Fitna: We Want a Sequel

I liked Geert Wilders’s movie Fitna. It is impressive how much they managed to squeeze into just 15 minutes [see Fitna here (below)]. I notice several of the comments at Jihad Watch say Geert Wilders could have made it worse. Yes, he could. He left out quite a few things, but what he kept was authentic and bad enough.

We should remember that the people reading websites such as Jihad Watch or Atlas Shrugs or Gates of Vienna are perfectly aware of how bad Islam is. This movie was not made for them. It was made for all those tens of millions or hundreds of millions of people out there who don’t trust the official propaganda about Islam, but still don’t fully understand how bad it is. Being too harsh (even if what is described is true) could put some of them off.

I believe this movie struck a good balance between showing Islam for what it is and still making it possible for the average person to digest the message. It is highly effective.

But I agree with Hugh Fitzgerald: We want a sequel! What about “Pirates of Muhammad: At Islam’s End,” starring Johnny Depp? Yes, I know, it would be too cute, but at least people would see it. As long as Keira Knightley plays Aisha, I’m happy.

For the comments about Jews, you should read Andrew Bostom’s upcoming The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism. There is much, much more.

I especially liked the agitated gentleman waving a sword, screaming for Jihad. I thought Jihad was about inner, peaceful struggle against yourself, a bit like yoga? He didn’t seem to enjoy any inner peace, though.

And if Jihad is about better education, as I have heard from my local newspaper, why didn’t he wave a pencil?

Maybe it was a pencil sharpener?

Muslims Wake up !

Geert Wilders' work has been useful in further exposing the complicity of Dutch/European authorities/media with muslim intimidation, but I have been disappointed by the muslim response. They were supposed to set Dutch embassies on fire and give us more reason to kick them out of Europe. And what have we seen so far? Nothing much, I'm afraid.

Kapitein Andre: " here's a great article by Der Spiegel"

I like the author's question (in reply to a critic of Wilders' film) : "Can facts be shown any other way than one-sided?" I agree with him that it is all-right to make a one-sided contribution to a debate in order to make a particular point. In fact, I think it doesn't matter if a particular journalist is one-sided. But a problem occurs when 90% of western journalists are far left (compared to the rest of the population) and the other 10% are at risk of losing their jobs if they give their views.

(just a detail: I think the Spiegel author makes a mistake when he writes that Pim Fortuyn was murdered by an animal rights fanatic. In fact, he was killed by a lunatic as a consequence of being demonized by the media for being a vocal immigration reformer.)

Atheling: "I seriously doubt that Islam will or can be reformed."

It doesn't matter. Arabs who move to Europe won't stick for long to their religion. But still, I agree that islam is a useful argument against immigration. Unfortunately, bogus conservatives (mainly Jewish) are both spearheading "the struggle against islamo-fascism" and rooting for more muslim immigration to white countries.

I agree that muslims cause a lot of mischief, which is made much worse by the cooperation of our governments and media. But for me, the real problem is the population replacement. Muslim violence should not be exaggerated, and most of the violence committed by Arab or African immigrants has nothing to do with islam. Here is an American white nationalist's perspective:

"In 2007, white people suffered from violence perpetrated against them by blacks 1,793 times a day [in the USA]. By comparison, according to the U.S. Department of State, the number of people injured in terrorist incidents WORLD-WIDE amounts to 68 per day; and that's counting the insurgency in Iraq."

And from the same article: "A white American is more than THIRTEEN TIMES MORE LIKELY to be injured by a black American than an Israeli is likely to be harmed by a Palestinian."

RE: We want a sequel!

Fitna was a yawn - a amateurish collection of news clips interspersed by shocking and gory images.


It was how Fitna said what it did and what it didn't say, that made Fitna brilliant. Fitna was narrated solely by the Qu'ran, whose verses were written and spoken in Arabic, and then textually translated in English below. Thus, Fitna invites criticism from Muslims and their Western apologists alike on its authenticity as far as the verses are concerned. Secondly, Fitna did not rely on Western "anti-Islamic" pundits to interpret the Qu'ran: it allowed the text to speak for itself. Thirdly, Fitna does not insult Islam as such (e.g. not damaging the book), although Wilders calls for the West to oppose Islamisation.


As I mentioned in a prior comment on another thread, here's a great article by Der Spiegel on the matter:,1518,544478,00.html

Islam needs to be slapped with reality

If inherently violent and primative Islam is ever to reform, which is unlikely, or disappear it needs confronted with its bad behavior. Muslims needs a reflection of their intolerant religion in the eyes of others expecially since they are now living among us. 


Tolerance of intolerance isn't a virtue.  The brain dead passivity and silence of lefties is really about their surrender.


I seriously doubt that Islam will or can be reformed. Self reflection is not part of Muslim character. Indeed, they are like some kind of theofascist bot that can do nothing but carry on their mission of destruction and domination. 75 years ago the West could have easily crushed them, but since we are in the grip of a cancer called political correctness, the West is gravely crippled.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine