Sunday, September 30, 2012

Surrendering Our Castle to the Besiegers

Vlad has some thoughts (and videos) today on the assault mounted against our free speech by the world’s 9.33 quintillion offended Muslims:

The picture clarifies. Muslims all over the world tell the same lies to the same effect. the request? “Infidels world wide, destroy your values and rights”

And in many of the videos they tell the same lie, that Muslims respect Jesus and other ‘prophets’ etc. Which of course is preposterous. Islam has rewritten the narrative on all famous religious figures of Judaism and Christianity to make them conform to Islamic values and make them enemies of the very people they represented.

These riots/demonstrations world wide are days of rage and part of the plan the OIC and the Muslim Brotherhood have been planning and implementing for decades now. To destroy us, with our own legal systems and a hijacking of our values to their purpose.

It needs to be said, that freedom of speech has bugger all to do with the 1st amendment of the US constitution or with what any government can offer in terms of ‘rights’. Freedom of speech is a piece of real estate that we must occupy or lose it to those willing to take it.

Each time we agree for reasons of politeness or fear or intimidation or political correctness to abandon a corner of that real estate, imagining that this means it will remain technically ours but we are nice enough not to use it, very quickly it becomes enemy territory and the choice to use it is gone.

The proof of this is clear from our own history in the last 60 years. How many words and ideas that were once common in the language now can send you to jail? Especially in England.

[…]

Once you make truthful analysis of Islam illegal, you have submitted. That real estate, your own castle in fact, the one you built over centuries of bloodshed, you have ceded to your worst imaginable enemy and you will soon count yourself lucky to be the lowest servant to them and that, only till they know the layout of your home as well as you do.


Read the rest, and watch the videos, at Vlad Tepes.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

There was a bit of a kerfuffle over the Life of Brian when it came out but Christianity has shown itself strong enough to deal with that sort of thing. The Life of Brian is a funny film and has really nothing to do with Christ.

I think that devout Roman Catholic Tony Blair did away with the blasphemy laws didn't he?. A bit of a problem now with Islam on the scene.

I suppose I am a little saddened if people ridicule Christianity but that's about it. It served Europe well as a foundation for 2,000 years.

More menacing are those Marxist and Secularists who want it totally suppressed as in the Marxist/Communist countries of Eastern Europe.

But action and reaction are equal and opposite and now Christianity in Russia and Eastern Europe are flourishing. Also, I believe that church attendances in Britain are on the increase. This may in part be due to the secularists but also - although they would not admit it - to the spread of Islam.

Islam has little in common with Christianity at all, either in its message nor in its modern-day manifestation. It has much more in common with totalitarian Marxism and that is why they are brothers in arms.

Anonymous said...

It's not just the Muslims, they are merely the loud mouthed and thuggish foot soldiers of the White Leftists. And who are the prime movers of suppressing the 1st Amendment.

Bottom line with this group is that they are totalitarians just like their ancestors Stalin and Mao.

And you know what? They've been quite successful. First by introducing PC/MC speech codes and thinking into White society(minorities are excluded) through the tv and print media. Today we cannot talk in public about how the gay rights people resort to intimidation and extortion. We cannot talk about various ethnicities and how certain groups dominate the FBI crime statistics and prisons. Our colleges swim in PC speech codes and campus spies. Conservatives aren't even allowed to speak or if they do they need bodyguards to protect them from violent Leftists.

And woe to the small town mayor who invites a Christian minister to perform a Christian prayer before a public meeting. Out come the ADL and ACLU and every goose stepping atheist with a lawyer to sue that town into oblivion.

Ladies and gentlemen we do not only have suppression of free speech but apartheid as well. We are ruled by a group of hostile minorities.

Anonymous said...

Yes, indeed. The real threat to liberal democracy doesn't come from violent demonstrations, its real origin is the steady erosion of our liberty by the continual accommodation to Moslem demands. The Trojan Horse, is clearly, institutionalised multiculturalism.

Any constitutional amendment or legislation is simply a piece of paper without the will to enforce it.

Speaking of castles, we might eventually find ourselves in the same situation as the garrison of the Crac des Chevaliers, abandoned and alone.

Anonymous said...

I always enjoy Vlad's commentary. He has attained hero status among the counter-Jihad movement for his thoughtful observations of the enemy.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to be there when the White Multi-culturalists find out that they are nothing but infidels, too.

Anonymous said...

When is this conquering ideology going to be regarded and understood as such? It is after all, not a pious religion.

RonaldB said...

"It needs to be said, that freedom of speech has bugger all to do with the 1st amendment of the US constitution or with what any government can offer in terms of ‘rights’."

I disagree strongly with this statement. Although freedom of speech cannot stand if the government and people are determined to destroy it, the 1st amendment is the strongest of barriers to the government censorship of opinion in the United States.

Freedom of speech has not been perfectly protected in the United States, and during times of war has been rightfully modified, but on the whole, the citizens of the United States are far more protected in their use of speech than anywhere else in the world, including Canada, England, Denmark, Holland, Australia or any other country.

The reason is that it is virtually impossible for the government to prosecute speech that is not immediately provocative to violence. Even the worst will in the world by Obama, Clinton, and the rest cannot ignore the solid foundation for free speech in the constitution.

It is of utmost importance that laws regarding free speech in other countries depend on legislative, and not constitutional processes. So, they are easily subject to infringements by legislative or bureaucratic processes.

So, the 1st amendment is not to be belittled in its importance.

babs said...

Ronald -

While I agree with you in theory, I have to say that the 1st ammendment has been severly eroded of late due to Obamacare or the AFA. As I said to a lefty friend, it is the camel's nose under the tent.

If the American judiciary allows to stand the HHS mandate that religious institutions MUST afford birth control and sterilization under their health insurance carriers (whether they are self insured or not)this is a significant chipping away of our 1st ammendment right.

Now, I may be coming at this sideways but, that is the game plan isn't it? My opinion of state mandated birth control and sterilization is secondary to the fact that the 1st ammendment ALSO INCLUDES freedom of speech. As soon as you breech the walls of the 1st ammendment on any grounds, everything else is up for grabs.

What I think of gov't sponsored birth control and sterilization pales in the light of the piercing of the 1st ammendment. I will probably live long enough to see our 1st ammendment speech rights violated as well. It is just a short step that BTW, is being contemplated by our current SoS under the auspices of the UN (sorry, I ment to say the OIC.)

adagioforstrings said...

I concur with Ronald's defense of the US 1st amendment, above. One of the differences between the American vs British constitution is that it's not just an oral social contract but a written contract, with its civil liberties spelled out in black in white & not open for quibbling. We've historically had Both freedom of speech & freedom of religion, not either or.