Ayaan Hirsi Ali: No More Unvetted Muslim Immigrants

ayaanhirsialiThe Daily Wire, by Robert Kraychik, Nov. 17, 2015:

Following last week’s Islamic terrorist attacking in Paris and the ongoing flood of Muslim refugees and migrants into Europe, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is calling on Europe to change its immigration policies and reinforce its border security.

In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Ali warned that if political leaders in Europe follow Merkel’s example of “making a virtue of the openness of their borders,” then right-wing populist movements will continue to grow. Given the threat of Islamic extremism, Ali says that Europe must revisit its treaties, laws, and policies in order to tighten its controls of the flow of people into and throughout the continent. She called for cultural and ideological screening of those wishing to make Europe their home.

Ali also called for a determined “war of ideas” against Islamists. European leaders, Ali said, must pursue the “infrastructure of indoctrination”: mosques, Muslim schools, and Islamic websites. Pretending that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam and Muslims, however, will prevent this from being possible. Given the multicultural ethos of Europe, this recommendation of Ali’s is all the more difficult to actualize. Multiculturalism discourages cultural integration of immigrants, contributing to ghettoization and Balkanization. It is also fused with cultural relativism, further obstructing the acculturation of immigrants by discouraging the promotion of Western values. If no culture is superior to any other, why should Europe preserve its own in light of cultural change brought in by the mass immigration of Muslims? Ali’s proposal to proselytize the values of Western Civilization is only possible in an environment which believes in the superiority of Western values over alternatives.

Ali heralded Israel’s counterterrorism systems as a model to be emulated by European security services. From Israel’s founding, it has dealt with the threat of Islamic terrorism. Nowadays, Ali says, such a mass casualty attack in Israel as was seen in Paris is unthinkable. Islamic terrorists in Israel, she continued, are now relegated to using knives and vehicles. “We should stop demonizing Israel. We should start learning from Israel,” said Ali.

Joining Megyn Kelly last night, Ali exposited on her article. She said that President Barack Obama’s rhetorical strategy of denying the overlap between Islamic terrorism, Islam, and Muslims is a “failure.” After acknowledging that a nuanced grasp of Islam and Muslims is necessary in order not to indict the entire religious group for acts of Islamic terrorists, Ali stated that radical Islam must still be seen as a subset of Islam. The attempt to excise Jihadism and completely separate it from Islam and Muslims makes it impossible to effectively combat it. “We should start by naming it,” said Ali. Ali rebuked the view that carefully crafted rhetoric denying the religious underpinnings of Islamic terrorism will pacify its perpetrators.

Ali warned that this is a long-term struggle, saying, “Islamic extremism is older than this election cycle, and the last one, and 9/11. It’s going to outlast this election cycle.”




Philos Project, by Andrew Harrod, August 15, 2015:

“What are Western policymakers frequently talking about when they are talking about religion? Islam.”

So wrote Transatlantic Academy Senior Fellow Michael Barnett in his report “Faith, Freedom and Foreign Policy: Challenges for the Transatlantic Community,” which was presented during a recent Georgetown University Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs panel that focused on Islam while unconvincingly minimizing that religion’s fundamental differences with other faiths.

Elaborating on Barnett’s report, George Mason University professor Peter Mandaville spoke about the globally popular opinion that religion is superfluous in world affairs, and pointed to a “secular bias” in modern bureaucracies, noting that the American Constitution’s establishment clause often raises questions about the government’s involvement in religion. Berkley Center Senior Fellow Jocelyne Cesari cited Soviet Dictator Josef Stalin’s famous quote, “The Pope! How many divisions has he got?”

Claiming that the common viewpoint of Islam as the “religion of the sword” stemmed from such ignorance, Cesari said that today’s global discourse on Islam resembles the historic views of the Catholic Church by emphasizing aggressive and authoritarian elements. This concept was echoed in the TA report’s repeated equivalences between Islam and other faiths. The fact that South African Muslims once argued against apartheid with Islamic texts that are now claimed by terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda supposedly indicate that societal context – not scriptural text – is the critical variable.

Mandaville questioned Islam’s current status as a violent religion and asked that a distinction be made between the “mainstream nonviolent Islamism” seen in groups like Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and the brutal Islamic State. He attributed the rise of ISIS in Iraq to “decades and centuries of old political and economic tensions among different demographic groups, not Islamic sectarian divisions.” He dismissively spoke about the infamous article “What ISIS Really Wants” by Graeme Wood in The Atlantic – an insightful examination of ISIS Islamic ideology – but caveated that American officials “have no standing or creditability to define Islam for Muslims.”

Evelyn Finger, the religion editor for Germany’s leading newspaper weekly Die Zeit, deviated from her fellow panelists’ discussions and called for an analysis of the Islamic sources that underlie the numerous ISIS atrocities. She even warned that – although Islam as a whole is broader than the Islamic State – it is dangerous to get stuck in politically correct discussions that defend this religion.

In his report, Barnett claimed that “the Middle East provides an object lesson of what happens when religion goes wild and spills out of the private and into the public. If peace is going to have a fighting chance, then religion needs to go back to where it belongs – in in the private realm.” He also claimed that it made no sense to speak of a “political” Islam when referencing the traditional Islamic faith, “because Islam already incorporates politics.” He then brought up what he called the “Christian definition of religion, in which religion is part of the private,” adding that the average Muslim looks at the promotion of religious freedom as a campaign against religion.

Barnett said that to call the Western liberal order a “Christian liberal order” a century ago – when “Western, liberal states wore their religions on their shirtsleeves” – would have been stating the obvious. For example, the Red Cross’s cross logo indicates that organization’s Christian roots. While he said that religious figures worldwide have led some of the great moral campaigns to counterbalance religious violence, he failed to identify most of these individuals as Christian.

Barnett’s fellow contributor, Turkish commentator Mustafa Akyol, critiqued “politically correct, but factually wrong” platitudes including the ideas that “Islam is a religion of peace” and “violent jihadists have nothing to do with Islam.” Past reformers tended to incorporate their wishful thinking into their interpretations of Islamic texts. This led to the idea that apostasy is a crime that deserves capital punishment in all classical schools of sharia, for example. He pointed out that a tension now exists between democratically elected Islamists who have intolerant goals and liberals whose views are not popular enough to win them democratic elections.

Janice Gross Stein’s chapter spoke of ISIS as part of a “long tradition of movements that seek to purify Islam.” She said that throughout Islam’s history, enemies such as the MB and Saudi Arabia and Al-Qaeda and ISIS have clashed about the “true voice” of Islam. To face these entities, she said that the West will need “resolve, stoicism, patience and intelligence in a struggle that will go on for generations.”

In all, the TA’s senior fellow contributors did not seem fazed by Islamic doctrine. Clifford Bob cited the discredited book “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” and its thesis of undue Israeli influence on American policy, and repeated the increasingly common fallacy that “anti-Islam activism has – in recent years – joined anti-Semitism as a dangerous form of politics.” Instead of focusing on Islamic doctrine, Sir Michael Leigh asked Western schools to emphasize past Western misdeeds with an “understanding of the lasting legacy of imperial expansion, including perceptions of the role of missionaries.”

The writers in residence at the German-American TA indicated the muddled state of elite thinking regarding Islam. Almost 15 years after the Taliban’s Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, politically correct Western guilt and cultural relativism continue to cloud policy analysis. As the TA writers demonstrated, though, Islam’s stark realities are gradually becoming all too apparent.

Geert Wilders: Special California Appearance


Published on Sep 16, 2014 by Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors

Geert Wilders appeared in Los Angeles for a special address and screening of his film, FITNA. He is a parliamentary leader in the Netherlands and is Europe’s most eloquent defender of freedom of speech and conscience. Banned from speaking in England and under 24 hour protection, Mr. Wilders cannot be silenced. Through his eye-opening film, FITNA, and his public appearances, Mr. Wilders has continued to stand up against radical Islam and for the defense of Western Civilization. Net proceeds went towards the Geert Wilders Legal Defense Fund and are tax deductible.



FITNA – Geert Wilders’ Unedited Film from Jewish Pulse Radio on Vimeo.

On the 100th Anniversary of International Women’s Day — What Are Feminists Doing About Honor Killings?

Phyllis Chesler

Phyllis Chesler

By :

Editor’s note: The following is adapted from a speech delivered on March 8 by the author in observance of  Women’s History Month to theGender Fairness Committee of the New York City Supreme Court.

When my Second Wave generation of feminists started out, Gender Fairness committees did not exist nor did as many women lawyers and judges or the number of feminist lawyers, both male and female, whom I see here today. As many of you know, my or should I say, our generation had the privilege of changing all that.

We also named and exposed the hidden epidemic of physical and sexual violence towards women and children.

Second Wave feminists challenged sexism in advertising, (we still do), the pornography industry, (which has grown), and prostitution which now includes human sexual trafficking.

We also challenged corporations for economically discriminating against women; that work continues. We took on drug companies whose medications caused women to die from cancer. We championed women’s reproductive and sexual rights but we also challenged birth control. We waged a war to save women’s lives. The work continues.

Courtesy of Second Wave feminist activism, more women entered previously all-male professions, and some men became feminists.

Before the Second Wave began making waves, mothers received little child support and less alimony—that has improved although custody battles have, in some ways, gotten harder, more terrible. The 25th anniversary edition of “Mothers on Trial” will be published this summer with eight new chapters.

Our generation had a universalist vision of human rights—one standard for all. I still do. While I believe in cultural diversity, I am not a multi-cultural relativist. Therefore, I have taken a strong stand against the persecution of Muslim women and dissidents. Thus, I now submit expert courtroom affidavits on behalf of Muslim girls and women who have fled being honor murdered and are seeking asylum here.

Those of us who expose the plight of such women, and this includes Somali-born feminist hero Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as well as myself, have been demonized as “Islamophobes” and racists because we do not, in the same breath, blame America, the West, or Israel for their suffering.

In my view, western academic feminists, including gay liberationists, are so afraid of being condemned as “colonialists” or “racists” that this fear trumps their concern for women’s rights in the Arab and Muslim world.

What is Islamic Gender Apartheid? Islamic gender apartheid is characterized by normalized daughter- and wife-battering, forced veiling, female genital mutilation, polygamy, purdah, (the segregation or sequestration of women), arranged marriage, child marriage, first cousin marriage; girls and women are honor murdered if they resist such practices, if they wish to divorce a dangerously abusive husband, and if they are viewed as too independent, too modern.

Today, at its most extreme, Islamic gender apartheid is characterized by acid attacks, public stonings, hangings, and beheading of women in Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia—countries in which girls and women who are raped are further victimized: jailed, tortured, and executed.

Feminists should be crying out from the rooftops against these practices. Some are. I am. Yet, many Muslim men and women, as well as many intellectually “progressive” western infidels, are not. They are demanding or welcoming the imposition of Islamic religious law, Sharia law, not only in Egypt and Saudi Arabia but also in the West.

I have published two academic studies and nearly 100 articles about honor killings both in the West and in the Islamic world. How is an honor killing defined? An honor killing is a collaborative conspiracy carried out against one victim, usually a young girl, by her family of origin. Both her male and female relatives believe that their “honor” demands her death; that her “impure” behavior has shamed and destroyed her family’s reputation and community status. A battered wife—or one who dares leave her tormentor—may also be “honor murdered” by both her husband, assisted by his relatives, and to an extent, the wife’s relatives as well.

In the West, honor killings are a mainly Muslim-on-Muslim crime. Hindus and Sikhs perpetrate such killings but mainly in India, not in the West.

An honor killing is not the same as western domestic violence or western domestically violent femicide. Many honorable feminists disagree with me. They believe that honor killings are the same as western domestic violence. Understandably, such feminists fear that by singling out one group for behavior which may be common to all groups they will stigmatize the token group and minimize the suffering of all the other groups. They have a legitimate fear—and yet if, for reasons of “political correctness,” we fail to understand a crime, we will never be able to prevent or to prosecute it.

Honor killings are shameful, secretive; they are allowed to flourish and fester precisely because the perpetrators and their collaborators do not want them exposed. Instead, they blame the victim, and they blame those who expose it.

I began writing about honor killings in the United States, Canada, and Europe in 2004. My first study about such honor killings first appeared in 2009 in Middle East Quarterly, the second appeared there as well in 2010. In the most recent publication, I studied 230 victims who were honor—or “horror” murdered on five continents over a twenty year period in 172 separate incidents. (More than one person was murdered in some of the incidents).

A murder is a murder and must be treated as such. However, honor killings are not like western domestic violence or domestically violent femicide.

Read more at Fox News

Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies, a Fellow at the Middle East Forum, the author of thousands of articles and of fifteen books, including “Women and Madness,” and “An American Bride in Kabul.” She archives her articles and may be reached through her website:www.phyllis-chesler.com

When Women’s Issues Hide Humanity’s Problem

20080404_niqabBy Diana West:

You may have missed it, but March 8 was International Women’s Day, a holiday unconnected to a religious rite or person, and with no national or even seasonal significance. It is socialist in origin, and it was Lenin himself who made it an official holiday in the Soviet Union. Not surprisingly, it is now a rite of the United Nations.

In these origins lie the day’s basic fallacy: that womanhood is an international — global — political state of being; that there is a universal female political condition, which urges, a la Marx, “Women of the world, unite!” Against what? The common foe — men.

As with Marxism itself, for such a sisterhood to coalesce, even on paper or in elite committees and multinational organizations, the profound cultural and religious differences that shape and guide people’s lives have to be minimized, denied or actually destroyed. In real life, however, culture and religion will out, as they did on this year’s International Women’s Day.

In post-U.S. Iraq, Reuters reported on the International Women’s Day activities of “about two dozen” women — a brave handful — who demonstrated in Baghdad against new, sharia-based legislation now before Iraq’s parliament. Known as the Ja’afari Law after an early Shiite imam, the legislation would allow Iraq’s Shiite Islamic clergy to control marriage, divorce and inheritance. Among other things, this would permit marriage between a man and a 9-year-old girl, according to the marital example of Islam’s prophet Mohammed. Indeed, by the Gregorian calendar, as The Associated Press pointed out, such legislation would apply to girls who are 8 years and 8 months old. (The Islamic calendar year is 10 or 11 days shorter than the Gregorian calendar year.)

Guess who has approved of this child rape legislation — some den of social outcasts? No, the ministers of Iraq’s cabinet. They preside, of course, over a government created in large measure by great expenditures of U.S. blood and treasure. The draft law now awaits a parliamentary vote.

The Baghdad protesters shouted: “On this day of women, women of Iraq are in mourning.” At least two dozen of them are, anyway. But more than Iraq’s women should be in mourning. After all, child rape — not to mention marital rape and discriminatory divorce and inheritance practices also legalized in the draft legislation — shouldn’t be defined as “women’s” issues alone. If they are so pigeon-holed, by feminist implication, the modification of “male” behavior will ameliorate all. What these women are protesting, however, aren’t men or the “patriarchy” generally, but rather the brutal impact of Islam and its law on women, on children, on the family itself — the basis of civilization. It is here, in the treatment of the weak and the young, of motherhood, marriage and childhood, where core, existential differences between Islam and most of the world’s religions and cultures emerge. They are obscured as “women’s” issues.

In pre-withdrawal Afghanistan, the celebration of International Women’s Day took place inside the heavily guarded New Kabul Compound. It was an upbeat event, at least according to a Defense Department report, featuring several laudable and prominent Afghan women doctors, who naturally talked up education and the need to retain post-Taliban gains made on behalf of women in Afghanistan. Tragically, the State Department’s most recent report on the shockingly low state of human rights in Afghanistan reveals that such gains for women — not to mention children, boys and girls alike — are already mainly on paper only. As the armed utopians withdraw, the dust of tribal Islam settles.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Also see:

Canadian Left Calls for ‘Neutrality’ on Honor Killings & Female Genital Mutilation

clitorectomyBy :

Cultural relativism has reached a new point of absurdity in Canada when the “barbarity” of female genital mutilation and honor killings is questioned and becomes a controversy.

A recently introduced manual by the Government of Canada intended to teach newcomers about Canadian values and Canadian society has been met with ongoing hostility from left-wing Canadians and politicians over the choice of words in describing female genital mutilation and honor killings. Jinny Sims, the immigration critic of the opposition New Democratic Party of Canada, suggested the word “barbaric” might “stigmatize some cultures.”

Aside from official protestations, everyone can imagine the type of cultural relativist rhetoric that has been used to attack the Conservative government for releasing this guide. The blogosphere has been filled with “liberal-minded” Canadians continuing in the same vein as Ms. Sims, suggesting the term “barbaric” is somehow discriminatory or offensive to a particular group. However, reasoned thought on the matter should conclude on the exact opposite; that it is offensive to those forced to endure such ordeals to call them anything but barbaric. Unfortunately, sensitivity towards this group (as per usual) is ignored.

Taking up the relativist banner was also none other than Justin Trudeau, front-runner for leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, and son of the infamous Canadian Prime Minister who brought multiculturalist policy to Canada. He attacked the Conservatives for using the term “barbaric,” and suggested that the term was a “pejorative” and that “there needs to be a little bit of an attempt at responsible neutrality.”

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

Justin Trudeau’s Islamist Revival (counterjihadreport.com)

U.S. Covering Up and Revising Islamic Ties to Terrorism

11By Rachel Alexander

The Obama administration is following the direction of the United Nations and suppressing any mention of radical Islam’s association with terrorism. Even the word “terrorism” is being censored because it has become associated with Islam. Remember President George W. Bush’s “War on Terror?” The phrase has disappeared, even though terrorist attacks are increasing. Obama has stopped using the phrase.

The censorship effort began in 1999, when the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) began urging the U.N. to pass a resolution denouncing “religious intolerance” and “condemning the stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of people based on their religion.” The U.N.’s Human Rights Council passed two censorship resolutions in 2010 and 2011, and last September Obama encouraged the full U.N. to pass one. In a speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama said, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Since Christians do not believe that Mohammed was a prophet, many people felt that Obama went too far, forcing Islamic views upon Christians.

Several Islamic world leaders are pressuring the U.N. to adopt the censorship resolution, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi, and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf of Pakistan condemned the importance the Western free world places on freedom of speech, saying, “It is sad that the ‘open-minded’ people of the world – who stand against religious extremism and terrorism and consider disrespecting the sentiments of the common man a violation of human rights – justify hurting religious emotions of nearly 1.5 billion Muslims as freedom of speech.”

The move towards censorship in the U.S. started under the second Bush administration. In 2008, the Department of Homeland Security issued a memo containing recommendations from Muslim organizations that instruct Americans to avoid using words like “jihadist,” “Islamic terrorist,” “Islamist” and “holy warrior.” When referring to Muslims, words like “mainstream,” “ordinary,” and “traditional” should be used instead of terms like “moderate.” The “War on Terror” is to be rephrased as “a global challenge, which transcends geography, culture and religion.” It is a “struggle for progress, over which no nation has a monopoly.”

Earlier this year the FBI was ordered by the Obama administration to purge language from its manuals, and subsequently removed more than 700 documents and 300 presentations from training materials. All federal law enforcement agencies were ordered to eliminate the words “Islamic terror” from their training manuals. The Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review and the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review were revised to eliminate the words “Muslim” and “Islam.” Mentions of al Qaeda were replaced with “global violent extremism.”

The U.S. military handbook “Culture Cards: Afghanistan & Islamic Culture” was revised last year to censor anything perceived as negative towards Islam. In the 2011 version, incest in Islam is described as just a different variety of culture; “In some traditionally Islamic Middle East cultures the preferred marriage pattern has been to marry one’s father’s brother’s daughter.” The handbook begins, “Culture is about how people perceive reality. It may not fit the true facts or history…..Soldiers must not let personal prejudices cloud their judgment.” The handbook is full of morally relative statements like, “Norms are not rigid and may be ignored with only minor repercussions.” It concludes by asserting that a “culturally literate soldier” “appreciates and generally accepts diverse beliefs, appearances and lifestyles.”

Read more at Townhall

The First Amendment Is What We Need in Europe


by Geert Wilders, Gatestone Institute:

Adherence to religion must be a personal choice. No religion should demand that those who leave it be killed; this makes it a totalitarian ideology rather than a religion. A religion must never mandate the subjugation of those who do not belong to it. A religion must be in accord with basic human rights. This ideology also harms Muslims. That is why we have to end the biggest disease in the world today, the cultural relativism which pretends that all cultures are equal. If Israel falls, the West falls. That is why their fight is our fight. We should support it.

I am happy to be in New York again, even though in my country today it is Queen’s Day, a national celebration. This is why I am wearing my orange tie.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address all of you. It is always good to be among friends. It is an honor to be here in the presence of so many people who care for the preservation of freedom in our civilization.

It is great to be in America, the beacon of liberty, the land of the free, the land where people are still allowed to speak freely. I know what I am talking about. I was acquitted after a legal ordeal that lasted almost three years. I had been brought to court for criticizing Islam.

Though at the end of the day I was acquitted, the court case was a disgrace. It was a time-, money- and energy-consuming nightmare. This charade that happened in the Netherlands for the last few years could not have happened in your great country, where the First Amendment guarantees people the freedom to express their opinions.

The First Amendment is what we need in the Netherlands and Europe.

I am in New York for the release of my book “Marked for Death.” It reveals how Islam has already profoundly changed Europe in the last decades. It exposes the cultural relativism which has affected Europe so deeply that many in Europe refuse to stand for liberty and prefer to appease Islam. It explains why Islam is a threat to freedom.

As you know, people who speak out like me pay a steep price for speaking these truths. Apart from legal attempts to silence me, there are also the threats by radical Muslims to kill me. I have been living under permanent police protection for almost eight years now. But I do not regret one word. I see it as my duty to warn the West.

I have traveled widely in the Islamic world. I have read the Koran. I have studied the life of Muhammad. It made me realize that Islam is primarily an ideology rather than a religion. This ideology wants to impose Islamic sharia law on the whole world, including us the Kafirs, the non-Muslims. This ideology is also outspokenly anti-Semitic.

This ideology also harms Muslims. Islam believes that everything men have to know can be found in the Koran. As such, it is hostile to all forms of innovation. But without innovation there can be no progress and people cannot prosper.

Many people unfortunately are blind to the nature of Islam because they do not realize what Islam is, and mistakenly believe that it is a religion just like any other religion.

I have written my book to inform them.

Islam fails four major tests that religions should fulfill:

  1. Adherence to a religion must be a personal choice;
  2. no religion should demand that those who leave it be killed; this makes it a totalitarian ideology rather than a religion.
  3. a religion must never mandate the subjugation of those who do not belong to it;
  4. a religion must be in accord with basic human rights.

I have also written my book because I am not a defeatist. The West is able to defeat totalitarianism just as it defeated Nazism and Communism in the past.

My book is dedicated to freedom. It is inspired by many freedom fighters, from previous generations but also people from our age.

Fortunately, we are not alone in the fight for freedom. We are in the company of heroes and friends. This gives us the strength to continue.

In order to defeat Islam so, we must do four things.

The first and most important is to speak the truth, always and everywhere also about Islam. Like the Americans, the people in the Netherlands and other European countries desperately need a First Amendment.

That will allow them to tell the truth about Islam and Muhammad. We must encourage Muslims to leave Islam and to choose freedom and prosperity.

Secondly, we have to believe in the superiority of our Western values. If we do not believe in our own Western values, we will not be prepared to defend them. That is why we have to end the biggest disease in the world today, the cultural relativism which pretends that all cultures are equal. Our Judeo-Chrisitian, humanist civilization is more free, more democratic, more tolerant than any civilization the world has ever seen. We should not be afraid to say so.

Thirdly, we must stop the Islamization of our societies by restricting immigration from Islamic countries, and expelling those who violate our laws and commit violence. If you respect our laws you are welcome to stay; if you don’t, you do not belong here..

And fourthly, we must reassert our national identities. The nation-state enables self-government and self-determination. This insight led the Zionists to establish Israel as the homeland of the Jews.

Zionism teaches us one of the most important lessons which the modern world needs today. Theodor Herzl argued that a Jewish state would facilitate “a new blossoming of the Jewish spirit.” Today, we need our own respective nation-states to preside over a new blossoming of our own Western spirit.

Our nations are the homes in which freedom and democracy prosper. This is true for the Netherlands. This is true for America. This is true for Israel.

Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. It is a beacon of freedom in an unfree region, a beacon of life in a place of darkness. If Israel falls, the West falls.

Mothers in the West can sleep safely because Israeli mothers at night worry about their sons in the army. Their fight is our fight. We should support it.

Israel is, indeed, a vital outpost of Western civilization. That is why Islam conditions the faithful to hate the Jewish state and to view its destruction as an imperative. It is our duty to stand with Israel.

In my book I explain how we can defend freedom and oppose Islamization and cultural relativism in a non-violent and democratic way. In fact, that is what my party, the Party for Freedom, is doing in the Netherlands.

Read more..