On May 25th and July 27th 2010, I spoke at community board meetings hoping to stop the Ground Zero mosque via giving the site landmark status. In doing so, I represented myself as both the author of the book Culturism and the President of the Brooklyn Tea Party. The Tea Party movement, like culturism, is against the politically correct, business-as-usual political machines. But even within our Tea Party and anti-Jihadist movement, the multicultural thought police have divided us. We American activists must now choose a path.
The first community meeting started with politicians calling us racist and bigots for not wanting the mosque. If you watch my video of the first meeting, you’ll see how cruel this is. Many of those speaking lost their loved ones in the 9 – 11 attacks. But anyone, no matter what they have suffered, who questions Islam and its worthiness gets attacked by the mainstream media and mainstream politicians.
At the meetings I spoke about how culturism, unlike multiculturalism, recognizes that we have a civilization and a right to defend it. I pointed out that Muhammad and Jesus were very different characters. And, unlike multiculturalists, we recognized that diversity was real and so could include cultures hostile to the West’s very existence. These observations are culturist, not racist.
For this effort, my fellow regional Tea Party leaders denounced me. They argue that we should only talk about the core Tea Party issue of fiscal conservatism. In a meeting, my Tea Party group members decided to include denouncing the Ground Zero Mosque and supporting our State of Arizona in defending their border with Mexico. And so we lunge forward with a culturist agenda at the risk of offending other Tea Party groups.
Meanwhile, our anti-jihad movement got some notoriety via the fabulous Pamela Geller who we all adore. But on television, she decided to take the tact of fighting the Ground Zero mosque with a “sensitivity” argument. She has said the mosque’s proximity to Ground Zero hurt the feelings of our community and the 9-11 families. This strategic argument deflected the “racist” charge. But consistency requires that those using the sensitivity argument claim they have nothing against Islam and would welcome mosques elsewhere. Geller nor her culturist followers believe that.
The rally against Brooklyn’s Voorhies provided an answer to both the Tea Party moderates and those trying to dodge the “racist” tag with the “sensitivity” argument. This mosque is far from Ground Zero. Rather than sensitivity, we opposed this mosque because the funding comes from the terror-supporting and anti-Semitic Muslim American Society. We need to stop this Sharia promoting organization dead in its tracks across the nation. In Brooklyn, the problem isn’t sensitivity it is aggressive Sharia.
In my speech to our crowd, I attempted to square the Tea Party values of smaller government with stopping the mosques. As with defending Arizona’s right to guard its borders, I argued that we have a right to protect our civilization. Furthermore, our Constitution does not give Saudi Arabia the right to build mosques all over the West. I discussed a law that we use to track foreign agents during the NAZI and Soviet times. And rather than sensitivity, I justified using this law on the fact that “we have been defending the West against Islam for 1,400 years.” And so, I spoke the truth and possibly alienated potential allies.
Despite these divisions, the Tea Party’s existence shows that many Americans are fed up with the abusive, snide, ruling-class living off our taxes and ruining our nation. And, whatever the ideological nuances, our major rallies have attracted tens of thousands of patriots. Many Americans denounce the Ground Zero mosque for sensitivity and many do so from an understanding of Islam. And with the Tea Party on fire, I am proud to report that outrage is everywhere in America. The question is whether or not our citizens can be approached with culturist truth or if multiculturalism has conditioned them to the point where we must always speak in culturally neutral terms.
Videos of the above events are here:
The First Community Board meeting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1yDyNUkiZI
The Second Community Board meeting:
The Voorhies Mosque Rally:
Major Ground Zero Mosque Rally:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKn1tfcimU
7 comments:
Hi John
While I certainly do not denounce you for making the GZVM a Tea Party issue, and I certainly don't think you should back off or make it a sensitivity issue, I do stil think they need to be separate issues.
70 % of Americans polled oppose this mosque. Certainly more than support the Tea Parties. And we need their support. But I would question how many more might support it if the Tea Parties were not directly tied to it. And will Tea Party involvement in the counter jihad in geenral turn away people who would otherwise support the counter jihad.
Anyway, arguments I've made before and not really looking for a discussion, just re-iterating.
And, as a special treat, check out the video I just posted .
Thanks so much for the video. The guitar version, I am hearing now is so soulful.
Wow! John
It's not about mosques it's about Muslim immigration.
When it comes to Islam, political principles learned via study of the last couple of centuries of history won't work, nor will appeasement, it's not about Marxist class struggle or Western capitalism with them, it's about eternal rewards for what they do on Earth.
Take their slogan that Islam is a religion of love. It is, but only in the sense that all Muslims must love Allah, who then tells them who to hate, namely unbelievers, including Muslims of a different stripe, and what to do about them, push them aside and conquer and rule their territory, then reduce them to dhimmi status, making them pay a tax to keep from being executed, AKA protection money, what a loving inducement to submit and convert. Love of other Muslims is very iffy, since one false move and Allah commands you to lop off their hands or head without pity or mercy, especially infidels who pretended to convert to stop paying the jizya, here, prove you're for real by beheading your mother, imagine this in New York in 2050, it's not hard if you try.
Take their slogan that Islam is a religion of peace. Of course it is, but only after you accept its peace terms of total submission to it along with its horrible Muslim superiority Sharia that destroys all freedoms. Until then Allah commands Muslims to wage ceaseless war with unbelievers, which historically has come to mean even Muslims of different sects, which is why Islam has been a religion of endless war with an ironic slogan. Yes, ceaseless war. Allah declared the war, and no human can declare peace in his name, sorry, you're either with him or against him, although he does permit temporary truces greased by plenty of jizya or punishment fees, like the stupid U.S. has been paying the Taliban, Egypt, etc.
It's not about racism. Islam isn't a race, but it wants to absorb all races, so let's not go there, it's counterproductive. It's not just a religion either, because it comes with a god who wants to control the government, so let's not get mired in discussions of the Crusades and Creationism. Can Islam be reformed via a Christian-style Reformation? How? The Protestant Reformation was a revolt against the papacy that used the words and examples of Jesus against it, but an Islamic reformation would be a revolt against Allah himself. So-called moderate Muslims are like the fabled unicorn, plenty of sightings, none captured and in a zoo yet. Muslims who claim to hate Islamic extremists like Osama bin Laden are still for Allah and his final perfect example prophet Muhammad, and are just trying to get the Muslim Trojan Horse in the Western gates so their progeny can do the rest.
Why then do we want to invite foreign agents and enemy combatants into our borders to show how tolerant we are, are we suicidal? Do we want to convert to Islam too? Despite all we do to appease them and shower them with tolerance, allowing Muslims into a non-Muslim country as immigrants will guarantee ceaseless strife, it's not about specific Muslims it's about the Quran they bring with them that contains Allah's commands to keep up the war until he wins, if you won't do it the Muslim next door will, or your children, which is why the West must stop Muslim immigration now and reverse it or else face an endless push to subvert the constitution and erect Sharia. Islamic terrorists are only a part of the threat, the main threat is Muslim immigrants who refuse to assimilate and set up de facto Sharia then foment civil war, as Europe is finding out.
eep up on global daily news free: http://tinyurl.com/islamwatch
TL Winslow,
I am in 100% agreement. The Voorhies mosque was perfect to protest because it is a tentacle of aggressive Islam. And, yes, Islam is only dangerous in the minds of people. So we must stop Islamic immigration now.
In order to do so, we need to establish that we are not a multicultural nation, but one with a very specific tradition. Furthermore, we must recognize that Islam is not just a religious system, it is a totalitarian political system.
Acknowledging that we have a special culture and a right to defend it will be a prerequisite to making culturist laws that protect us. Until then, we must live with the idea that the cultures of all "global citizens" are just as compatible with western values as others.
GOoooooOOOO TEAM !
Great article, John.
I, for one, am appreciative of your effort to broaden the scope of the Tea Party to include Culturism.
I think it is true that our rejection of the Obama agenda has more to do with the fact that the Obama agenda stands in antipathy to the "American Tradition" than it has anything to do with relative levels of taxation.
In other words, this is an ideological fight, not a fight about economics.
It's not the economy, stupid.
Thanks Pastorius! I have backed off and gone straight TEA recently. Still the reputation of the culturist TEA party continues. The local media wants to know about it. At some level I feel that I have played poorly with my neighbors. So, at least until the election, we're serving straight TEA.
But in the aggregate, you know that I agree with you.
Cheers to you and MR!
We except for that little thing about me considering you a "Nitzschean".
;-)
But, that means I agree with you 92% which is more than I agree with most.
And, you're much more interesting to discuss ideas with than most.
Post a Comment