Tea or Death?

So, a few bits of news to put up today, one of which I'm really happy about and the other that is frankly terrifying.

So, I'll start with the good news, because I'm not sure what long reaching effect it will have, though I do hope it goes as I would like it too. Namely, a growing number of Christian Leaders and their churches are joining President Obama in the "Progressive" movement to declare the Tea-Party "Unchristian."

If you are of a heathen, pagan, or non-monotheistic mindset, you may now join me in the laughter. For those who don't know why they should be laughing, permit me to explain.

When I look at the Progressive movement, socialism, communism, fascism, and so on, I do see the pinnacle of Christian Ideology. All they've done is replace God with Government (so instead of God will provide it is now Government will provide, or Vengeance is God's it is now Vengeance is the Government's, etc). Charity went from being a divine mandate to being a governmental mandate on behavior. Instead of One Nation under God, it has become One Nation under Government. The basic fundamentals, such as the weak, poor, and disenfranchised taking supremacy over the Strong, "Wealthy", and Empowered, remains a staple of this Progressive Ideology. At it's heart, I count Progressivism as very, very Christian.

As I have studied Heathenism/Asatru, and learned of the greater contributions given by our Scandinavian/Germanic ancestors both in books about my religion and in purely historical works, I have come to realize just how many ideals embraced today by Independents, Libertarians, and Conservatives draw on the ancient traditions of pre-Christian Europe. When I look at what the tea party calls for: Democracy, Lower Taxes, Smaller Government, Freedom of the People to Live As They See Fit, and so on, I see the ancient Heathen and Pagan ways of European peoples from before the Age of Christendom. While many in the Tea Party may believe in Christ (Glenn Beck being a very vocal member of the "Return to Christianity" group inside the Tea Party) that doesn't alter that the fundamental values of the Tea Party are Heathen.

So what do I think will happen with the wide-spread declaration that the Tea Party isn't "Christian"? Well, two things. The Tea Party might lose a few members who can't stand to see themselves as anything less that "True Christians." Honestly, I will account that no great loss, even if I'm not really a member of the Tea Party (mostly because I see too many 'old dogs' trying to manipulate and corrupt it to their own ends). What I hope will also happen is that more people will start to look at the Tea Party in a new light. It isn't racist, a theory that has been pretty much slaughters like an offering to the Gods. I think one of the things that has hindered more people from joining it, myself included, is that it is perceived as "Christian" and thus not friendly to Atheists, Pagans, Heathens, Buddhists, and others. By labeling it "unchristian" the doors will be open to those groups who will be able to see that the Tea Party stands more for Freedom of All Peoples, Equality for All Men and Women, and Justice for People Regardless of Race or Religion. This in turn will make a stronger Tea Party.

The second bit of news comes from Chuck Norris. A while back I was surprised to find out he was a news commentator and on occasion I've had cause to read his articles. The latest, however, is grim. Turns out that President Obama and crew have passed a law which allows them to assassinate U.S. Citizens in order to prevent "terrorism" and "Terrorist Threats." Considering that Obama has in the works (if not completed) a plan that would allow him to hold U.S. Citizens indefinitely for the exact same reason, and that the Obama Administration is willing to consider groups like the Tea Party or similar groups that are Non-Muslim to be "terrorist" or "terrorist leaning" you may draw your own conclusions as to where this will lead.

It's not a Girl's World afterall

So, been a while since I posted, for which I do apologize. circumstances being what they are, I wasn't able to go after my previous record from the last month. That said, I figured I'd drop a little something today.

Let me start by mentioning a story I found earlier this month, the article of which I have sadly misplaced, so no link this time. What happened is that over in England, a school filled its Head Positions (Which as anyone who had read Harry Potter knows, go to the top Male and Female students of each year to act as representatives and help keep their class mates inline). The problem arises in how they filled these Head Positions; Namely, with all girls. The article stated that out of the ten (10) students selected to have a chance as Head Boy, Head Girl, and the two assistant positions, only Two (2) were boys. Okay, well, in this age of political correctness one would think that those two boys would automatically get the Head Boy and Assistant Head Boy position.

You'd be wrong.

Rather, this school filled all four positions with girls. Now, I do not wish in the slightest to demean these girls. I'm sure they are all fine students and are caught up in an ugly business not of their making. That said, none of them have protested this blatant round of sexism. But, they are young and most likely just happy to have something that will look good on their transcripts. The real problem comes from those in charge of the school. The principle basically came out and said that the "Boys weren't good enough." Now, I'm sorry, but everything I know about this says that the position is traditionally filled by the top students of the gender assigned to that position, not simply to the top students.

I'd hate to know how those boys felt, hearing that even if they were the "best" they weren't good enough. That's gonna do wonders for them in life.

That said, further news had cause to make one realize that while the above story is the triumph of feminism rising above male dominance, things are not as they seem. Apparently, being a girl isn't enough to get you ahead. You have to be the right kind of girl.

A little gem of an article tells the story of Brooke Heike, a college basket ball player who got benched and lost her scholarship. The reason for this benching, however, has nothing to do with the typical reasons athletes are kicked off the field though. Rather, it seems Brooke was a bit too heterosexual, with a taste for feminine clothing and make up that her coach just did not approve of. Apparently, for not going lesbian, or "Following advice that would improve her life on the court and off", is enough to get you kicked around.

Which reminds me of another story (sorry, lost the article again) in which a young woman was kicked out of her Master's program because she refused to give up her Christian views on Homosexuality. The only way she would have been allowed to continue would have been to attend a bunch of events and sensitivity classes about Homosexuality. No doubt, in the hopes of reprogramming her views. (No doubt bonus points if she actually found out she was lesbian and her Christianity had repressed it. This is important because I believe the issue arose from the young woman believing Homosexuality was a choice).

Meanwhile, back in Britain thousands of girls are facing the prospect of being taken and experiencing the joys of becoming a woman! Oh, wait, sorry. The joys of Female Genital Mutilation, which makes them a woman! That's right, ladies, you too can become a valued member of society and experience freedom and equality! We're just gonna slice, dice, rip, and hack a vital part of your anatomy away. Then stick you in a burka, hide you away, and blame you for every crime a man commits against you because Allah made it that way.

So where are those who could champion the cause of Woman's Liberation? Where are the feminists, who decry male totalitarian action that subjugates women? Oh they are very, very busy with something even more important! Hail to the Heroes, er Heroines...um, sorry, Heroic Persons?

Not so much...

Seems that the apron is coming back. Yep, that age old garment that has kept food off of clothing in the kitchen (and become something of a sexy symbol in certain circles) has reappeared in the female consciousness. Why is a mystery (because the obvious answer isn't). Some say it's because women are turning back to something comfortable in this uncertain time, just like they did in the 1950's. Some say they wear the apron "Ironically", but don't ask me how that works. Others say it's a return of Male Oppression and Sexism. Because a woman feeling sexy and homemakery is the height of sexism, even if it's what she wants. So thus does a battle rage in the circles of Feminism about the appropriateness of women staying home, wearing aprons, and other some things. Rejoice! They fight for you, womankind!

I'm not sure there's much more I can say about that right now. I could continue to rant, or explore the internal viewpoints of the feminist movements, but honestly I don't know what more I need to say. A movement promising to liberate women fights endlessly against aprons and homemaking, but does precious little to stop the horrendous sexism from Islam or stop the barbaric practices it has against its women. I thought the feminist movement was about empowering women so they could chose the lives they want, not insisting they live a certain kind of life, while ignoring those in this modern era who suffer in far worse situations that Women in the West have ever faced in their entire history.

A Speech from a Hero

I came across this at Gates of Vienna today. Geert Wilders is a man worthy of aid and respect, a hard thing to find in politics, much less those in Europe.

Please view the Gates of Vienna link for translation credits.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Muslims, liberate yourselves, and you will be able to do anything

“Without Islam, the Arabs, Iranians, Indians and Indonesians have an enormous potential”

Islam makes Muslims unfree and fatalistic, Geert Wilders responds to a request from the international debate-website muslimsdebate.com.[1]

by Geert Wilders

I first visited an Islamic country in 1982. I was 18 years old then, and traveled with a Dutch friend from the Israeli city of Eilat to the Egyptian Red Sea resort Sharm al-Sheikh. We were two students with backpacks and hardly had a penny to spend. We slept on the beach and found hospitality with Egyptians, who spontaneously invited us for tea. I still remember clearly my first impression of Egypt; I was overwhelmed by the friendliness and helpfulness of the people.

I also remember my second strong impression of Egypt: I noticed how frightened those nice, friendly people were. While we were in Sharm al-Sheikh, President Mubarak coincidentally paid a visit. I remember the fear is that suddenly flooded the city when it was announced that Mubarak would unexpectedly visit. I still see the procession of black cars on the day of his visit, and still feel the almost physical sense of fear, as a cold shiver on that sweltering hot summer day.

It was a weird experience. Mubarak is not regarded as the worst Islamic tyrant, but the fear of the ordinary Egyptians for their leader could be felt even by me. I am curious how the Saudis feel when their king is in town, how the Libyans feel when Gaddafi announces his arrival, how the Iraqis must have felt when Saddam Hussein was around. A few years later I read in the Qur’an how the seventh-century Arabs felt in the presence of Muhammad, who — as several verses describe — “strikes terror into their hearts”(Sura 8:12, 8:60, 33:26, 59:12).

From Sharm al-Sheikh I went with my friend to Cairo. It was poor and incredibly dirty. My friend and I were surprised that this poor and dirty Egypt could be a neighbor country of Israel, which was so clean. The explanation of the Arabs, with whom we spoke about their poverty, was that they were in no way to blame for their situation: according to them, they were the victims of a global conspiracy of the “imperialists” and the “Zionists”, designed to keep the Muslims poor and subservient. I did not find this explanation convincing. According to my intuition it had something to do with the difference between the cultures of Israel and Egypt.

I made a mistake in Cairo. We had almost no money and I was thirsty. One could buy a glass of water at public water collectors. It did not look clean, but I drank it. I got a terrible diarrhea. I went to a hostel where one could rent a spot on the floor for two dollars a day. There I lay for several days, a heap of misery in a crowded, stinking room, with ten other guys. Once Egypt had been the most advanced civilization on earth. Why had it not progressed along with the rest of the world?

In the last years of the nineteenth century, Winston Churchill was a soldier and war correspondent in India (now Pakistan) and Sudan. Churchill was a perceptive young man, whose months in Pakistan and the Sudan, and that enabled him to understand with stunning clarity what the problem is with Islam and “the curses it lays on its votaries”:

“Besides the fanatical frenzy, … there is this fearful fatalistic apathy,” he wrote. “The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to a sole man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. … Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. “ And Churchill concluded: “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

There are people who say that I hate Muslims. I do not hate Muslims. It saddens me that Islam deprived them of their dignity.

What Islam is doing to Muslims is reflected in the way they treat their daughters. On March 11, 2002, fifteen Saudi schoolgirls were killed when they tried to flee from their burning school in the holy city of Mecca. A fire had set the building ablaze. The girls ran to the school gates but these were locked. The keys were in possession of a male guard, who refused to open the gate because the girls were not wearing the correct Islamic dress imposed on women by Saudi law: face veils and overgarments. The “indecently dressed” girls (without facial veil and overgarment) were trying to save their young lives. The Saudi police forced them back into the burning building. Agents of the Mutaween, the “Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice,” as the police in Saudi Arabia are called, also beat passersby and firefighters who tried to help the girls. “It is sinful to come near them,” the police warned the crowd. It is also a crime.

Girls are not appreciated in Islam: when a father has a daughter, according to the Qur’an, “his face turns black, that is how distressed he is (Sura 43:15). Nevertheless, the incident with the school in Mecca did cause angry reactions. Islam is inhumane, but Muslims are humans and therefore capable of love — that powerful force which Muhammad despised. Humanity was dominant with the fathers in Mecca who were outraged about the death of their daughters, but also among the firefighters who resisted when the Mutaween beat the girls back inside, and the journalists of the Saudi newspaper who for the first time in Saudi history criticized the feared and powerful “Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.”

However, Muslim protests against Islamic inhumanity are rare. Most Muslims, including those in Western countries, go to the mosque and listen to shocking verses from the Koran and revolting sermons it without rising up against it.

I myself am agnostic. But Christians and Jews believe that God created man in His image. They believe that by observing themselves as free, rational beings who are capable of love, they may learn to know Him. They even may argue with him, as the Jews have done throughout their entire history. In contrast, the Qur’an states that “there is nothing equal to Allah” (Sura 16:74, 42:11). He has absolutely nothing in common with us. It is absurd to suppose that Allah has created man in his image. The biblical notion that God is our father is not present in the Islam. There also is no personal relationship between man and Allah. The goal of Islam is the total submission of ourselves and others to the unknowable God, whom we must serve by means of total obedience to Muhammad as leader of the Islamic State (Sura 3:31, 4:80, 24:62, 48:10, 57:28). And history taught us that Muhammad was certainly not a prophet of love and compassion, but a mass murderer, a tyrant, and a pedophile. The Muslims could not have had a more regrettable role model.

Without individual freedom it is not surprising that the idea of man as a responsible acting person is not quite developed in the Islam. Muslims are often fatalistic. Perhaps — and let us hope this — only a few radicals take the call of the Qur’an seriously to execute a jihad against the infidels. But most Muslims never raise their voices against these radicals. That is the “terrible fatalistic apathy” which Churchill pointed at.

The writer Aldous Huxley, who in the twenties of the last century lived in North Africa, remarked the following: “About the immediate causes of things — precisely how they happen — they seem to feel not the slightest interest. Indeed, it is not even admitted that there are such things as immediate causes: God is directly responsible for everything. ‘Do you think it will rain?’ you ask pointing to menacing clouds overhead. ‘If God wills,’ is the answer. You pass the native hospital. ‘Are the doctors good?’ ‘In our country,’ the Arab gravely replies, in the tone of Solomon, ‘we say that doctors are of no avail. If Allah wills that a man die, he will die. If not, he will recover.’ All of which is profoundly true, so true, indeed, that is not worth saying. To the Arab, however, it seems the last word in human wisdom. […]They have relapsed — all except those who are educated according to Western methods — into pre-scientific fatalism, with its attendant incuriosity and apathy.”

Islam deprives Muslims of their freedom. Which is unfortunate, because free people are capable of great things, as history has shown. The Arabic, Turkish, Iranian, Indian, Indonesian peoples have a huge potential. If they were not prisoners of Islam, if they could free themselves from the yoke of Islam, when Muhammad would no longer be a role model, and rid themselves of the evil Qur’an, they would be capable of great things not only for the benefit of themselves, but of the world.

As a Dutch, European, and Western politician my first responsibility is to the Dutch people, the Europeans and the West. But as we will all benefit from the liberation of Muslims from Islam, I strongly support the Muslims who love freedom. My message to them is clear: Fatalism is not an option; “inshallah” is a curse, submission is a disgrace. Liberate yourselves. It is up to you.

Geert Wilders is the leader of the Party for Freedom in the Dutch Parliament.