Posted by Rnl on Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:55 | #

Dispatches reveals how a message of hatred and segregation is being spread throughout the UK and examines how it is influenced by the religious establishment of Saudi Arabia.

This sounds like an excellent report. But I’m suspicious of the emphasis on Saudi machinations. “Hatred and segregation” are features of Koranic Islam; they’re not exclusive to some idiosyncratic Saudi interpretation of Islam. The Dispatches program is apparently suggesting that if only sinister Saudis could be prevented from corrupting Islam, all would be well. Multicultural Britain would thrive. Diversity celebrations, freed from the threat of Muslim violence, could merrily proceed as before.

But what the sinister Saudis are really doing is simply teaching Islam to British Muslims. The genuinely sinister figures are the British politicians who allowed adherents of a violent, alien religion to enter their country.

These publications and webcasts disseminate beliefs about women such as: “Allah has created the woman deficient, her intellect is incomplete”

Which comes straight from the Koran. So these publications and webcasts are just stating authentic Islamic beliefs. They’re not making anything up.

“Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other” (4.34).

It’s just barely possible that, with piles of liberal propaganda, multiculturalists will be able to convince Muslims in the West that on this subject their Koran doesn’t mean what Allah explicitly pronounced, but it will be an uphill struggle.

there’s an extreme hostility towards homosexuals.

Even Islam has its good points.

are recruiting young Western Muslims to train them in their extreme theology

In other words, to train them in Islam.

Undercover Mosque features interviews with moderate British Muslim figures who are speaking out against the influence of Saudi Arabia’s extreme brand of Islam, which is seeking to overturn Islamic traditions of diversity and peaceful co-existence

Any suggestion that historical Islam has been devoted to “diversity and peaceful co-existence” is laughable. I think it’s a lie. I think the producers of this program know they’re lying but believe that mendacity in the defense of anti-racism is no sin. Most mainstream journalists share that opinion.

The sentence is curious: “Saudi Arabia’s extreme brand of Islam ... is seeking to overturn Islamic traditions of diversity and peaceful co-existence.” For a tradition to be overturned it must somewhere be upright - that is, somewhere the tradition must still be in practice. Where is this particular tradition in practice? Answer: in the mouths of “moderate Muslims” discovered by liberal television reporters. Nowhere else will you find this allegedly longstanding tradition. You certainly won’t find it in any majority-Muslim country. British Muslims are unlikely to accept the proposition that the true nature of Islam can only be discovered in the West. They know that Saudi Arabia is more authentically Islamic than Turkey. They also know that liberal journalists and multiracialist politicians aren’t the best source for learning about their own religion. 

But let’s stipulate that Muslim country A is devoted to this longstanding tradition but Muslim country B isn’t. If you take most of your immigrants from Muslim country B (say, Pakistan), then this tradition is unlikely to do you much good. You’ll have to convince your Muslim population that “diversity and peaceful co-existence” is their Muslim tradition, and they’ll know that it isn’t. Their own ethnocultural background will tell them otherwise.

As nationalists we can have no objection to Muslim intolerance. They can be as intolerant and misogynist as they choose in their own countries. But because their religion is violent and intolerant, they shouldn’t live in ours. They should live somewhere else, like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

***

“Those that make war against Allah and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter.” (Sura 5.33)

“O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them. Allah guides not the people of the evildoers.” (Sura 5.51)

“Allah revealed His will to the angels, saying: ‘I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!’ That was because they defied Allah and His apostle. He that defies Allah and his apostle shall be sternly punished by Allah.” (Sura 8.12-13)

“In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones [i.e. non-Muslims] one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost.” (Sura 8.37)

“And fight them until there is no more fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah alone (in the whole world). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah) then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.” (Sura 8.39).

“Muster against them [i.e. non-Muslims] all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them who are unknown to you but known to Allah.” (Sura 8.60)

“O Prophet, urge on the believers to fight. If there be twenty of you, patient men, they will overcome two hundred; if there be a hundred of you, they will overcome a thousand unbelievers, for they are a people who understand not.” (Sura 8.65)

“It is not for any Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter in the land.” (Sura 8.67).

“Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden—such men as practice not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book [i.e. Jews and Christians]—until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.” (Sura 9.29)

“If you do not go to war, He will punish you sternly, and will replace you by other men.” (Sura 9.39)

“Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal harshly with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.” (Sura 9.73)

“They [i.e. faithful Muslims] will fight for the cause of Allah, they will slay and be slain.” (Sura 9.111)

“O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find in you a harshness, and know that Allah is with the godfearing.” (Sura 9.123)

“When We resolve to raze a city, We first give warning to those of its people who live in comfort. If they persist in sin, judgement is irrevocably passed, and We destroy it utterly.” (Sura 17.16)

“We have destroyed many a sinful nation and replaced them by other men. And when they felt Our Might they took to their heels and fled. They were told: ‘Do not run away. Return to your comforts and to your dwellings. You shall be questioned all.’ ‘Woe betide us, we have done wrong’ was their reply. And this they kept repeating until We mowed them down and put out their light.” (Sura 21.11-15)

“When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. Then grant them their freedom or take a ransom from them, until war shall lay down her burdens.” (Sura 47.4)

“Mohammed is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.” (Sura 48.29)

“May the hands of Abu Lahab [Mohammed’s uncle, who had refused to embrace Islam] perish! Nothing shall his wealth and gains avail him. He shall be burnt in a flaming fire, and his wife, laden with firewood, shall have a rope of fiber around her neck!” (Sura 111.1-5)

***

“When the apostle ordered him to be killed Uqba said, ‘But who will look after my children, O Mohammed?”’ ‘Hell’, he said, and Asim b. Thabit ... killed him.”

Ibn Ishaq, _Sirat Rasul Allah_, 458; trans. A. Guillaume (Oxford, 1955), p. 308.

The Affair of Muhayyisa and Huwayisa

The apostle said, ‘Kill any Jew that falls into your power.’ Thereupon Muhayyisa b. Mas’ud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him [i.e. the Jewish merchant] Huwayisa began to beat him, saying, ‘You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?’ Muhayyisa answered, ‘Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.’ He said that this was the beginning of Huwayisa’s acceptance of Islam. The other [i.e. Huwayisa] replied, ‘By God, if Muhummad had ordered you to kill me you would have killed me?’ He said, ‘Yes, by God, had he ordered me to cut off your head I would have done so.’ He exclaimed, ‘By God, a religion which can bring you to this is marvellous!’ and he became a Muslim.

Ibn Ishaq, _Sirat Rasul Allah_, 553-554; trans. A. Guillaume (Oxford, 1955), 369.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:24 | #

Darwin:

When two tribes of primeval man, living in the same country, came into competition, if (other circumstances being equal) the one tribe included a great number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other, this tribe would succeed better and conquer the other.

Posted by alex zeka on Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:25 | #

rnl, Destroying the extremist-supporting Saudi network would leave British Islam, as much a foreign creation as British Communism, withering on the vine. We don’t need to pick fights against chimeras.

Posted by alex zeka on Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:29 | #

re: the Darwin quote.

That’s assuming the two tribes are of equal size (e.g. a hlaf committed tribe of 4m would beat a fully committed tribe of 1m). I don’t wanna sound like JJR, but with a high enough birth rate alien immigrants would be squeezed out.

Posted by alex zeka on Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:35 | #

Oops, Darwin actually made the same caveat as I did. Still, the point stands, that quote only applies if the Arabs sart getting close enough to our numbers.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:44 | #

The programme was narrower in focus than I hoped it might be.  But it was useful enough, and will provide a reference point for future debate.

Personally, I would have preferred less of a mosque-bound, expose-style investigation and more of an intellectual probing of Islam itself ... and of the motives and values of our Islam-loving government toadies.  I don’t doubt that Islam is far from monolithic.  But there are some interesting questions around its ideological unity/disunity that need to be resolved.  In particular, I would have liked these two questions answered:-

1) Is there any branch or sect of Islam domiciled in the West teaching that Islam has no ambition to a global belief hegemony?

2) Is there any branch or sect teaching that Western liberal values as they are currently manifest can co-exist with Islam, and that Moslems can integrate, and live in peace and in the private observation of their faith under the canon of Western liberal law?

And I would have liked a few hard questions asked of some unfortunate government minister:-

3) What happens if and when Islam proves incompatible with Western values?

4) Is there any price this government will not pay in order to avoid dismantling the MultiCult?

And so on.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:42 | #

they must “live like a state within a state” until they are “strong enough to take over.”

They are invoking apartheid, Alex, and the precedent has already been set, according to Prof. Mark Thomas, by the Anglo-Saxons, who numbered at most 250,000, however, were able to diminish a much larger group of Britons (Celts, Welsh, whatever) in just a few generations.

Posted by Kenelm Digby on Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:23 | #

As Rnl says even Islam has its good points.
I am always struck by how many shouty-voiced, hectoring, aggressive black Jamaicans have embraced Islam, and make a big show of it by wearing those absurd little hats and the silly robes - which are of course all purely cultural artifacts.
  Well anyhow, sharia law- properly enforced - is the perfect antidote to black African pathology, the amputations doled out to thieves, the whipping of the sexually promiscuous, the be-heading of murderers, rapists etc, what a congruent fit!!!

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 16 Jan 2007 13:32 | #

Found at Laban’s ...

this link to the Dispatches broadcast at LGF.

Posted by watling on Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:39 | #

I have a couple of criticisms of the programme:

1. There were several instances where footage of a speaker appeared to jump, implying that it had been edited. Yet what the speaker said after the “jump” seemed to flow seamlessly from what he had said prior to the “jump”.

Where this happened, we can only guess what was missing. Of course it might be perfectly innocent, and only a few “umms” or “errrs” were omitted.

But in each case where it happened, the pre- and post-jump phrases combined to form a more radical message than if the two phrases were taken separately.

2. At one point, an imam in a Birmingham mosque was preaching in Arabic (although it could possibly have been Urdu) and his words were dubbed into English, rendering his speech inaudible. It would have been better to have used subtitles so that bilingual Arabic-English viewers could have verified the translation.

Other than these criticisms, there was plenty to interest the police.

Presumably the Crown Prosecution Service will now be pursuing those involved as enthusiastically as they pursued Nick Griffin and Mark Collett of the BNP. They both criticised Islam and ended up in court twice, but did not incite anybody to violence or hatred. They certainly didn’t suggest that women could be used as punchbags.

Posted by alex zeka on Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:16 | #

Desmond,

Apartheid relies on the minority group being more intelligent and wealthy than the majority. Think Boer South Africans, think Israelis (who practice apartheid, despite not being a minority), think most resourceful Germans in Celt Briton. Is this the case with Muslims, or do another set of circumstances obviate this condition?

Posted by Rnl on Thu, 18 Jan 2007 06:17 | #

watling wrote:

They certainly didn’t suggest that women could be used as punchbags.

If the British authorities want to stop Muslim clerics from advocating spousal abuse, they’ll have to criminalize teaching the Koran, where wife-beating is permitted: “those [wives] you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them” (Koran 4.34). The Prophet himself once opined: “A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.”

Islam presents a serious challenge to multiracialists. In most cases the “shocking” opinions of “radical” Muslim clerics are simply the authentic teachings of the Koran. Those teachings should be treated by liberals as sacrosanct religious beliefs in a multifaith and multicultural country, where the importation of cultural differences is officially advertised as post-national cultural improvement. They make Britain better; almost by definition they cannot make it worse.

The central claim of multiculturalism is that the importation of cultural differences enriches and enlivens what was formerly stultifying (“white-bread”) cultural homogeneity. The stranger a group is, the more enriching differences it can contribute. Our diversity is our strength; the more of it you acquire, the stronger you become.

It’s hard for us to take that idea seriously, but throughout the West the small-minded little men who produce television news programs do take it seriously, as do most elected politicians. Yet as they encounter Islam even they can’t help but see cultural differences that don’t really look like portents of further cultural enrichment. Hence the television program discussed in this thread.

The Economist magazine often chatters about the need to turn Islam into a European religion, by which they mean the need to Westernize (i.e. corrupt) Islam and make Muslims in the West resemble beliefless liberal Christians, so that Third World immigration can continue without damaging secularism. That will be a real challenge. It will become an impossible challenge when Muslims are, say, thirty percent of the population.

No one in Saudi Arabia would be shocked to hear a Muslim cleric voice the Koranic imperative that the world must be made Islamic. Muslims in the West may pretend to be shocked now. But their willingness to pretend to be shocked will decline as their numbers increase.

Posted by Rnl on Thu, 18 Jan 2007 06:23 | #

Alex Zeka wrote:

most resourceful Germans in [unresourceful?] Celt Briton

I find the anti-Celt stuff that keeps popping up on this board desperately weird, as though it came from some distant planet.

You can’t assume that whenever one group is conquered by another that the conquering group is more resourceful than the conquered. Were the Romans more “resourceful” than the Greeks? It seems unlikely. Intellectual history would suggest otherwise. All you can know for certain is that, at one point in history, Romans were more powerful than Greeks. Being powerful and being resourceful aren’t the same, at least if your idea of “resourceful” includes native ability.

Posted by alex zeka on Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:31 | #

rnl,

When I wrote ‘most resourceful’ I meant ‘more resourceful than other Germans’. It isn’t too much to conjecturise that those Teutons who got across the Channel, at the time when sea travel was virtually impossible, were a cut above the rest, in sheer determination if nothing else.

Posted by yooyo on Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:56 | #

cant u ever say the truth about islam that its a peaceful religion of harmony & jesus aint the son of god u dumb plonkaz

Posted by cognitive elitism on Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:34 | #

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070118/tv_nm/britain_bigbrother_racism_dc_2

Obviously, mixing whites and South Asians is a good thing; the only problem is you racist Englishmen here!

Go GNXP!

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:05 | #

Indian, what serious person gives a damn?

Posted by Rnl on Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:38 | #

Saudi Arabia’s extreme brand of Islam ... is seeking to overturn Islamic traditions of diversity and peaceful co-existence.

There is an important anti-racialist principle implicit in this dishonest sentence. 

Most people in Britain are White. The natural assumption would be that they, the White majority, are threatened by these Muslim “preachers of hate.” Their country has been made worse by the immigration policy that allowed these Muslim preachers of hate to disseminate their allegedly extreme interpretation of Islam. Non-Muslims, most of them native-born Whites, are endangered by Islam’s disdain for the infidel. Non-Muslims will be the targets of any future acts of terrorism that this disdain for non-Muslims inspires. Muslim hatred, as a matter of fact, endangers non-Muslims. Britain would be better off without it. Britain would also be better off if it had fewer Muslims.

But saying anything like that would presuppose the legitimacy of a racial or national perspective. It would presuppose that the majority in Britain is entitled to say that this Muslim hatred is bad for _us_, and that presupposition would imply “racism.” It would imply that Whites are morally entitled to look at the world from our own group perspective, and anti-racialism tells us that we’re not.

It is therefore necessary to say that _Muslims_ are threatened by Muslim extremism. It is their long tradition of peaceful co-existence and their well-known love for diversity that are under assault, not the British nation: “Saudi Arabia’s extreme brand of Islam ... is seeking to overturn Islamic traditions of diversity and peaceful co-existence.” If you take a stand against Muslim extremism, you are really protecting Islam, not non-Muslims in Britain. Muslim extremists don’t threaten British nationhood or the non-Muslim British public; they offend against the canons of tolerance, of which Islam itself is a notable expression, as all respectable experts will tell you. That’s the only legitimate ground for exposing these preachers of hate. If you believe anything else, you’re like the BNP ballerina, someone worried about immigration from the perspective of the British nation.

So the lie about Islamic traditions of diversity and peaceful co-existence, or something similar to it, was obligatory, since the journalists were intent on avoiding “racism.” It or something similar would also be obligatory in any mainstream news program discussing Islam in the United States. Steve Emerson included similar nonsense in his otherwise excellent _Jihad in America_ documentary back in the early 1990s. 

Who is hurt by Black crime? You risk entering the forbidden terrain covered by “racism” if your answer is “White victims of Black criminals.” You retain your respectability if you say that the Black community is the real victim of Black crime. Respectable treatments of Black crime concentrate on the social consequences suffered by Black community. They avoid any suggestion that Black crime is bad from a White perspective. Only Klansmen worry about stuff like that.

Are Mexicans in America hurt by Mexican immigration? Few of them seem to think so. Most of them think more Mexican immigration is a good idea, and it is indeed a good idea from their perspective.

Multiracialism, as Yggdrasil has written, removes any objective basis for defending or even stating national interests, since there is no definable people on whose behalf the nation-state acts, the nation having dwindled into a largely geographical concept, held together by material prosperity and regular diversity celebrations. A Mexican who illegally arrived here yesterday is now part of the nation. His interests become as legitimate as the interests of anyone else, more legitimate in fact than the illegitimate interest that Whites have in sending him back. Saying that his arrival was bad for the nation requires a definition of the nation that excludes him and people like him.

The Promise of White Nationalism
http://www.whitenationalism.com/wn/wn-15.htm

***

Alex Zeka wrote:

When I wrote ‘most resourceful’ I meant ‘more resourceful than other Germans’.

Sorry. I misunderstood your point.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 04:58 | #

Lawrence Auster has a log entry up which has relevance to this thread, which ends with the following thought:

”If what Hitchens says is true, and if something like what I predicted a year ago is already coming to pass, then nothing short of a revolution can save Britain now, driving the current political and cultural establishment out of power, and replacing them by people who will defend Britain.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 05:10 | #

Brenda Walker and Jim Kalb also post relevant log entries.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:30 | #

Well, Fred, I don’t buy this “Western Establishment loves Islam” meme.  It behoves us to remember that the advanced liberal (or postmodern) mind almost inadvertently pursues a narrow Marxist in its wider striving after the free individual.  Gramscism calls their attitude “the captured intellect”.

In its wider philosophical striving, liberalism understands Man as being perfectible through the exercise of choice and tolerance of all other men.  But the purpose of culturally Marxist liberal philosophy is very specific, and is the destruction of native European hegemony.  For an obvious and perfectly practical reason, then, liberalism has nothing similar to say about the tools, like Islam, used in the accomplishment of that task.  On the contrary, it insists as an article of faith that Islam is moderate.

The following is a comment on that moderateness I made at Laban’s some days ago:-

<blockquote>I don’t think that the existence of Moslems who are not so hot-headed, not activist-minded, not drawn to confrontationalism is at all the same thing as the existence of “moderate Islam”. In all societies, there is a large majority who drift along in life and concern themselves with the ordinary. The question is, do Moslems of this mein represent a philosophical strand within their faith?

After last night’s broadcast I set down two questions at MR that would determine whether moderateness in the sense of tolerance for Western pluralism and Western mores actually exists:-

1) Is there any branch or sect of Islam domiciled in the West teaching that Islam has no ambition to a global belief hegemony?

2) Is there any branch or sect teaching that Western liberal values as they are currently manifest can co-exist with Islam, and that Moslems can integrate, and live in peace and in the private observation of their faith under the canon of Western liberal law?

My present understanding is that it’s an article of faith that all Moslems believe in global conquest, and that any dilution of their faith through involvement with the corrupt West is absolute anathema.

The difference, it seems to me, between the troublemaking activists and the rest is not so very ideological. But I think it is very useful to self-labelled “moderates” to be able to talk it up, keep their places in the West and let the noisy ones do the heavy conflictual lifting.

There is a certain quid pro quo here. The moderates protect Islam in the West. The hot-heads advance its cause.

The same is true with Jewry, where one encounters so many fine Jewish men and women who, nonetheless, are not furiously demanding that the human rights artistes and immigration pushers among them, and the endless leftist intellectuals, identity politicians, Israel firsters, holocaustians, pornographers and so forth desist from weakening the European host.

Such “moderates” are less helpful to us than they are to their kinsmen. Neither Moslem nor Jew will stand up for our own interests. Only we can do<blockquote>

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:59 | #

No memes, please. At least spare us that.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:43 | #

”Under the subject heading, ‘Why England is comatose,’ Jim Kalb writes:

Just a thought on your “mystery explained” post: It seems to me that acceptance of Islamization would follow the same path the universities, churches and other institutions have followed since the 60s. In both cases:
1. There’s a substantial self-righteous and disruptive minority that doesn’t recognize the validity of any rules that don’t go their way, e.g., the 60s left or the Muslims.

2. From a liberal standpoint the claims the minority puts forward can’t simply be dismissed, because there are no enemies to the Left and no multicultural third-world enemies. So it would be a lot of trouble and cause a lot of controversy to squash them.

3. Therefore, the answer is to give in to the minority, to thank them for disrupting things because it draws attention to what has to be done, to keep the majority quiet by giving them comforts and amusements and letting them do what they want so long as they shut up, to tell moderate conservatives that this is what the authorities have decided and your job is to respect the authorities, and to demonize and squash immoderate conservatives.

As such the problem seems more like abandonment of our civilization than hatred of it. Things are ending with a whimper and not a bang. Think of present-day university presidents or bishops. Most of them don’t hate their institutions. It’s just that their highest goal is to stay comfortable, stay respected, avoid trouble, and keep the institution going and money coming in. They’re willing to sacrifice everything to those goals.

“LA replies:

Two points.

First, if your main objection is to my use of the word “hate,” your analysis may be correct, because while I said “hate,” hate is not the essence of my point. I wrote a year ago, quoted in the current entry:

“As I read this, I suddenly realized that my whimsical image of Western Christians and Jews serving some future Caliph of Europe is a prospect that would be highly pleasant and attractive to many Westerners. I realized that these spiritually emptied-out elites are not just anti-Western, as has been said a million times, and do not just seek to harm and weaken the West before its enemies, as has been said a million times, but that they literally do not want our civilization to continue. It’s too guilty, too powerful, and its guilt and its power are too much of a burden for them. How do you go on upholding something that you don’t believe in anyway?”

So what I’m describing is not at bottom hate (or at least it does not have to be described as hate), but rather lack of love and belief.

However, if you’re saying that the mere desire to “avoid problems,” is sufficient to explain the left’s behavior, I can’t believe that. Yes, that is surely a major part of their motivation, but I don’t see it as the totality. There also has to be the radical de-valuing of our own civilization, as well as the desire to avoid problems.

To put it another way, in order for the avoidance of problems to become the liberal elites’ highest priority, as you have put it, they already had to have radically devalued our civilization.

“Jim Kalb replies:

Oh, I agree. The reason comfort is the highest value is that all others have been given up. These aren’t lost violent souls, only hollow men. Of course, the fact they are hollow men empowers savages and the deranged. And in a way hollow men like to be abused because it gives them a feeling of reality.

“LA replies:

Yes, like Sir Ian Blair, head of British police, who reportedly was offended that a Muslim female police cadet refused to shake his hand at a graduation ceremony. Blair is a leading dhimmi, yet suddenly he gets miffed that a Muslim woman behaves as a Muslim woman is supposed to behave. Blair has given up the reality of Britain and of standing for Britain; but he gets the substitute reality of being annoyed at a social rebuff by a Muslim, even as he continues the British surrender to Islam.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:55 | #

THE WAVE OF THE FUTURE

(An excerpt from The Jerusalem Post, 23 January 2007:)

As many as 100,000 French and British citizens have converted to Islam over the last decade, according to a new book by an Israeli historian. [...] [Hebrew University Prof. Raphael Israeli] noted that about 30 million Muslims currently live in Europe, out of a total population of 380 million., adding that with a high Muslim birthrate in Europe, the number of Muslims living in the continent is likely to double within 25 years.

[...] “The sheer weight of demography will produce a situation where no Frenchman or Dutchman could be elected to parliament without the support of the Muslim minority,” he said Monday in an interview with The Jerusalem Post. [...] The historian [...] said that Muslim political power in Europe would directly impact domestic politics, including Europe’s immigration policy, with millions of additional Muslims waiting at the door to gain entry to the EU as part of “family reunification” programs. “Every European with a right mind has every reason to be frightened,” Israeli said.

The 50,000 French and 50,000 British who have converted to Islam over the last decade, including many from mixed marriages, did so for personal convictions, romanticized notions of Islam, as well as for business reasons, while others see Islam as the wave of the future at a time when Christianity is on the wane, Israeli said. He said that Muslims converting to Christianity existed but their numbers were significantly smaller. Israeli noted that conversions in mixed marriages worked only in one direction since a Muslim woman who marries a Christian is considered an apostate in her community, and faces physical danger.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:56 | #

(How that smiley face got in there, I don’t know.  I didn’t intend it.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:59 | #

[That line ended with “2007,” then a colon, then an “end parentheses.”  Evidently a colon followed by an end parentheses results in a smiley face.  Here, let’s try it:    Sorry about that.]

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 25 Jan 2007 06:10 | #

A frank look at government-imposed “diversity,” excerpted from Jared Taylor (via Lawrence Auster).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:54 | #

Rick Darby discussing just a few of the many facets of the modern Western sickness, the modern Western malaise, that has no name:

I don’t want to be too simplistic and ascribe the deterioration of the U.K. to any single cause.  The following seem to be in the mix:

You don’t have to be in Britain more than a few hours to realize what a dysfunctional country it is.  Things don’t work well there.  A lingering sense of politeness means you’ll hear constantly, “Oh, I’m sorry” and “I’m afraid we can’t … ” and “Sorry about that, mate.”  When a Brit wakes up knowing that the day, like all the others, is going to be a series of problems and frustrations, it engenders what some psychotherapists call “learned helplessness.”

The pervasive no-can-do attitude is probably owing partly to a dumbed-down, politically correct education system that systematically downplays the counry’s historical achievements; but more basically to the varying degrees of socialism and Marxism that have dominated the government for 60 years.  Several generations now have come to expect that it’s the government’s job to run everything and fix everything, and the individual’s to pay his taxes and carry on.

These factors are magnified because the U.K. doesn’t have any sort of federal system like the U.S.; counties are little more than administrative districts; local councils run housing estates and that’s about it.  A centralized bureaucracy is in charge of almost every aspect of government, with all that implies about remoteness from actual situations and rule by theory.

The spiritual side of life seems practically absent.  People in Britain lack a transcendent purpose; the only point to their existence is to make money and have a good time.  But it’s hard to be happy, as opposed to enjoying transient pleasure, if you think you inhabit a materialistic, ultimately meaningless universe.

Not to be discounted is the influence of the wide open immigration policy.  Britain has become balkanized, further eroding any sense of national unity or purpose.  [Emphasis added.]

I don’t doubt that many Britons are unhappy about how things are going — just look at the numbers who are emigrating.  Commenters on blogs are often to be found saying the anger is building up, people won’t take it much longer, etc.  Maybe, but after reading such comments for years now, I can’t help being a little skeptical.  In a centralized state, further restricted by unofficial ties to the European Union, ordinary people just don’t have much power or influence.  [Ditto.]

Posted by belfast remembers on Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:01 | #

remember blood and fire speech from Enoc Powell well he was right after all

Posted by Rnl on Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:19 | #

PC Britannia
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008524.html