It is quite awful to know what is coming ahead of time, and then be ignored by the mainstream when you try to tell them.
In 2003, I released a novel where the main character, a professor, was writing a book called the Second Holocaust where he claims that a Second Holocaust has started which will culminate in Iranian nuclear attacks against the almost 6 million Jews of Israel. I am not saying that Iran will be successful against the Israeli IDF, but the concern that occupied my mind when I wrote the book has become a lot more concrete and worrisome.
Furthermore I had the professor in the book get in trouble for some politically incorrect language at a lecture; then after the book came out, I got in trouble, not for what I said, but for what an 18 year old part time book clerk and member of the Muslim Students Association fabricated that i said.
My book, The Second Catastrophe: A Novel about a Book and its Author was banned by Chapters in Canada and was never picked up in the U.S., despite good reviews.
Last week, Mantua Books released my new book, TOLERism: The Ideology Revealed, in which I warn that politically correct tolerance has morphed into the ideology of Tolerism, and that Obama is one of the main symptons, where tolerance towards the illiberals has become excessive and tolerance has become more important than justice. Again, I was too prescient, As we know, last week, an Islamist who was still a psychiatrist in the U.S. army despite all kinds of talk about how the Muslims in the U.S. should support Muslim countries rather than America, how America in responding to 9/11 was warring against all of Islam, rather than fighting terrorist groups, and who had worshipped in mosques led by two radical Islamists, killed twelve fellow soldiers and injured 33 more.
Yelling the traditional chant of Jihadists, "Allahu Akhbar" as he opened fire in a pre-meditated attack, the media and Obama the Dunce reacted in typical politically correct, morally relativistic terms.
The first Washington Post article took 11 paragraphs to even mention that the attacker was Muslim!
President Obama, put in a couple of disgraceful performances wherein he shows why he is one of the last people in the U.S. who should be President in a time of war against the West by Radical Islam: Even on Saturday, by which time more information had come out about the Islamist ideology of the attacker (who should always be described as a "terrorist" - except that the politically correct, morally infantile Obama has abolished the word - Obama unbelievable declined to mention that this attack was by an Islamist, or was caused by the Islamists who indoctrinated the terrorist.
Instead Obama said, (and I am not joking): "We cannot fully know what leads a man to do such a thing." This has got to go down as one of the most ridiculous statements by an American president in history. We KNOW already what Islamist hatred causes their people to do. Where has Obama been? Of course he knows it too, but feels the need to downplay the fact. That is why some Americans are belatedly worrying about the Islamic background and the spirtual mentors who influenced this smooth talking, no action, poseur.
Incidentally, it took me 5 minutes from hearing the initial report to find out:
Hasan attended the mosque in Silver Spring Maryland where the imam was at the time Faisal Khan. Faisal Khan was a supporter of the demonstrations in Washington by Muslims who wanted Sami Al-Arian released from jail. Sami Al-Arian is the disgraced professor from Florida who pled guilty to one count of conspiracy (other counts were dropped as part of a plea bargain) to assist a terrorist entity, namely the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Al-Arian refused to comply with a subpoena to come to a Grand Jury to testify against an alleged co-conspirator and was convicted of contempt of court, in addition to the original charge, which really bothered some of the activists in the Washington area Muslim community.
Then, it was discovered that the Islamist doctor had attended a mosque in Virginia headed by an Islamist imam, which was also attended (at the same time) by two of the World Trade Centre terrorists. There is no evidence of direct link, but this shows what kind of crowd and imams he associated with.
But if the American people were not concerned that their future Commander in Chief hung out with the America-hating Rev. Wright and the ex-terrorist Bill Ayers, and with other anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic ideologues, I guess they don't see anything wrong with radical Islamists who hate America serving in the armed forces.
Again, my book is prescient and again I watch the inevitable results of what I warn against. I derive no pleasure, none at all, from being right.
Then last week I made a post about the danger that our current cultural relativists will soon attack the moral foundations of Remembrance Day. I sent a copy of the essay to a number of newspapers who of course declined it, without even bothering to write back, as they must consider me some kind of flake.
But yesterday, I found that what my essay warns against has already started. Of course, it has started in Britain first. Which is par for the course. I am going to reprint the article from the website from one of these left wing pacifist British Christian churches, who seem happy to cheer on the Islamification of their country which, based on other areas of the world where Muslims are in control, will inevitably mean that the Christian churches, left wing or not, will not be tolerated. Toleration as I have argued in my new book is only a one way street.
Here is the report; I have emphasized certain ridiculous points by adding bold face type. Mark my words, this is the next frontier in the Left's assault on decency, morality and our historic accomplishments as liberal democracies:
from http://ekklesia.co.uk/node/10504:
We need a more inclusive Remembrance Day
A new report ahead of Remembrance Day is recommending a deeper and more meaningful form of remembrance that encompasses both soldiers and civilians on all sides in all wars.
Released today (2nd November) by the thinktank Ekklesia, its suggestions include an honest acknowledgement that some did “die in vain”, an end to “selective remembrance”...
Remembrance has been ‘cheapened’ it says by a failure to back up words with action, particularly when it comes to successive Government’s care for war veterans, but also the lack of resources put into peacebuilding.
It traces the development of Britain’s remembrance tradition and makes a series of proposals about how Remembrance Day might be updated and made more accessible to future generations, making the way we remember war more truthful and inclusive.
• A greater equality in remembrance to incorporate all those affected by war, including those on both sides and civilians, conscientious objectors, and those executed for ‘cowardice’
• The language used in remembrance should be more truthful. Words like ‘glorious’ should no longer be used. There should also be an acknowledgement that some did “die in vain” and an end to automatic references about all soldiers giving “their lives for the freedom we enjoy today”.
• Churches should resist the misappropriation of religious language in remembrance. Where it is used it should be qualified carefully, particularly with regard to words like “sacrifice”, which should not be used to condone violence.
• Following other examples from around the world a far greater commitment should be made to peace
• Churches that have bishops and chaplains to the armed forces, should also provide them for the “unarmed forces”, those who work as peacemakers and peacebuilders without weapons
• Remembrance should encompass groups who are often excluded. The environmental impact of war, including ecological damage and millions of animals slaughtered should also be more widely acknowledged
• Churches and others involved in remembrance events and services should make a greater variety of symbols available such as white and purple poppies alongside red ones
• There should be an end to ‘selective remembrance’ where the more shameful aspects of war are forgotten
• Armistice Day should become a bank holiday
“We can remember well, or we can remember badly” said Ekklesia co-director Jonathan Bartley... “ Many want to remember, but they are unable to join in the corporate recollection because of the values and politics that accompany the traditions.
“It is naïve to believe that our remembrance has not been shaped by political perspectives and certain values about war. If we want future generations to remember, we need to acknowledge this, and adapt our traditions accordingly. This will mean deciding what we need to hold onto from the past, but also making tough decisions about what is unhelpful and should be discarded.
“Remembrance that does not tell the truth or match words with actions is cheap, and fails to honour those who died.
Remembrance that excludes people because we feel uncomfortable with what they did is deceitful. We need a more honest,
equal, and inclusive remembering.”
ENDS
You can read the report in full here: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/ReimaginingRemembrance.pdf
Notes to Editors
1. Ekklesia is a member of the Network of Christian Peace Organisations (NCPO) committed to furthering peace and encouraging churches to support the peace movement
2. Formed in 2001, Ekklesia was listed by The Independent newspaper in 2005 as among 20 influential UK think-tanks. According to Alexa/Amazon, it has one of the most-visited religious current affairs websites in Britain. It runs a news and comment service, examining religion in public life, and raises £250,000 a year for peace & justice causes
Dear readers:
Look at the future and weep. Or, do something about it and join me in fighting the Tolerist cancer undermining our civilization.
Howard Rotberg November 7, 2009