An Englishman explains Islam:
However, aside from the danger that has been directed at people such as this brave man by Jihadis, there is also the intolerance of those in positions of authority and
Here's my observation:
The problems posed to us by militant Islamists I don't think are really in contention.
I think the real problem was only obliquely touched by the man in this video:
"we live in a liberal democracy and therefore have certain double-standards to maintain... which seeks to portray legitimate comment as some kind of hate crime."How far would any of this nonsense have gotten if it weren't for these fifth columnists, whose hamstringing of frank assessment of the threats and those who are most threatening, aids and abets the enemies of the West? The Left and other Statists would have us "submit" one way or the other.
This video is only extraordinary because our "leaders" kowtow to everyone with a "chip on their shoulder the size of a mosque," and to hell with the rest of us. If our leaders spoke like leaders, this man wouldn't feel the need to show them how.
The video that needs publishing is one that would drive the PC crowd from office.
Wouldn't you pay to see that one?
I would.
View My Stats
This guy speaks pretty well, but if you listen to him speak on other topics, he's as full of vitriol for all religions.
ReplyDeleteWhere did you find him speaking on other topics?
ReplyDeleteOf course, it isn't his opinion I care about. What I care about is that his opinions are so suppressed. And that goes double for any who don't like what he has to say on other topics. That's because suppressed speech frequently gains listeners simply for being unusual, as implied by the title of this thread.
As far as his opinion on this topic goes, suppression of it makes it harder for potential leaders to voice anything better thought out but in the same direction. They'll repress themselves as things get worse (save their ammunition so to speak) rather than come under attack by the suppressors before they have time to build a bloc of substantial size.
And that is a prescription for making it harder for us in the near term. Refusal to allow frank discussion aids and abets the trouble-makers. Which leads logically to conclude that those who won't permit frank discussions more than likely have other reasons to suppress speech of which they will not speak.
Thanks for the info, Pascal!
ReplyDeleteYou never know what you're getting with Youtube!
Pogo is so relevant here: we have met the enemy and he is us. The p.c.'ers , the leftists who, disappointed that their beloved USSR didn't squash the West, spite us by embracing a fascist enemy, the non thinker collegiates who talk in slogans, whose motto should be "my mind's made up - don't confuse me with facts," these are the ones who will open the front gate of the castle and make straight the conquest while the brave warriors are on top of the ramparts firing down on the jihadist marauding horde.
ReplyDeleteWe're like a boxer shot up with tranquilizer fighting a sober opponent. The tranquilizer is liberalism. It keeps us from defining our identity (and not just one of us not being them, but us as the culmination of Western Civilization), from all seeing the enemy, from realizing that we once again have a real quest to save the world. The sobriety of our opponent is caused by clear and simple adherence to a cause by the other side. They are not crazy people - they are people who try to fulfill their beliefs, as much as the emperor worshipers did in Imperial Japan.
A good movie to see is Obsession - What the West Needs to Know. Then get some Robert Spencer readers. Then look at the world around you that is addicted to its entertainment instead of its survival, and weep.