From RedState: "The once Merry England."
A very sobering look at the way Islam is changing the character of Great Britain that should be a shrill sound of warning to all free Nations that want to remain that way.
From Paul J Cella's The once Merry England. The decline toward dhimmitude. :
In the streets of London the signs read: “we are all Hizballah now.” In the august corridors of the House of Lords, two peers come to blows when one dared to utter a word about Israel’s right to self-defense. In central London a mosque is being built that will be the largest in Europe, auguring what sort of capital that great city will soon be. A local Muslim activist, after disrupting a press conference, is promptly invited on the BBC to give his assessment of things: Home Secretary John Reid is a “murderer,” Blair an “an enemy to Muslims and an enemy to Allah,” and finally, Britain “doesn’t belong to you, or to the Queen, or to the government, but to Allah. He has put us on earth to implement shari’a law.”
Will we heed the warnings of Old Europe? Some countries are taking the threat seriously - Holland being at the forefront with about 1 million muslims who are at extreme odds with the Dutch culture. But countries like England and France are visibly giving in without any sign of serious resistance. Did England fight against Nazi troops for naught only to fall without a fight to opression?
On the fifth anniversary of September 11, one of the most prominent Muslims in Britain delivers this threat in the Sunday Telegraph: “If that demonization [of Muslims] continues, then Britain will have to deal with 2 million Muslim terrorists — 700,000 of them in London.” The Conservative Party leader delivers a speech, not to stand against this sedition, but to mollify Muslim opinion, expounding on the true nature of the Islamic religion in all the right tones of confident timidity. This is what mass immigration of Muslims into Britain has wrought. This is what the conventional line of appeasement — a “religion of peace” —, repeated by virtually every Western head of state since September 11, has wrought. Britain, the cradle of liberal democracy, the parent of our own constitutional system, as ancient and as venerable an incubator of the habits of liberty and order as there is, has, in the course of less than a decade, walked right up the edge of dhimmitude.
Read more at the link above.
Comments :
Sounds like the Christian extremists here
in the states.
But I'll ask you a question...Why would you put any weight into what obvious partisans say? That is the same thing as asking a marketing guy if his product is any good.
Same reason you have lawyers as advocates...
...sometimes having a person who is willing to argue a side no matter how strong or weak the case is useful.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
What a goofy article.
Really? I'm sure these are official signs put out by the Muslim community, and I'm sure they're pervasive.
Or did they come to blows over the Palestinian side of the question? Notice there's no information about how it started, just an assessment that we're supposed to take at face value.
Detroit has the biggest mosque in the Western Hemisphere. What kind of city is it?
First, we haven't seen anything that remotely looks like sedition. Second, why shouldn't he mollify a large part of the population that's being slandered by the kinds of accusations in this article?
Extremist opinion, yes, but how is that any different than anything our own extremists on the right or left say? Bush is a murderer, Clinton was a murderer, this country is Christian, this country is atheist - I mean, take your pick.
This is the worst part, though:
What a horrible example of complete intellectual dishonesty and bankruptcy. If he had read the interview, he'd have seen that the sentiment is not a threat by any stretch of the imagination:
Well, duh. We've gone from "threat" to "statement of the completely obvious."
I knew redstate was bad sometimes, but this is just pathetic. It's a hit piece on a topic that the diarist hasn't bothered to compile anything substantial on, other than a few empty bogeyman. What a joke.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
making light
out of an extremely serious situation with Islam's clash with Europe's tradition is not the way to address this.
Previously you excused the muslim riots in France by stating that a lot of them were 2nd and 3rd generation French, and comparing with an example of Chinese, some of whom immigrated in the 19th century.
Bad analogy for the simple reason that those Chinese actually assimilated into our culture while most muslims that Europe is having problems with have no intention of assimilating and hate their host countries. Take a look at this Pew Poll
where the 2nd graphic shows that among British Muslims a staggering 81% consider themselves Muslim first (a lot worse than even other European countries). That is frightening.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
By "making light"
you mean exposing a hit piece whose effect comes from spin, not facts?
You're approaching this wrong, trying to compare assimilation in the United States versus Europe as a function of the ethnicities there instead of as a function of the countries themselves. Of course people (Chinese or whatever) assimilate better into this country: we may be predominantly Caucasian (for a little while longer), but there's no stipulation, legal or cultural, that says American=Caucasian. And again, I point to the example of Detroit to ask what great cultural downfall has resulted from the largest mosque in the Western Hemisphere, not to mention a substantial Muslim population. From my interactions with people in that community, it seems they've assimilated just fine.
On the other hand, British=ethnically British, French=ethnically French, and so forth. The legal requirements to be considered British or French have slowly been changing, but the sharp division is still there. Russia at least had the good sense to shift everything to российский, deflating some of that tension.
Compare: Salman Rushdie has written a lot on non-Muslim Indians' inability to assimilate into England, and no one went into panic mode over Indians' recognition of primacy of ethnic identity. There's a reason for that: only when a particular culture is identified as a "threat" do statements of ethnic/religious identity suddenly seem threatening - in other words, the already existing perception gets projected onto anything that helps fit the narrative. You only have to look to the MEChA debacle in this country for further proof of that.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I know there is a difference
between the function of the countries themselves and potential assimilation strategies one must adopt.
However, regardless of how a country views themselves, and Britain has not been purely "British=ethnically British" for a long time, all immigrants absolutely must try all in their power to assimilate and adopt "American first, English first, French first, etc" attitude as the minimum amount of gratitude for the country taking you in.
The way I see muslim immigrants in Europe is as ungrateful. But ungrateful doesn't encompass the overriding hostility to the Western Values System of liberty and social liberalism.
It is not up to the host country to try to adapt to their immigrant populations and make them feel welcome and comfortable. It is absolutely up to the immigrant population to adapt to their host country and adopt that society's minimum values as their own.
If they do not try, I am not sympathetic to them. And if they do not try in US, and preach that kind of unacceptance, I am hostile to them. You come here, you must be an American first.
We've done a lot better than Europe in that respect but the immigrants in Europe must do better. Obviously they are not and most of Europe doesn't know how to deal with it. I think Holland and eventually Germany will be able to deal with it through some tough measures, but other countries are in danger.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You say you know the difference between light and slander
but you aren't showing it.
That whole spiel is an abomination. You are openly calling a major western religious faith a gang of murderers & worse. A large Mosque going up in London means we've lost England as a trusted friend and ally? That's the biggest load of bs I've seen in a while.
All generalities are never always true. That's why they call them generalities.
The greater bulk of that post is slander.
though I disagree with your portrayal in general
a minor quibble: major western religious faith???? Eh? Western?
I don't think so.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
It is actually a western faith, Ender
The major eastern faiths would be shinto, buddhism, hinduism, taoism, and so on.
Western here refers less to the geography than to the lines of philosophical descent. Islam is a clear descendent of Christianity which is itself a descendent of Judaism. All three are strongly influenced by the western traditions coming down from the greeks.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
umm no
because western in the case kindness used it in refers to Western Civilization. And while it is clearly not in the "Eastern religious tradition", Islam has very little to do with the origin of Western Civilization, unlike Christianity and Judaism.
So while philosophically Islam comes from Judaism and Christianity, it was molded into a non-Western faith that ultimately clashes with our values.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Strange contention.
While I wouldn't argue that Islam is a Western religion, I'm not sure you're on any surer ground. Its values that "clash" with ours have been ours in some points of history, as well. Were we non-Western at that time? Their values were more open, liberal, and humanistic than ours in the Middle Ages, so were they Western at the time?
I think you're trying to cram a bunch of ahistorical observations into a tidy package, and that's just not going to work.
It's just much easier to connect them with lines of Western thought: history and tradition, monotheism, aversion to sexuality, etc. Sure, they've gone in their own directions, but that's what happens whenever we try to apply articifical categories to large phenomena.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
By Western Civilization
I mean post enlightenment period. During the dark ages most of the world's attitudes were comparable in their backwardness, with some brief sparks of liberal thought here and there.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Islam has very little to do
It has to do with the continuation rather than the origin of western civilization. Civilizations don't stay static they continue changing. Islam is one branch of how the western civ has changed (with secularism from the enlightenment being the other main branch).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Sure
To a large extent.
But that doesn't mean immigrants are going to adopt the same political views as everyone else.
You seem to be upset because Muslim immigrants express sympathy for Hezbollah. Is that so surprising?
Is it that much different than Cubans who came to this country in such numbers that their anti-Castro militancy ended up influencing American policy? Or how about Irish-Americans who provided critical financial support for the IRA.
qui tacet consentire
it is different
because of what Hezbollah represents. Hezbollah represents one of the fundamentalist Islamic terrorist groups that hate everything western and that would kill us if they could. IRA was fundamentally about one nation's independence and not about Global Jihad against Western Civilization.
Those who live in Western Countries and support Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other radical Islamic terror groups, hate our values with a passion and are a threat to our values and our civilization.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Come on, Ender...
...do you know where Hezbollah came from?
Israel illegally occupied Lebanon for two decades. Hezbollah developed as a local resistance force. They were in the literal sense of the term freedom fighters. Now granted I don't exactly agree with their ideal view of how things should be, but they are far from the utter monsters you paint them as.
The hatred they have for the west (really for us and israel) comes from the very real harm we did to them and theirs. Hezbollah and the IRA are pretty similar in terms of underlying motivations.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I know about Hezbollah
and their origins. And I know that they were a reaction to the (reasonable) Israeli occupation of Lebanon. However the reason why I dump them in with Al Qaeda is because of their underlying ideology (that is similar) and their methods (same) as the other global terror groups.
What I am trying to say that if they had the manpower and the ability, they'd be fighting us alongside Al Qaeda. They are ideological allies (regardless of what their current or previous mission is re Israel) and they are the same type of people. Radical Fundamentalist Jihadists.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Hezbollah does not = al Qaeda
Hezbollah is Shiite. Al Qaeda is Wahabbi Sunni, which preaches that Shiites practice apostasy.
qui tacet consentire
yes
Radical Islamic Jihadists come in 2 stripes. They even kill each other. It does not negate my point.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
quaoar:
o/t question
, if you have a second.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Establish more American University
I have read somewhere that American University in Lebanon is a big reason why Lebanon remains secular. We need to establish more Western Universities in Muslim Countries to give Moslems an alternative to Maddrassas or fundamentalist schools set up by Hezbollah, hamas, or Wahabbis.
Yes, influence rather than force. -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.