killed.

If, in light of all this and more, Islamic schools are not to be shut down, what assurances can Muslim leaders give us that none of this will go on within them? Will they throw open their doors to inspections? In reality, the current is moving in just the opposite direction. I have not called for all Islamic schools to be shut down, and think there is a great deal that authorities can do and have not so far done in order to call them to account short of shutting them down, but here again, I don’t see that it is “fascist” or denying Muslims their freedom of religion to want to protect oneself from what have been hotbeds of violence and subversion all over the world. I propose that Islamic schools in the West remain open if they institute transparent, inspectable programs teaching against jihad violence and Islamic supremacism, and teaching the necessity to live with Infidels as equals in a secular society on an indefinite basis, without attempting to impose Sharia over them.

In any case, I don’t think Rusty is justified in calling Geert Wilders a fascist on the basis of these points — or any other. But of course, libelblogger Charles Johnson is crowing that Rusty has posted this, although he seems to have missed that Rusty said this: “I don’t think CJ’s guilt by association stance is very fair.” Uh, yep.

UPDATE: The great thinker defines fascism!

Sheik sez: Rusty only adds to the confusion. 

So, Wilders wishes to do what exactly to Islam? I think there is something about “free exercise” in the First Amendment. But maybe Wilders has a different Bill of Rights than I do?

Not, Rusty. You’re missing the point. “Free exercise” for the Muslims means they can force their ideology (in the guise of religion) on unsuspecting infidels. This “free exercise” includes striking terror in the hearts of (us)  the enemy, raping infidel women, cheating, lying and deceiving the infidel, and last not least murdering opponents, assassinating people like Wilders, Robert Spencer or Wafa Sultan, who tell the truth. 

* When fascists call decent people fascists: Charles Johnson meltdown continues:

Post no 57 on ADL Condemns Remarks by Geert Wilders

Amused to Death  4/30/09 2:50:25 pm  

well, in the first place, it would be difficult to “ban” islam. as a result of taqiyya amongst muslims, that is lying in the name of the religion, a “group” could “congregate” and do services in members’ houses or a place like that. nevertheless, i find it hard to believe that charles johnson and everyone else in this website is so against Geert Wilders. He is standing up for Western civilization, something that no other person or political party in Europe is currently doing. you may not agree with all that he says, but the ultimate message is there: democracy, and fundamental freedoms. this man can’t live in a house with his family, as a result of constant death threats from muslims…in the Netherlands…as a result of calling the Qur’an a “fascist” book. Who else do you see doing this in the West, in a dangerous Europe no less? The man is very brave and should be commended by you people rather than scorned. You guys just don’t understand, and so I see no purpose in wasting my time here.

The chief Lizard answers:

And how do you think you’re going to get peaceful Muslims on board with that, if you turn around and tell them their religion should be banned?

… and promptly bans the poster:

Amused to Death
Registered since: Apr 8, 2007 at 7:43 pm
No. of comments posted: 13
No. of links posted: 0

Bye now!

Sheik sez: 

You don’t wanna be in Charlie Johnson’s echo chamber. Disagree? Well, no one thirst... and this Asshole is calling Wilders “fascist”?? What does that tell you?

And where are these “peaceful Muslims”  the lizard hopes to get on board? Any idea? What a wanker!

One thought on “Lizard Watch”

  1. Peaceful Muslims

    For one thing the Reptile ruler doesn’t have the insight to properly discern this issue with Muslims who claim to be peaceful. They are peaceful in spite of what the Qu’ran teaches. They are being disobedient to their own core teachings in the face of the non submissive infidels resisting Islam, which means those Muslims are quite useless as allies against Jihad….because Jihad is a foundational – core teaching of the Qu’ran. How are any “peaceful Muslims” going to hold any sway with obedient ones following the way of Jihad, who clearly see peaceful ones as apostates to the teachings of Muhammad? And I mean peaceful ones who are not being deceitful in taqiyya & hudna? Try and separate the honest ones from the stealth Jihadists. Good luck Sir Charles with that snake bait.

Comments are closed.