Ava Lon normally spends most of her time translating Polish, German, and French for Vlad Tepes and Gates of Vienna, but sometimes she reads and comments at both blogs.
Do You Have to Try Every Stupid Thing You Think Of?
by Ava Lon
To Perfect Child:
You think that even though Islam is an evil ideology, it should be legal, because outlawing it would be against the First Amendment.
There are good ideas and bad ideas. A car with square wheels is a bad idea, and anyone who would like to drive it will find that out at their first attempt. It takes less than five minutes to figure it out, for those who believed that theoretically it should work and that it was worth to build it to convince themselves.
What if, on the restaurant menu, in the drinks section, they put, in addition to iced tea, sodas and fruit juices, a bolder option: Poison? Now we could discuss it and see if we all agree whether it’s a good or a bad idea to drink poison, or we could just try it, because we are free to try everything ourselves. Could you still be upset with the restaurant for selling poison if they warned you, and you drank it anyway?
Islam is poison. It is warning you what it is, and yet you accept the invitation?
There are bad ideas that will take longer than five minutes to show how bad they are: we can indeed not only talk about them every time ( which I strongly recommend), but additionally try them out (which isn’t necessary, in my opinion, if it has already been demonstrated how bad they are). But is using your fragile body, instead of your stronger, more resilient mind (an idea can upset you, but won’t kill your mind) a really good idea?
There’s confusion between discussing Islam (which should be allowed and encouraged), and letting Islam be Islam and do what it does. There’s confusion between theory and practice, between speech and action. There are several problems related to that second thing, action: we already have laws that forbid what Islam does; so we don’t have to forbid it separately. Oh, no? This is very contradictory:
- on the one hand, you forbid stealing, but you allow Islam (which actively encourages stealing from infidels). Why would you make exception for Islam?
- You forbid murder, yet you allow Islam, (which encourages the killing of infidels, gays, apostates, rape victims and cheating wives). Why would you make an exception for Islam and allow it?
- You forbid false witness in court and slander, yet you are OK with Islam (whose doctrines of taqiyya and kitman mandate that their adherents to lie in order to promote Islam). Why Islam preaching deception is all right with you?
You let them build mosques, worship, wear unhealthy — and in many ways dangerous — clothing (no peripheral vision when driving, and who is hiding beneath that burka or niqab?), segregate boys from girls, practice FGM, marry prepubescent girls, rape little boys, and so on. Do you say, “Stop”, or do you talk about it and wait until they feel so inadequate and ridiculous that they stop all that nonsense by themselves?
Have you seen that happen, ever?
How do you explain to kids who are told one thing at home and another one at school? (about stealing for example? or about violence towards females?) We already see it everyday in schools all over the Western world. But we wait until someone gets hurt, and then we are surprised.
The problem with tolerating Islam in the name of the free speech and democracy is as follows: Can you legalize an ideology that forbids free speech (or that uses frees speech to spread one of its messages, the lying one) wherever and whenever it sets foot, and which is telling you up front that it will gain power using democracy and then discard it? (The democracy, that is, not power.)
We all know an ideology like that, and it was called Nazism. It promised to take away freedoms and commit genocide, and it delivered. Today it’s forbidden in many European countries, but what do they know? They should let someone start a Nazi party again, in the name of free speech and democracy and see whether it gets ridiculed and has no followers and it then doesn’t build camps and it doesn’t pull people out of their beds in the middle of the night and shoot thousands of them, somewhere in the woods of Katyn where no one can find them, without due process or….
…Wait, that’s communism and it’s still legal.
So some European countries forbid Nazi parties, but actively inform their citizens about the dangers of letting Nazis organize and act again. I really insist on the difference between freedom of speech, which I am fully behind, and freedom of action (a.k.a. anarchy, because that’s what you get when all is permitted), because I believe in the prevention of crime.
Communism never had its Nuremberg process. Its crimes never stood trial before the world, one that would have condemned it as an ideology and sentenced its adherents to death or prison, depending on their zeal in making everyone “equal” and “happy”.
Islam never had its day in court either. And it should.
- Nazism was a piece of cake compared to communism: they defined target and they neutralized it. The word was divided into “us” and “them” and “they” had to be destroyed. Theoretically “we” were safe; only the enemy was in danger.
- Communists pretended to be everybody’s friends (provided you joined them; unlike Nazism, where Jews couldn’t simply become Nazis in order to be safe), claiming they wanted defend the weak, help the poor and feed the hungry. Of course they only managed to produce more weak, poor and hungry people. They failed, you might say. No, they didn’t. That was the objective, and they were simply lying to you. They never meant to keep anyone safe or happy except for themselves.
- Islam is the most dangerous one because it defines its target, it lies or tells the truth, depending on the audience, and it hurts both the “us” side (dar al-Islam) and “them” the unbelievers (dar al-Harb). No-one is safe. Ever.
Look how much energy it takes (and I think it should be done, no matter how much more it might take in the future), to inform kids in schools and the general public, about horrors of Nazism. It is an ongoing work, it can never be finished once and for all, because new children are being born, and the grownups also need to be constantly reminded how bad Nazism was.
If this treatment is also to be prescribed for Islam, I’m all for it, but remember: Muslims don’t care about ridicule. While a wannabe Nazi party member might care about what you think about him and not join the party because of people’s disapproval, a Muslim is not looking for your approval. He is looking for Allah’s approval, and with that your soft, Western ostracism simply cannot compete. Just like Allah himself, Muslims only understand power and violence and they don’t really care if their neighbors, at the lemonade stand, smile at them and say ‘Hi’. All right — they WILL sue for discrimination, but NOT because their feelings were hurt, but because they want to subdue you, their neighbors, as the infidels you are.
The trap we’re all falling into, and what differentiates Islam from Nazism, is the fact that Islam wants to be called a religion. And all religion is sacred in America. Religion, just like Caesar’s wife — in ancient Rome — must be above suspicion. Religion cannot be bad? They are all the same?
There was once an America without pesky Europeans and their Western values: pre-Columbian America. Its happy and sorrow-free inhabitants enjoyed lots of free activities, such as waging wars, enslaving other sorrow-free inhabitants and practicing their religions. Those three activities were inseparable for Aztecs, for example, who attacked their neighbors in order to capture some of them and then sacrifice them to their gods. You know, all those pre-Columbian cutting-edge (pun intended) open heart surgeries — performed on a conscious “patient” — with a stone knife? Or skinning alive, such a culturally enriching practice, especially for the neighbors, who were being enriched, skinned alive and had their beating hearts cut out of their chests. There were also sacrifices through immolation, beheading, starvation, drowning and bludgeoning. Some gods required cannibalism.
Or take ancient Egypt, where, as we saw in some royal graves, the servants were killed after the funeral and left in the grave, in the funeral chamber, so they would serve their master through all eternity. Lovely system of beliefs, a.k.a. religion. But it’s OK, it was only during First Dynasty, no big deal…
Did you know that in Sparta, in ancient Greece, young boys were lashed in front of the statue of Athena until their blood covered the marble? But, yeah, all religions are the same, all are good and all have the same message and identical moral values, so let’s try them all out.
Now imagine, that some Mexicans want to go back to the beliefs of their ancestors. Of course we would allow it. It’s a religion. Or rich Egyptians who have their servants put inside their graves, for the afterlife. Or Greek immigrants going back to their roots (that’s called radical, from Latin radix, root) and revive the old flogging custom. We might talk about it while watching; it would be very culturally enriching.
But yes, do that, talk about it and then, against all common sense, let them build their temples and practice what they are preaching. Why believe them, when they say they need human sacrifice? No, we absolutely need to see it for ourselves, in every coming generation, until we are all dead or converted to that cult. Until there is no more free speech and freedom and choice and tolerance and coexistence.
Religion cannot be bad? They are all the same?
Of course it can be bad, because religions, like all other ideas, can be good or bad. They should be scrutinized, but they don’t need to be tried out after the scrutiny. People should be warned about bad ideas, by all means, but not forced to experience them, if someone has done so already. I don’t have to find out every morning how to bake bread, thank God; somebody did it for me. I can, if I want to, try and improve the recipe, or invent a new one, but I don’t have to, if it’s not my cup of tea.
To exit the 20th floor of a high rise building, one can use stairs or an elevator, or simply jump out of the window. We can always discuss the merits of each solution, but do we really have to try out all three of them, to see which one is the best?
On 9/11/2001 people were left with only one solution in order to escape the burning Twin Towers: they had to jump to their deaths. Islam made them. Islam really leaves you with only one solution: death. And it takes away the alternatives: stairs and elevators.
Too many people experienced Islam and paid for it with their lives for us to happily let others try it out again and again and again. It is not only dangerous for new generations, it is above all disrespectful of all the victims of Islam, in all fourteen centuries, who — if we don’t learn the lesson and forbid Islam, and warn everyone about it, if we ignore their sacrifice — died for nothing.