Phyllis Chesler on Geert Wilders in New York

Chesler Chronicles

“I have come to warn you of a great threat. Free speech is no longer a given, we must now battle for our birthright. We are looking at the end of democracy, the slavery of women, the death of gays. While there might be moderate Muslims, there is no such thing as moderate Islam. Islam is not a religion, it is a political and totalitarian ideology.”

Some would say that these are fighting words.

Indeed, Dutch parliamentarian, Geert Wilders, is fighting for Western liberty and Western values, as rooted in the legacies of “Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem.” This is the legacy he wishes to leave the “children of Europe,” as opposed to the legacy of “Mecca and Gaza.” Wilders is fighting for us all, his fight is our fight. As he said earlier today, “it is not about (him) but about Free Speech.” Today he may be a “criminal, tomorrow, anyone of us might be considered a criminal too,” for telling the truth about the danger that Islam poses to Western democracy. “Today I may be put behind bars. I am not the issue. Will free speech be put behind bars?”

To continue reading, press here, Chesler Chronicles

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

6 Replies to “Phyllis Chesler on Geert Wilders in New York”

  1. I read that article on Chesler, and the author is guilty of what he accuses Philis of, while she in fact is not.

    Mohamed himself said, “no one shall ask as to why a man beats his wife.” thats all anyone needs to know.

  2. @Eeyore,

    if you read my item it is about Chesler’s radical bigoted agenda and support for the likes of Wilders. The comment about beating a wife, if some form of support for Chesler’s feminism activities, I have said that is the only side of her that I respect and if anything also falls the more flat when she abuses her own positive side to prop-up or justify her ugly one.

    Words like “in fact she is not” does not stick, come up with the goods, your welcome to debate it here or on the item. The entire idea of bloging is respectable open debate not self-gratification (unless of course you have a radical agenda yourself).

  3. That was an interesting bit of blended nonsense.
    1. the article you link to, is guilty of what it accuses Chesler of doing. It is horrible scholarship if it is even scholarship at all, but actually is opinion thinly disguised as such.
    2. Islam is absolutely behind honour killings as it occurs pretty much unpunished in Islamic states and in non-Islamic states, is carried out nearly always by Muslims. So while it may also be part of the cultures within Islamic nations, the sharia makes no provisions to stop it and may even encourage it as it heps to keep women obedient and fearful of men. Something which is at the heart of Islam.
    As to the “likes of Wilders” I think this shows you are the one with the radical agenda. Your contempt for him as well as Chesler shown by the sophomoric rhetorical device of “so called” and so on tips your hand.

  4. Debate usually requires some element of justification. Go to real honor-killing websites, academic references and not just sources that have already announced an agenda like Chesler. Quickly you will find that yes there is a sigificant element of honor-killing in Arab, Turkic and other cultures that are within the Musilm world. Equally you will find no such references in the Islamic philosphy at all. But more to the point, all those references refer to it as cultural because that is exactly what it is and more the the point Chesler knows it and avoided it. Such as the India factor, that the sub-continent and India in particular doubles the amount of honor-killings alone based on bride-killings from dowry issues, unwillingness to accept the arraged marriage or pre-marital sex. Add to that female infanticide because the family could not “honor” the cultural responsibility of paying a future dowry. These facts show that it is cultural and the majority of so-called honor-killing amongst the sub-continent’s muslims are for the above reasons.

    Chelser may be a very good feminist but she turns ugly when mentioning Muslims and it is both unjustified and bigoted and she is equally reprehensible because she took on a noble role and usurped it.

    As for Wilders, you have seen my website, so read the item I have placed, I am Dutch, I was in Politics, I was even a member of his former party the VVD and I know his game, his own delusions of grandeur.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*