Islamism is a cancer. Everything it touches turns to shit. It's time our western leaders stop pretending, stop pleasing the radical progressives, stop simping for terrorists, stop apologizing for rapists. Until they don't, we will not a see a real change. And most importantly, Islam needs to change it's ways. Denounce terrorism. Denounce imperialism. Denounce sharia, kalifate or whatever fantasy of grandeur they have in mind.
If Islam was practiced by white men of European descent it would be considered far right extremism and there would be government programs in every western nation to root it out.
Islam will not change. Subjugating / converting / eliminating infidels is one of its foundational principles, written directly into its source documents and woven through its covenants.
I remember when Christopher Hitchens and, later, Sam Harris sounded this warning. Naturally, they were denounced as racist xenophobes and Islamophobes. The mealymouthed apologists in the "reformed" or allegedly moderate Muslim camp have been running cover for their fundamentalists all the while, giving the impression that Islam is reformable when it is not. Besides, the UK and Europe can't wait for reform, even if it were possible.
So the real enemy is not the Islamists because their aims are clear, but the secular or moderate Muslims who are too stupid to realize they are part of an evil religion?
Fundamentalist Muslims are indeed the enemy, and those Muslims who give lip service to reform but have no agency to enact it are useful idiots, as the commies used to say, or, to be charitable, pawns in a game they have no real interest or motivation to quit.
I'm operating under the theory that God need only 'flip a switch' inside them and then the logic that they employed in "embracing" will invert to REPULSION. The "Idea" is to create an environment where no individual makes a VICTIM of any other individual. This is done by BECKONING, not clubbing. It is EASY to recognize evil when you understand that it DOES use a club and it FORCES YOU TO PARTICIPATE.
Our recently elected idiotic socialist government wants to bring in laws to prevent any kind of discussion, never mind criticism, of Islam and its followers.
The problem here is of course pleasing foreigners into your country. They do not have more rights than the citizens. The law is the law. Engaging in riots is not permissible. Women cannot be subjugated. All laws are to be followed regardless of religion. If you don’t like it, leave the country.
Very similar in the USA. There are two sets of laws. This contributes to the hollowing out of the society.
Our world is a mess. Our Western culture and civilization is crumbling before our very eyes thanks to the feckless people we vote for.
You mean the FECKLESS PEOPLE WE HAVE TO CHOOSE FROM. They all seem to come from acedemia and haven't put on a yoke and pulled a load a SINGLE DAY IN THEIR LIVES. A prerequisite of holding office should be that you have to come from WORKING a career for a minimum of 10 years.
These are the Muslims I knew when I was a cab driver in Sacramento. They kept their shops and played by the rules and kicked soccer balls around and ate hamburgers and sent their children to public school where the kids weren't known for giving everyone else problems.
The US curdled and went sour after the Iraq invasion- meaner, more trigger-happy, more alienated, more addicted, more polarized. The 2008 mortgage collapse made that even worse. But neither of those situations are the fault of ordinary Muslims living in the US.
But the US isn't the UK, which is currently getting buried by newcomers- disproportionately young single males. I have to wonder how many of them decided to settle in the UK after being given the bums rush by other European countries. Large cohorts of young single males are society's nightmare. (As I noted in the pages of The Atlantic in 2015 when Angela Merkel opened up the borders of Germany to a wholesale flood of immigrants- fwiw, largely a rolling 2nd and 3rd order consequence of the US-led adventure in Iraq.)
But whatever the case, increased numbers of human beings always lead to logistics problems. Food, clothing, shelter, energy and water use, schooling, productive employment, achieving the goal of pitching in to contribute more than you take away. Almost everyone is both a giver and a taker. The problems show up when there's more taking than giving. And the more newcomers that show up and the faster it happens, the more criminality, antisocial conduct and tension there is.
Contending with millions of newcomers a year is tough enough for the US as it is. An estimated 2.6 million in 2022. But the continental US has around 3,110,000 square miles of territory, and the UK has an area of only 94,300 square miles. And net immigration to the UK in 2022 was 734,000. Total births in the UK in 2022 605, 479.
Islamism- fanaticism that insists on politicizing a sectarian community- definitely exacerbates the problems. But the basic problem would show up no matter the "identity", due to the numbers. A big crowd of newcomers showing up all at once always leans too hard on the locals. Just opening up the gates is disaster economics. No matter the particular economic ideology.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your comment. Many of those rioting are white born-in-England Englanders. They also have to follow the laws of the land or be told to "leave the country"?
Islam is essentially the opposite of Christianity. Instead of Love thy neighbor it is kill thy neighbor if they disagree with any of your beliefs. They cannot do as you suggest "Denounce terrorism" because that is a main part of their 'religion' as taught in the Koran and other writings.
I assume you mean those Christians who burned heretics at the stake and brutalized those who opposed them. Religion is the enemy and Islam is not alone in this.
Christians don’t fucking burn anyone ‘at the stake’ in our modern world but ISLAMISTS certainly rape, torture, maim, kill, dismember, disembowel, burn, and otherwise mutilate who ever they fucking choose to.
I will give you that religion is a force of division outside of itself but that’s it: enough of the ‘but look what (insert group) did/does!’.
Inform yourself of Islam - it is INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE REST OF HUMANITY, and it’s NOT A RELIGION.
It’s a death cult, followed religiously.
Some members are nice and helpful and egalitarian, even kind toward others….but their basic tenet is that ISLAM WILL RULE THE WORLD.
When the call comes to make that happen, every Muslim will attend.
The discussion, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong is about the hear and now. Not ancient history that you are quoting. If you’re going down that path Islam has a very nasty ancient history. Let’s stick to the present. Opps almost forgot about the churches burned. In some cases including their congregation going on at present.
Islam, as seen in strict countries such as Iran, is as nasty as any historical events. Even "moderate" regimes such as Qatar and UAE are only moderate as long as you behave, do as you are told and never argue.
Britain led the Western world into an Age of Liberalism.... and is now leading the Western world out of it again (via hyper 'liberal' Wokism) and into a new Dark Age. The Wokies are in for a shock when they finally get the full on reality of the 'multicultural' mayhem they so richly deserve.
There is much about Israel that I do not admire , especially right now. But one thing that is insisted upon if you move there and there are many Jewish folks who moved there from all over the world with totally different cultures, one thing you must learn Hebrew and settle into the culture that is already there. Unfortunately this can also mean what we're now getting in Gaza so there is perhaps no perfect answer. But I do think we can require some standards when folks move into a totally different culture. I live now in Mexico and I am told constantly that I am a guest in their country and that if I don't like what is going on here I need to move to where I will be happy. Maybe that is the message we need to tell all immigrants who move into a foreign country and want to change it to what they left.
"Unfortunately this can also mean what we're now getting in Gaza"
--------
The Muslims view any non-Islamic nation state in the Islamic World (as they define it) as an abomination - a modern day crusader state (yes, a 1000 years later they are still upset about the Crusades). As such (being animated by fervent religious beliefs) they are willing to die (and take their family with them) in the struggle to extirpate the "cancer" of infidels amongst them.
Hamas could just surrender, like the Germans & Japanese sensibly did when they realized they could not win. They sensibly chose to not allow/facilitate further destruction of their people and place. They surrendered, and then got on to the business of rebuilding their destroyed society and eventually thrived in peace with their conquerers.
Hamas (apparently with strong support by Gazans) will not surrender even though Gaza is increasingly reduced to a pile of rubble, so Israel must press on. Until... what, i don't know).
I do know that what Golda Meir said about peace in the middle east seems to be true. "We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate the Jews"
I admire everything about Israel. They have the guts to defend their nation; the West does not. They bar jihadists from immigrating; the West welcomes jihadists as immigrants, whether legal or illegal.
Gaza initiated a war with a barbaric attack on a peace festival and kidnapping, mutilation, torture, rape, and murder of hundreds of additional victims. On the following link, you can watch the Gazans cutting a baby out of a pregnant woman's stomach: https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/cutting-baby-out.mp4
I wonder how you would feel if that were you, "dorothy".
Gaza started the war. They can end the war by releasing all the hostages NOW. They won't, so Israel will rescue their citizens. You will be left by the side wringing your hands.
Jews under the Nazis were widely accused across the West at the time of aiding their own cruel treatment through being passive. Supposedly. As if they were in a position to fight. They were asked why they did not stand up for themselves. Which was a truly ridiculous question, under the circumstances.
Israeli Jews have taken the stance they will never be mocked again for not fighting back when it is required. I cannot blame them. They set reasonable boundaries. If adversaries intentionally break those bounds and attack their people, as they did, the Israeli Jews have every right to put a stop to it.
The whole point of the state of Israel was that Jews would never again stand in line to be loaded onto cattle cars to be sent to an unknown fate. They must stand up for themselves or die.
I fully agree with you, Iris. The Jews and the state of Israel have my support. They were made tragic scapegoats in Hitler's Europe, but they are standing up against that now. Which they have every right to do.
Thank you, too, btw, for your unflagging support of my posts. Much appreciated.
What "we're getting in Gaza" is an unprecedented low ratio of civilian/militant deaths, especially considering the dense urban environment, Hamas' habit of embedding themselves among civilians (a war crime), Hamas' habit of recruiting teenagers (a war crime), and Hamas making civilian deaths their strategy.
What I find abhorrent is that the so-called liberal West insists Israel should act within a complete new set of rules, intended just for them, while any adversary is free to pursue war under pre-medieval laws.
History supports both your two basic points: 1) Islam will not self-moderate as other great religions have done, and 2) where ever Muslims concentrate within other civilizations, disorder follows - it's not an ideology that can be integrated/bridged
First our American friends have to get rid of the heir to Biden. Iran behaved itself when Trump was in the White House and will again. The whole world will sleep sounder in their beds with Trump back in charge.
@Bill Heath "jihad is ... the internal struggle to purify the soul, not to struggle against others"
----------
Facts on the ground say otherwise. Historically, wherever Jihadi muslims appear there is jihad upon the infidels until the occupied space is fully muslimized; or the muslims are driven out.
Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of expansion and forced conversion of infidels followed by full submission, death, or exile.
Very witty... and in the final analysis irrelevant. The nations of Islam are bye & large (fun fact: an age-of-sail nautical term) expansionist, violent, oppressive and intolerant of non-muslims; and by their nations stated policies and political acts manifested are behaving as such.
While I am a strong immigration restrictionist I doubt if an intelligent alien surveying the earth right now, or even in the last few centuries, or even in the last few decades, would see Islamism as the biggest imperial force.
In any case every time we are encouraged to hate islam, or Islamist ideologues, some secular ruler is toppled with the help of Islamists, cheered on by the anti Islamic sheep. Of course I doubt if one in ten know that Saddam, Gaddafi, or Assad are secular or not.
You can look at just about every politician associated with this mass immigration and see "useful idiot" written across their forehead. I would love to know who's driving this, in the background, but their intention has to be the destruction of the nation state.
Thing is, none of these incoming populations are in any way capable of creating or running or funding a first-world country like the UK. All the things they come here for - money, infrastructure, services, houses - are built and maintained by a dwindling group of English natives. There will come a point - and Net Zero is accelerating this - where things simply break, the money runs out, and what will these people have actually won ? A wreck.
I live in the South East of the UK, the affluent corner where this unrest hasn't reached yet, and it dismays me how people around me are either ignorant of the problem, or dismissive of it. Including most politicians and journalists. But given how the government is dealing with the problem, it's going to get worse not better, so they may not be able to ignore it for much longer.
Is this what the situation is like overall? Where most of the unrest is in the cities because that’s where the mass migration happened? From what I’ve seen of NY and Chicago, people are having the same battles.. for some reason these city centers attract the migrants and the areas become slums.
Immigrants from other cultures seem to like the anonymity of a large city, and the ability to live close to others like themselves and form communities. Housing is often cheap in the suburbs, and then the communities spread.
In England, the midlands / the "North" have traditionally been much poorer and seen more deprivation than the South, largely due to collapse of the UK's industrial base which was sited there, so again house prices are lower, and city councils are eager to take government money for social housing to accommodate immigrants. Birmingham, Manchester, Leicester, Nottingham, Leeds. London is a special case but it has had a liberal, muslim mayor for the last decade and he has worked hard to bring in, and house, other cultures.
The term I use to describe people who advocate for unrestricted immigration of peoples who are so obviously bent upon the advocate's host country's destruction or subjugation is the pathologically altruistic.
Dr. Gad Saad has called it suicidal empathy. For the advocates I've observed that term fits best. I can still love them and fear their suicide. And despair the future.
I used to rescue naive white boys like you (wannabe Proud Boys) from Aryan Brotherhood prison gang rape during the early years of my 34-year career in the prison industrial complex. 😂
Your momma is here acting like a savage with BLM tattooed on her pale, skinny behind. She said your daddy should have pulled out, saving the world from another moron. 😂🤣😅
Richard Thomas, unfortunately the UK doesn’t have State autonomy like we do in the USA. Florida and Texas fed up w/ crush burden of illegal immigrants started busing them to urban centers in north and to wealthy Martha’s Vineyard. That immediately got the attention of progressives and the nation as a whole. In UK, it looks like successive Tory & Labour governments are shipping illegals arriving by boat mostly just to impoverished, Northern UK communities. Then, from there the immigrants fan out across UK in search of work. Is that the correct read? I’d think having some fresh off the boat migrants shacking up initially in Surrey or Windsor communities might awaken the Lions. There seems WAY too many foxes running the show in the UK nowdays, and a shakeup is in the works.
Correct about them landing in the poorer communities / cities - it's easier to disappear in a city, you don't need a car to get around / get food, access to benefits/handouts is easier. But they're not really spreading out, just turning these cities into mini-ethnic states. I can see the UK Balkanising if this doesn't stop, but who is going to maintain / care for these cities then I don't know - I suspect they will deteriorate into mini-third-world enclaves. Not good. However, the Labour government is doing so much, so quickly, that I really think this is going to come to a head soon. We almost need everything to fail, so we can restart things on a better footing. Wish us luck...
Most of the areas where the majority of immigrants are living are run by Labour councils and have been for many years, many bankrupt or very close. Therefore they are complete hellholes and have no chance of improving.
So true Richard, I am lucky enough to live in the rural south east. I can go out and about safely, so can my wife and daughter, for the time being. But the ignorance and lack of concern for people elsewhere in England who have lost this security grates.
I see “i am a Russian disinfo troll” written across yours, and all those who convinced a bunch of yobs to riot because FOREIGN COCKROACHES ARE INVADING
It's very sad what is happening to England. It was a second home to me until recently. Now I doubt I will ever go back. I suspect I really cannot go back in a way. England is less and less English every day.
I feel the same way about Ireland. I am so grateful to have visited twice in the early 2000s, before the mass immigration began. I don't want to go back and see what that lovely, friendly country has become.
We were there in May and spent the last two days in Dublin. Didn't feel like the rest of Ireland that we enjoyed so much. In fact, felt like we didn't talk to anyone with an Irish accent, starting with the hotel and restaurant workers. I've advised others who are going....don't bother with Dublin...
None, just like all the other dire warnings I have heard in my lifetime from boiling, to freezing to drowning to the plague. It is amazing that not one of these, put forward just as fervently as the current climate change nut zero scam, has ever come to pass.
So sad. I spent a 6 year chunk of my mid childhood in England (Air Force dad stationed there, this was the 1950s). I came back to the U.S. feeling more British than American. The last time I visited London was about 1987, and even then I remember noticing the immigrants everywhere and in certain areas thinking "Where are the native English people?"
“To engage in violence is not the answer,” commonly repeated as we are nobly snuffed out one by one. Gandhian passive resistance worked on *us*, but not on the Mughal Empire. Geo. Washington, et al, didn’t subscribe to this waffle, and everyone would do well to remember the Athenian retort to the waffling Melians: “the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must.”
David Meredith is right. Our goodly author is obliged to say “ violence, solves nothing” as he is a man with considerable standing in the public debate. If he didn’t say “no violence”, he would be excoriated. I’m sure he doesn’t mean it. I bet he believes unchecked immigration will almost certainly lead to violence and understandably. It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? We are heading to a life of wars within countries, not between countries. London will be Mogadishu.
I think he was referring to violence in riots. The violence that happens chaotically during a riot is never the answer. But an organized militia, or simple self-defense of home and property, that is something I can justify.
Please do not take it as critical of your efforts or regard it as just the peanut gallery piping up. You have proven to be very effective and formidable in the fight against DEI in particular and I expect that people on this thread are appreciative of not only your efforts, but your results. I am appreciative as well and honored that you would address me. I often see others reminding us that violence is not a solution and, though I am not advocating violence, I cannot help but notice that Geo. Washington was a general, not an attorney filing motions in court for equitable relief against King Geo. III, and he led troops in battle who did things in war (as very many soldiers do) that our fathers or grandfathers did in World War II (universally acknowledged in our society as a righteous cause) that they preferred to not talk about afterwards, and this seems to generally to be the rule in human affairs, whereas passive resistance and civil disobedience comports with our pacified nature having lived so long in domestic tranquility. I do not make any claim to extensive knowledge of history of other peoples, but, honestly, outside the 20th century examples of civil disobedience against essentially Christianized societies in their treatment of non-white peoples (in India, USA, South Africa), neither do I recall instances where freedom from a government’s power (foreign or domestic) was achieved other than through being prepared to do things one never thought one would do. Thucydides describes as much in his history of the war among Greek city states - even temples were no longer sacred and people were killed on altars inside temples. I do not think Malcolm X was radical when he said “by whatever means necessary.” It is the prerogative almost all of us reserve to ourselves when push comes to shove. Be prepared. If they show up at my door, I am. I may not win, but by the time it is all over, they will know they were in a fight. Otherwise, the state will pick people off, one by one, as Solzhenitsyn records they did in the USSR when the initial round-ups began for the Gulag, low-key, in the open, in crowded train stations, busy city streets, hemmed in by two well-dressed men who just wanted a quiet word off to the side, then into the Black Maria. What would I do? Know my enemy. And plan accordingly.
It'll have to be something new, inspired by what was successful elsewhere. For instance, the Algerian revolt expelled France through death by a thousand cuts. In Hungary, Orban's party created a parallel community from the bottom up before getting into power. Civil disobedience works by making ordinary services expensive. Violence or peacefulness begs the question; the ER activists, for instance, however misguided in their facts, are onto something when they spray orange paint on the airport departure screens (although obviously not on art, that's really their middle class mental latency on display). It's safe to say that online we're all fkd at this point (the UK right now is showing us the dystopian reality that's coming), but unluckily for those running the clown show, the narradigm is faltering precisely because of the weight of its own farce. Humans have never created perfect systems. As always, real change will occur only once the youth have come alive again. Lucky for us social media means the many want what the few have right now. We'll know things are bad when protestors stop covering their faces. It'll be a riot.
I personally think that every conservative thought leader should head up the largest peaceful march in the city. If you get arrested it will be an honor and draw attention to the two tiered policing that is so apparent even to us across the pond. All the people I follow and admire are safely in their offices complaining about things but not putting their necks on the line which has gotten so bad I think it’s the only way to change things. In addition it would signal to the people that others are listening and give them heart that they are not alone.
Everyone gets the premise wrong behind the phrase that “all men are created equal.” The premise of this statement that all men are equal in value as human beings created in God’s image. This means that no one is inherently better or more valuable than anyone else. However, this does not mean that all men have equal value TO society. Equal value in terms of human dignity means a minimal treatment— but privileges can be bestowed by society onto individuals who give more value back to society. Many also wrongly think that equal value means equal treatment, but if people are not all the same in ability, intelligent, skill, or maturity, is that really fair? Anyone who has multiple children understands what I am saying. You love all your children equally, respect them the same, but you don’t treat them the same. One type of punishment doesn’t work for one kid, another kid may need more encouragement. Another kid may respond better to instruction, while another kid may like to figure things out for himself. If I have all my children the exact same treatment in everything, it would be unfair to each of them. Their value doesn’t change, but how I deal with them does. As a society, we can treat law-abiding Muslims and other immigrations with respect and value them as human beings, but if they are having trouble assimilating, we may need to deal with them as a society differently than other immigrant groups that may have an easy time assimilating. I see nothing wrong with this idea, just like there is nothing wrong with treating my children differently based on their own unique personalities.
"Equal value in terms of human dignity means a minimal treatment— but privileges can be bestowed by society onto individuals who give more value back to society." Yes.
And white straight males are always of the most value. DEI is lowering standards by giving the undeserving things they dont deserve and can’t even earn. Just incapable useless eaters.
Our experience here in the UK has been that all sorts of different nationalities and religions have arrived here over the centuries and assimilated perfectly well without overturning the established systems. Only one group, of a certain religion we are not allowed to name, has been a problem.
I spent several years living in England and can attest to this transformation… the fact is that if you replace the local population and culture with one from a failed state full of violence and corruption, you will eventually get that same violence and corruption there too. After all, it’s the people who live in third world countries that make them so.
When I served in Germany('88-90) there were Turkish neighborhoods that were violent(I was physically harrassed often). Back then they were not assimilating and they will not throughout Europe unless instructed to which isn't going to happen as this article articulates.
The difference here is guns. Don't go there as I have been to war for this country and witnessed what extreme violence does; I am simply stating that if citizens are pushed beyond a reasonable limit...
The important thing with Germany was it had Guest workers who it was intended would go home after a specific length of time. Those who have been rampaging into England have no intention of returning to the land of their fathers, ever. They want to turn the UK into the ***hole they left behind.
What about the 5,000 Black men, women, and children lynched with impunity in America? Innocent Black men having their d*cks and balls severed to dehumanize them and for trophies—pregnant Black women who had their unborn cut out of their wombs and stomped on.
Six white Mississippi former cops were recently sentenced to lengthy prison sentences for torturing and sexually assaulting two young, innocent Black men at their home after an anonymous caller dialed 911, reporting that they had white women in their home. These two gentlemen will have deep psychological scars for life.
Additionally, I worked in the prison industrial complex on the west coast of the United States for 34 years, having occasionally rescued wannabe Proud Boys from Aryan Brotherhood prison gang rape.
I'm living in the Deep South; I don't leave home without my.45 ACP.
The police in the US incident you speak of were tried, convicted, and sentenced to the lengthy prison sentences that are suitable for violent crimes carried out with malice aforethought. Lynching- the reference of your previous point- implies impunity, and the perpetrators did not benefit from impunity in the case you mention. I can bring up enough anecdotal cases of violent assaults and murders within the previous seven months to fill several feet of this reply thread. If I felt like it, I could comb through news articles on violent crime until I found an example featuring white victims, black perpetrators, and an obvious racial motive.
You know, you posted one incident, and I just posted one. But even in the event that all the officers are found guilty in that case, their convictions won't support a narrative that all black police are sadistic thugs, any more than the case you brought up proves that all white police are violent racists.
The case you brought up has no relevance to the present situation in the UK. The UK and the US have very, very different histories and social challenges. The details of the incident that ignited the rioting in the UK have nothing in common with the details of the case you picked out of the air for your whataboutist apologism, either. The UK police response doesn't have any resemblance to the conduct of the police in the Mississippi case, either.
So my point stands: your comments are still off-topic.
You're also relying almost entirely on an Emotivist appeal, and emotivist appeals should be suspected, because they focus on the horror, pain, and sorrow of the victims in one incident in ways that lead an audience to forget that there isn't anything special about one particular example: every victim of mayhem or violent assault experiences severe suffering. But emotivist appeals are undeniably effective at working people up, which is why they're so often used as a war propaganda tactic. As I write this, both sides of the Ukraine War are doing it. Both sides in the Gaza War are doing it. Emotivism accounts for a lot of what keeps blood feuds going long after the original participants are on the other side of the lawn.
Neil Boortz, retired WSB Atlanta talk show host, used to respond to accusations by saying he was a "culturalist" and not a racist. Neil, like Christopher, correctly stated that there are great differences between cultures and the emphasis and security they bestow on the individual within a framework of moral law.
But if we say our culture matters to us we are accused of colonialism and white supremacy. However we must acknowledge that every other culture has merits.
This crazy experiment of mass immigration of whomever is failing all over Europe. And the US is quickly catching up. It is not a future I look forward to.
The declining birth rates in the West is a complete slow motion disaster in terms of the sustainability on the social welfare systems and the impact of immigrants who don't want to assimilate. The question is whether Western governments and leaders will wake before inevitability occurs. Not a lot of time to do so.
What a tough topic for westerners unexposed to the east!
IMHO, until islam reforms, and remember it will not be us who reforms it, our culture and theirs will be oil and vinegar. It is not the race. It is not the color. It is not whether you are arab or not. I agree Chris that It is culture. But dive one step deeper. It is about indoctrination. About propaganda. Like praying FIVE times a day. It is the woke mind virus on steroids, administered FIVE times a day. Or teaching children to hate. It is the only religion so radical. The only religion that based itself on war with the others it replaced. People are fundamentally the same but culture AND religion are not. I know this sounds very inconvenient to "relativistic" western philosophy, but it explains a lot. Of course, despite the indoctrination not every muslim is indoctrinated. But they live in fear and barely have a voice. The solution in England sadly is the recognition of the failure.
I've spent some time in the Muslim world—Africa, Middle East, Central Asia, Western China. Had some good experiences, but it's naive to think that these are cultures that could easily, and without concerted effort, assimilate to Anglo norms.
I'm convinced of it, I have no doubt at all. When you are born into these very foreign and different cultures and spend your formative years being saturated with their religion and cultural points of view, it's near impossible to throw that off merely by changing your geographical location! Which is why they don't assimilate.
I agree completely. I spent 10 years living and working as a teacher in the Middle East...2 years in Iran until the fall of the Shah, then 8 more years in Saudi Arabia. I have spent time in the majority of the Middle Eastern countries as well as Israel. What I realized most of all was that the differences in people in different countries around the world was that it is first and foremost culture, and second, culture driven by religion that creates the vast divide between people. Islam in particular is strange in what it does to people. In S.A. almost every sentence was punctuated by the words "If God wills it." What I soon realized was that this sentence uttered dozens of times each day had as one effect that a person removes all culpability and consequence from his actions....if God wants something to happen, you can't change that, God willed it. I also realized that Islam by its very nature taught its followers to not question anything, and certainly to not question any of the Koran's dictates. In addition, this ingrained attitude was in pretty much everything...just don't question anything, essentially. So much of life in S.A. in particular was tied to a very rigid version of Islam and Sharia law. At the time I was in Iran during the Shah's time, it was much less like that. Religious, but also secular. I don't think it's like that any more, however.
I also saw so very clearly that just like there is no way I could ever assimilate into their culture (to say nothing of not wanting to!), equally there was no way these people could truly assimilate into Western cultures because of how repelled they are of Western cultural practices. In my teaching experience with other Muslims, I saw how ingrained their beliefs were and moreover, even if they had spent time in the West or even if they wanted to live in the West, that did not in the least mean they wanted to adopt Western culture in any way, shape or form.
In the middle of my time in the Muslim countries, I took my first trip to Israel. The difference was like night and day. It was the culture of Israel that made the difference and showed up the stark contrast, and yes, it was also very familiar to me as an American. Different from America, yes similar in so many ways. Culture.
In Saudi Arabia (which I always considered as the most extreme practice of Islam), the separation of men and women was a huge influence on attitudes. I'm a woman and I taught in a Saudi medical university. I taught only women, and the women's section of the university was walled off from the rest of the university. Women were covered head to toe and only males who were close family members would ever see them. Inside the female part of the university (inside only) the women threw off their veils and coverings and it could seem almost normal. But the men were incredibly restricted from acting normally. They would be matched up by families with (often) first cousins, couples would perhaps meet one time before getting married, there was no dating or ability to meet other women, there were no normal interactions between men and women. So the men and their male-female attitudes became what I considered to be quite twisted. In that context, seeing foreign women wearing modest but more normal clothing (I had to wear ankle length skirts, tops with sleeves to my wrist, no low necklines, and a scarf loosely over my hair), hair and faces visible, this was upsetting and considered extremely provocative to these men, many of whom would never have a female partner. Men were taught that they could not control themselves around women, hence the necessity of head to toe coverings. Eliminate temptation, that was the goal. I should emphasize that this was cultural, and not required by anything in the Koran (which told women to dress modestly). So Saudis interpreted that as "cover up head to toe" and they were quite Nazi-like in enforcing it. The Saudis had armies of "religious police" to go around making sure everyone was following the rules.
So men often resorted to homosexuality as a sexual outlet, although they would never admit it because religiously, it is considered an abomination in Islam. Ultimately, if you put a lot of these men into our socially free Western societies, it's not surprising there is so much rape in Western nations such as Sweden. In the male-female aspect alone, these people don't assimilate. Period. To them, uncovered women out alone are seen as prostitutes in their minds. They don't make distinctions of cultural differences.
I spent 4 years as a woman on my own in UAE and can definitely say I would never have gone to KSA in the same circumstances. I felt perfectly safe and as long as I dressed modestly and respected their ways, especially during Ramadan there was no problem. The really irritating thing was this "if God wills it" which applied to the most mundane things like when your fridge might be delivered and life or death situations such as when uttered by a mother whose 5 children had been killed in a car crash, none of whom was in a car seat or safety belt.
Bush said it in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks. It was more about hopeful rhetoric than a statement of fact. Politics. Hopeful sentiments have persuasive value. The more Muslims can be persuaded to back away from carrying out acts of terrorism by statements of conciliation, the better. Simply considered in practical terms, it's an inexpensive gambit.
Playing the Good Cop can obviate a lot of unnecessary complications. Too bad Bush decided that he had to play the trigger-happy Bad Cop, too. (He didn't even play smart with the pursuit of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. Read your Sun Tzu.)
At the same time he was saying that he was arranging for Bin Laden's numerous extended family members living in our country to be quietly evacuated back to Saudi Arabia on private aircraft without first finding out what they knew.
This question about what makes a country, and how much can it change, and how fast, needs to be asked seriously, in high places, rather than blindly accepting that reverse colonization is the price to pay for some perceived original sin, or, just, it must be good and right, because, well, we're following the prime directive, tolerance.
Nations cannot stand as nations if their national "stories" that everyone follows and in which they believe no longer work. Add in that no one READS the same news either--that is objective in some sense. So that online fracturing has also produced these terrible national conditions. Add in that our cable "news" does not report on what is happening in Europe as citizens in the various nations are trying to fight back to keep their cultures. People here better wake up--and fast.
I so agree that we can say that all individuals are equal as in being humans, but that cultures created by humans are vastly different and are, often, not able to co-exist without violence. Belief systems are among the most powerful entities that humans ever create. Facts just slide off of them.
When you stated that the elites believe, "Individuals are interchangeable. To think otherwise is to engage in bigotry.", I made an observation. To believe that individuals are interchangeable is to consider them as THINGS - not people. This is where 'those in charge' so often get it wrong. They make decisions for "pawns", not people. It's extremely easy to lose the HUMANIZATION when one is separated from the immediate scene. Here's how backwards it has become: The people who claim to be morally superior (and they believe this of THEMSELVES) are the very same ones who VIOLATED you in the worst way possible during the pandemic, CAUSED by a disease THEY engineered. We are supposed to have "leaders" in this country that are EQUAL to us, and we are witnessing the actions of RULERS.
Islamism is a cancer. Everything it touches turns to shit. It's time our western leaders stop pretending, stop pleasing the radical progressives, stop simping for terrorists, stop apologizing for rapists. Until they don't, we will not a see a real change. And most importantly, Islam needs to change it's ways. Denounce terrorism. Denounce imperialism. Denounce sharia, kalifate or whatever fantasy of grandeur they have in mind.
If Islam was practiced by white men of European descent it would be considered far right extremism and there would be government programs in every western nation to root it out.
There would not, these idiots are willingly complicit. Watch Kamala for 15 minutes and tell me she is not a complete moron.
Islam will not change. Subjugating / converting / eliminating infidels is one of its foundational principles, written directly into its source documents and woven through its covenants.
I remember when Christopher Hitchens and, later, Sam Harris sounded this warning. Naturally, they were denounced as racist xenophobes and Islamophobes. The mealymouthed apologists in the "reformed" or allegedly moderate Muslim camp have been running cover for their fundamentalists all the while, giving the impression that Islam is reformable when it is not. Besides, the UK and Europe can't wait for reform, even if it were possible.
So the real enemy is not the Islamists because their aims are clear, but the secular or moderate Muslims who are too stupid to realize they are part of an evil religion?
Fundamentalist Muslims are indeed the enemy, and those Muslims who give lip service to reform but have no agency to enact it are useful idiots, as the commies used to say, or, to be charitable, pawns in a game they have no real interest or motivation to quit.
I'm operating under the theory that God need only 'flip a switch' inside them and then the logic that they employed in "embracing" will invert to REPULSION. The "Idea" is to create an environment where no individual makes a VICTIM of any other individual. This is done by BECKONING, not clubbing. It is EASY to recognize evil when you understand that it DOES use a club and it FORCES YOU TO PARTICIPATE.
Our recently elected idiotic socialist government wants to bring in laws to prevent any kind of discussion, never mind criticism, of Islam and its followers.
Religion is about compulsion and force, nothing new to see here.
The problem here is of course pleasing foreigners into your country. They do not have more rights than the citizens. The law is the law. Engaging in riots is not permissible. Women cannot be subjugated. All laws are to be followed regardless of religion. If you don’t like it, leave the country.
Very similar in the USA. There are two sets of laws. This contributes to the hollowing out of the society.
Our world is a mess. Our Western culture and civilization is crumbling before our very eyes thanks to the feckless people we vote for.
Speaking for myself, I didnt vote Lemocrat!
You mean the FECKLESS PEOPLE WE HAVE TO CHOOSE FROM. They all seem to come from acedemia and haven't put on a yoke and pulled a load a SINGLE DAY IN THEIR LIVES. A prerequisite of holding office should be that you have to come from WORKING a career for a minimum of 10 years.
Intelligent commentary on the current situation, by an Iraqi immigrant to the UK, a self-identified Muslim
https://www.thefp.com/p/british-establishment-migration
These are the Muslims I knew when I was a cab driver in Sacramento. They kept their shops and played by the rules and kicked soccer balls around and ate hamburgers and sent their children to public school where the kids weren't known for giving everyone else problems.
The US curdled and went sour after the Iraq invasion- meaner, more trigger-happy, more alienated, more addicted, more polarized. The 2008 mortgage collapse made that even worse. But neither of those situations are the fault of ordinary Muslims living in the US.
But the US isn't the UK, which is currently getting buried by newcomers- disproportionately young single males. I have to wonder how many of them decided to settle in the UK after being given the bums rush by other European countries. Large cohorts of young single males are society's nightmare. (As I noted in the pages of The Atlantic in 2015 when Angela Merkel opened up the borders of Germany to a wholesale flood of immigrants- fwiw, largely a rolling 2nd and 3rd order consequence of the US-led adventure in Iraq.)
But whatever the case, increased numbers of human beings always lead to logistics problems. Food, clothing, shelter, energy and water use, schooling, productive employment, achieving the goal of pitching in to contribute more than you take away. Almost everyone is both a giver and a taker. The problems show up when there's more taking than giving. And the more newcomers that show up and the faster it happens, the more criminality, antisocial conduct and tension there is.
NYC in the 1880s and 1890s was no picnic, either. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Heroic_Gangster/VtK7fVWHKVMC?hl=en
Contending with millions of newcomers a year is tough enough for the US as it is. An estimated 2.6 million in 2022. But the continental US has around 3,110,000 square miles of territory, and the UK has an area of only 94,300 square miles. And net immigration to the UK in 2022 was 734,000. Total births in the UK in 2022 605, 479.
Islamism- fanaticism that insists on politicizing a sectarian community- definitely exacerbates the problems. But the basic problem would show up no matter the "identity", due to the numbers. A big crowd of newcomers showing up all at once always leans too hard on the locals. Just opening up the gates is disaster economics. No matter the particular economic ideology.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your comment. Many of those rioting are white born-in-England Englanders. They also have to follow the laws of the land or be told to "leave the country"?
Well, its their country, so its ok. 😉
It is a political movement disguised as a religion.
Islam will never change. People must reject it.
You're right. That will be the only way we see it dissolve.
Islam is essentially the opposite of Christianity. Instead of Love thy neighbor it is kill thy neighbor if they disagree with any of your beliefs. They cannot do as you suggest "Denounce terrorism" because that is a main part of their 'religion' as taught in the Koran and other writings.
I assume you mean those Christians who burned heretics at the stake and brutalized those who opposed them. Religion is the enemy and Islam is not alone in this.
I hate this moronic response of ‘You People’.
Christians don’t fucking burn anyone ‘at the stake’ in our modern world but ISLAMISTS certainly rape, torture, maim, kill, dismember, disembowel, burn, and otherwise mutilate who ever they fucking choose to.
I will give you that religion is a force of division outside of itself but that’s it: enough of the ‘but look what (insert group) did/does!’.
Inform yourself of Islam - it is INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE REST OF HUMANITY, and it’s NOT A RELIGION.
It’s a death cult, followed religiously.
Some members are nice and helpful and egalitarian, even kind toward others….but their basic tenet is that ISLAM WILL RULE THE WORLD.
When the call comes to make that happen, every Muslim will attend.
Wow, you really should see how atheistic regimes behave.
The discussion, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong is about the hear and now. Not ancient history that you are quoting. If you’re going down that path Islam has a very nasty ancient history. Let’s stick to the present. Opps almost forgot about the churches burned. In some cases including their congregation going on at present.
Islam, as seen in strict countries such as Iran, is as nasty as any historical events. Even "moderate" regimes such as Qatar and UAE are only moderate as long as you behave, do as you are told and never argue.
It's not 2003, get with the spirit of the times.
Britain led the Western world into an Age of Liberalism.... and is now leading the Western world out of it again (via hyper 'liberal' Wokism) and into a new Dark Age. The Wokies are in for a shock when they finally get the full on reality of the 'multicultural' mayhem they so richly deserve.
Every cloud ...
There is much about Israel that I do not admire , especially right now. But one thing that is insisted upon if you move there and there are many Jewish folks who moved there from all over the world with totally different cultures, one thing you must learn Hebrew and settle into the culture that is already there. Unfortunately this can also mean what we're now getting in Gaza so there is perhaps no perfect answer. But I do think we can require some standards when folks move into a totally different culture. I live now in Mexico and I am told constantly that I am a guest in their country and that if I don't like what is going on here I need to move to where I will be happy. Maybe that is the message we need to tell all immigrants who move into a foreign country and want to change it to what they left.
"Unfortunately this can also mean what we're now getting in Gaza"
--------
The Muslims view any non-Islamic nation state in the Islamic World (as they define it) as an abomination - a modern day crusader state (yes, a 1000 years later they are still upset about the Crusades). As such (being animated by fervent religious beliefs) they are willing to die (and take their family with them) in the struggle to extirpate the "cancer" of infidels amongst them.
Hamas could just surrender, like the Germans & Japanese sensibly did when they realized they could not win. They sensibly chose to not allow/facilitate further destruction of their people and place. They surrendered, and then got on to the business of rebuilding their destroyed society and eventually thrived in peace with their conquerers.
Hamas (apparently with strong support by Gazans) will not surrender even though Gaza is increasingly reduced to a pile of rubble, so Israel must press on. Until... what, i don't know).
I do know that what Golda Meir said about peace in the middle east seems to be true. "We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate the Jews"
I admire everything about Israel. They have the guts to defend their nation; the West does not. They bar jihadists from immigrating; the West welcomes jihadists as immigrants, whether legal or illegal.
Gaza initiated a war with a barbaric attack on a peace festival and kidnapping, mutilation, torture, rape, and murder of hundreds of additional victims. On the following link, you can watch the Gazans cutting a baby out of a pregnant woman's stomach: https://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/cutting-baby-out.mp4
I wonder how you would feel if that were you, "dorothy".
Gaza started the war. They can end the war by releasing all the hostages NOW. They won't, so Israel will rescue their citizens. You will be left by the side wringing your hands.
Jews under the Nazis were widely accused across the West at the time of aiding their own cruel treatment through being passive. Supposedly. As if they were in a position to fight. They were asked why they did not stand up for themselves. Which was a truly ridiculous question, under the circumstances.
Israeli Jews have taken the stance they will never be mocked again for not fighting back when it is required. I cannot blame them. They set reasonable boundaries. If adversaries intentionally break those bounds and attack their people, as they did, the Israeli Jews have every right to put a stop to it.
The whole point of the state of Israel was that Jews would never again stand in line to be loaded onto cattle cars to be sent to an unknown fate. They must stand up for themselves or die.
I fully agree with you, Iris. The Jews and the state of Israel have my support. They were made tragic scapegoats in Hitler's Europe, but they are standing up against that now. Which they have every right to do.
Thank you, too, btw, for your unflagging support of my posts. Much appreciated.
"I admire everything about Israel. They have the guts to defend their nation; the West does not."
The West needs badly to learn from Israel in this respect. To stand up for their own nations. Before they have none left to stand up for.
What "we're getting in Gaza" is an unprecedented low ratio of civilian/militant deaths, especially considering the dense urban environment, Hamas' habit of embedding themselves among civilians (a war crime), Hamas' habit of recruiting teenagers (a war crime), and Hamas making civilian deaths their strategy.
What I find abhorrent is that the so-called liberal West insists Israel should act within a complete new set of rules, intended just for them, while any adversary is free to pursue war under pre-medieval laws.
Well said.
Islam isn't going to change. As the number of Muslims increase their violent behavior will increase. The time is very late.
History supports both your two basic points: 1) Islam will not self-moderate as other great religions have done, and 2) where ever Muslims concentrate within other civilizations, disorder follows - it's not an ideology that can be integrated/bridged
Crush Iran before it’s too late!
First our American friends have to get rid of the heir to Biden. Iran behaved itself when Trump was in the White House and will again. The whole world will sleep sounder in their beds with Trump back in charge.
Please stay in your countries. We truly don’t want you.
A misapplication of jihad is responsible for much of the problem. It is the internal struggle to purify the soul, not to struggle against others
@Bill Heath "jihad is ... the internal struggle to purify the soul, not to struggle against others"
----------
Facts on the ground say otherwise. Historically, wherever Jihadi muslims appear there is jihad upon the infidels until the occupied space is fully muslimized; or the muslims are driven out.
Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of expansion and forced conversion of infidels followed by full submission, death, or exile.
As Robert Spencer would ask, how did hundreds of millions of Muslims get so confused about their own religion? Why won't they listen to you instead?
Very witty... and in the final analysis irrelevant. The nations of Islam are bye & large (fun fact: an age-of-sail nautical term) expansionist, violent, oppressive and intolerant of non-muslims; and by their nations stated policies and political acts manifested are behaving as such.
It appears you missed the tongue-in-cheek aspect of my comment.
It would not be the first time of being informed that I missed the point of someone's observation. I stand corrected.
My soul does not need "purifying" by some random and imaginary authority.
If you live in an Islamic state your opinion has no validity. Been there, done that, got the T shirt.
While I am a strong immigration restrictionist I doubt if an intelligent alien surveying the earth right now, or even in the last few centuries, or even in the last few decades, would see Islamism as the biggest imperial force.
In any case every time we are encouraged to hate islam, or Islamist ideologues, some secular ruler is toppled with the help of Islamists, cheered on by the anti Islamic sheep. Of course I doubt if one in ten know that Saddam, Gaddafi, or Assad are secular or not.
You can look at just about every politician associated with this mass immigration and see "useful idiot" written across their forehead. I would love to know who's driving this, in the background, but their intention has to be the destruction of the nation state.
Thing is, none of these incoming populations are in any way capable of creating or running or funding a first-world country like the UK. All the things they come here for - money, infrastructure, services, houses - are built and maintained by a dwindling group of English natives. There will come a point - and Net Zero is accelerating this - where things simply break, the money runs out, and what will these people have actually won ? A wreck.
I live in the South East of the UK, the affluent corner where this unrest hasn't reached yet, and it dismays me how people around me are either ignorant of the problem, or dismissive of it. Including most politicians and journalists. But given how the government is dealing with the problem, it's going to get worse not better, so they may not be able to ignore it for much longer.
Is this what the situation is like overall? Where most of the unrest is in the cities because that’s where the mass migration happened? From what I’ve seen of NY and Chicago, people are having the same battles.. for some reason these city centers attract the migrants and the areas become slums.
That's exactly what's happening.
Immigrants from other cultures seem to like the anonymity of a large city, and the ability to live close to others like themselves and form communities. Housing is often cheap in the suburbs, and then the communities spread.
In England, the midlands / the "North" have traditionally been much poorer and seen more deprivation than the South, largely due to collapse of the UK's industrial base which was sited there, so again house prices are lower, and city councils are eager to take government money for social housing to accommodate immigrants. Birmingham, Manchester, Leicester, Nottingham, Leeds. London is a special case but it has had a liberal, muslim mayor for the last decade and he has worked hard to bring in, and house, other cultures.
It's the work of WHO/NATO/WEF/Five Eyes etc. The Powers That Be. They have names and addresses.
Bilderberg is at the top & most people have never even heard of it.
Blackrock, Vanguard, 2 of their biggest corporations
Yes, never heard of it
The term I use to describe people who advocate for unrestricted immigration of peoples who are so obviously bent upon the advocate's host country's destruction or subjugation is the pathologically altruistic.
Dr. Gad Saad has called it suicidal empathy. For the advocates I've observed that term fits best. I can still love them and fear their suicide. And despair the future.
It’s called ‘oikophobia’
Detroit. South Africa.
Appalachian areas-- opioid addiction and welfare dependent.
Thats why youre such a fag then
So serious until i called You out. And all tiu can manage us yo mama 🙄. Lame.
I used to rescue naive white boys like you (wannabe Proud Boys) from Aryan Brotherhood prison gang rape during the early years of my 34-year career in the prison industrial complex. 😂
But those are RealAmericans and not the savage blacks and gays and liberals
Your momma is here acting like a savage with BLM tattooed on her pale, skinny behind. She said your daddy should have pulled out, saving the world from another moron. 😂🤣😅
Richard Thomas, unfortunately the UK doesn’t have State autonomy like we do in the USA. Florida and Texas fed up w/ crush burden of illegal immigrants started busing them to urban centers in north and to wealthy Martha’s Vineyard. That immediately got the attention of progressives and the nation as a whole. In UK, it looks like successive Tory & Labour governments are shipping illegals arriving by boat mostly just to impoverished, Northern UK communities. Then, from there the immigrants fan out across UK in search of work. Is that the correct read? I’d think having some fresh off the boat migrants shacking up initially in Surrey or Windsor communities might awaken the Lions. There seems WAY too many foxes running the show in the UK nowdays, and a shakeup is in the works.
Correct about them landing in the poorer communities / cities - it's easier to disappear in a city, you don't need a car to get around / get food, access to benefits/handouts is easier. But they're not really spreading out, just turning these cities into mini-ethnic states. I can see the UK Balkanising if this doesn't stop, but who is going to maintain / care for these cities then I don't know - I suspect they will deteriorate into mini-third-world enclaves. Not good. However, the Labour government is doing so much, so quickly, that I really think this is going to come to a head soon. We almost need everything to fail, so we can restart things on a better footing. Wish us luck...
Most of the areas where the majority of immigrants are living are run by Labour councils and have been for many years, many bankrupt or very close. Therefore they are complete hellholes and have no chance of improving.
So true Richard, I am lucky enough to live in the rural south east. I can go out and about safely, so can my wife and daughter, for the time being. But the ignorance and lack of concern for people elsewhere in England who have lost this security grates.
I see “i am a Russian disinfo troll” written across yours, and all those who convinced a bunch of yobs to riot because FOREIGN COCKROACHES ARE INVADING
What’s the opposite of “the Midas touch”? That’s what progressive liberals and leftist have.
The Sadim effect - everything that is gold turns to shit.
It's very sad what is happening to England. It was a second home to me until recently. Now I doubt I will ever go back. I suspect I really cannot go back in a way. England is less and less English every day.
I feel the same way about Ireland. I am so grateful to have visited twice in the early 2000s, before the mass immigration began. I don't want to go back and see what that lovely, friendly country has become.
We were there in May and spent the last two days in Dublin. Didn't feel like the rest of Ireland that we enjoyed so much. In fact, felt like we didn't talk to anyone with an Irish accent, starting with the hotel and restaurant workers. I've advised others who are going....don't bother with Dublin...
We were there about 15 years ago and loved Dublin and the countryside. My mother's grandparents were Irish. Sounds like I shouldn't go back...
We were there also about 12 yrs ago. Definitely saw a difference. The small towns are still fabulous-our fav was Kinsale❤️
Too many dark people acting different. Its awful
Did you hear cuz? 😂🤣😅
And now "they" are making their farmers kill their cows in the name of another false belief system: global warming.
It’s real but govt is always the worst answer.
Which of Al Gore's predictions that would happen by 2015 actually happened?
None, just like all the other dire warnings I have heard in my lifetime from boiling, to freezing to drowning to the plague. It is amazing that not one of these, put forward just as fervently as the current climate change nut zero scam, has ever come to pass.
So sad. I spent a 6 year chunk of my mid childhood in England (Air Force dad stationed there, this was the 1950s). I came back to the U.S. feeling more British than American. The last time I visited London was about 1987, and even then I remember noticing the immigrants everywhere and in certain areas thinking "Where are the native English people?"
Miscegenating with the brown people. 😂🤣😅
Same here, only with Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco, where I've lived. No way would I live near any of them now.
You're running out of places to hide (white enclaves/bubbles). 🤣😂😅
Not at all.
“To engage in violence is not the answer,” commonly repeated as we are nobly snuffed out one by one. Gandhian passive resistance worked on *us*, but not on the Mughal Empire. Geo. Washington, et al, didn’t subscribe to this waffle, and everyone would do well to remember the Athenian retort to the waffling Melians: “the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must.”
David Meredith is right. Our goodly author is obliged to say “ violence, solves nothing” as he is a man with considerable standing in the public debate. If he didn’t say “no violence”, he would be excoriated. I’m sure he doesn’t mean it. I bet he believes unchecked immigration will almost certainly lead to violence and understandably. It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? We are heading to a life of wars within countries, not between countries. London will be Mogadishu.
I think he was referring to violence in riots. The violence that happens chaotically during a riot is never the answer. But an organized militia, or simple self-defense of home and property, that is something I can justify.
A good distinction
Then what do you recommend in this situation? Explain.
Please do not take it as critical of your efforts or regard it as just the peanut gallery piping up. You have proven to be very effective and formidable in the fight against DEI in particular and I expect that people on this thread are appreciative of not only your efforts, but your results. I am appreciative as well and honored that you would address me. I often see others reminding us that violence is not a solution and, though I am not advocating violence, I cannot help but notice that Geo. Washington was a general, not an attorney filing motions in court for equitable relief against King Geo. III, and he led troops in battle who did things in war (as very many soldiers do) that our fathers or grandfathers did in World War II (universally acknowledged in our society as a righteous cause) that they preferred to not talk about afterwards, and this seems to generally to be the rule in human affairs, whereas passive resistance and civil disobedience comports with our pacified nature having lived so long in domestic tranquility. I do not make any claim to extensive knowledge of history of other peoples, but, honestly, outside the 20th century examples of civil disobedience against essentially Christianized societies in their treatment of non-white peoples (in India, USA, South Africa), neither do I recall instances where freedom from a government’s power (foreign or domestic) was achieved other than through being prepared to do things one never thought one would do. Thucydides describes as much in his history of the war among Greek city states - even temples were no longer sacred and people were killed on altars inside temples. I do not think Malcolm X was radical when he said “by whatever means necessary.” It is the prerogative almost all of us reserve to ourselves when push comes to shove. Be prepared. If they show up at my door, I am. I may not win, but by the time it is all over, they will know they were in a fight. Otherwise, the state will pick people off, one by one, as Solzhenitsyn records they did in the USSR when the initial round-ups began for the Gulag, low-key, in the open, in crowded train stations, busy city streets, hemmed in by two well-dressed men who just wanted a quiet word off to the side, then into the Black Maria. What would I do? Know my enemy. And plan accordingly.
Precisely. Best scenario would be for the military to seize control of the country and remigrate those who shouldn't be there.
Well said.
It'll have to be something new, inspired by what was successful elsewhere. For instance, the Algerian revolt expelled France through death by a thousand cuts. In Hungary, Orban's party created a parallel community from the bottom up before getting into power. Civil disobedience works by making ordinary services expensive. Violence or peacefulness begs the question; the ER activists, for instance, however misguided in their facts, are onto something when they spray orange paint on the airport departure screens (although obviously not on art, that's really their middle class mental latency on display). It's safe to say that online we're all fkd at this point (the UK right now is showing us the dystopian reality that's coming), but unluckily for those running the clown show, the narradigm is faltering precisely because of the weight of its own farce. Humans have never created perfect systems. As always, real change will occur only once the youth have come alive again. Lucky for us social media means the many want what the few have right now. We'll know things are bad when protestors stop covering their faces. It'll be a riot.
I personally think that every conservative thought leader should head up the largest peaceful march in the city. If you get arrested it will be an honor and draw attention to the two tiered policing that is so apparent even to us across the pond. All the people I follow and admire are safely in their offices complaining about things but not putting their necks on the line which has gotten so bad I think it’s the only way to change things. In addition it would signal to the people that others are listening and give them heart that they are not alone.
The obvious is staring you in the face: this is an intentional strategy to advance a globalist agenda.
Except that the globalist elites do not believe that Islamists will eventually come for them as well.
A. Hmmm... a very compelling prediction. I am having difficulty refuting this with cold logic.
Everyone gets the premise wrong behind the phrase that “all men are created equal.” The premise of this statement that all men are equal in value as human beings created in God’s image. This means that no one is inherently better or more valuable than anyone else. However, this does not mean that all men have equal value TO society. Equal value in terms of human dignity means a minimal treatment— but privileges can be bestowed by society onto individuals who give more value back to society. Many also wrongly think that equal value means equal treatment, but if people are not all the same in ability, intelligent, skill, or maturity, is that really fair? Anyone who has multiple children understands what I am saying. You love all your children equally, respect them the same, but you don’t treat them the same. One type of punishment doesn’t work for one kid, another kid may need more encouragement. Another kid may respond better to instruction, while another kid may like to figure things out for himself. If I have all my children the exact same treatment in everything, it would be unfair to each of them. Their value doesn’t change, but how I deal with them does. As a society, we can treat law-abiding Muslims and other immigrations with respect and value them as human beings, but if they are having trouble assimilating, we may need to deal with them as a society differently than other immigrant groups that may have an easy time assimilating. I see nothing wrong with this idea, just like there is nothing wrong with treating my children differently based on their own unique personalities.
"Equal value in terms of human dignity means a minimal treatment— but privileges can be bestowed by society onto individuals who give more value back to society." Yes.
And white straight males are always of the most value. DEI is lowering standards by giving the undeserving things they dont deserve and can’t even earn. Just incapable useless eaters.
Our experience here in the UK has been that all sorts of different nationalities and religions have arrived here over the centuries and assimilated perfectly well without overturning the established systems. Only one group, of a certain religion we are not allowed to name, has been a problem.
Very well said
I spent several years living in England and can attest to this transformation… the fact is that if you replace the local population and culture with one from a failed state full of violence and corruption, you will eventually get that same violence and corruption there too. After all, it’s the people who live in third world countries that make them so.
When I served in Germany('88-90) there were Turkish neighborhoods that were violent(I was physically harrassed often). Back then they were not assimilating and they will not throughout Europe unless instructed to which isn't going to happen as this article articulates.
The difference here is guns. Don't go there as I have been to war for this country and witnessed what extreme violence does; I am simply stating that if citizens are pushed beyond a reasonable limit...
Interesting.
The important thing with Germany was it had Guest workers who it was intended would go home after a specific length of time. Those who have been rampaging into England have no intention of returning to the land of their fathers, ever. They want to turn the UK into the ***hole they left behind.
What about the 5,000 Black men, women, and children lynched with impunity in America? Innocent Black men having their d*cks and balls severed to dehumanize them and for trophies—pregnant Black women who had their unborn cut out of their wombs and stomped on.
whataboutism from pre-1970. History from over a half-century ago, and an entirely different country.
What are you, a bot?
Six white Mississippi former cops were recently sentenced to lengthy prison sentences for torturing and sexually assaulting two young, innocent Black men at their home after an anonymous caller dialed 911, reporting that they had white women in their home. These two gentlemen will have deep psychological scars for life.
Additionally, I worked in the prison industrial complex on the west coast of the United States for 34 years, having occasionally rescued wannabe Proud Boys from Aryan Brotherhood prison gang rape.
I'm living in the Deep South; I don't leave home without my.45 ACP.
The police in the US incident you speak of were tried, convicted, and sentenced to the lengthy prison sentences that are suitable for violent crimes carried out with malice aforethought. Lynching- the reference of your previous point- implies impunity, and the perpetrators did not benefit from impunity in the case you mention. I can bring up enough anecdotal cases of violent assaults and murders within the previous seven months to fill several feet of this reply thread. If I felt like it, I could comb through news articles on violent crime until I found an example featuring white victims, black perpetrators, and an obvious racial motive.
As for the police angle, I can recall a recent incident in Memphis featuring black police officers who stopped a young black man from northern California and committed a violent assault on him. But in that case, the victim won't have "deep psychological scars for life", because he was beaten to death. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/what-we-know-about-memphis-police-officers-tyre-nichols-death-rcna67861
You know, you posted one incident, and I just posted one. But even in the event that all the officers are found guilty in that case, their convictions won't support a narrative that all black police are sadistic thugs, any more than the case you brought up proves that all white police are violent racists.
The case you brought up has no relevance to the present situation in the UK. The UK and the US have very, very different histories and social challenges. The details of the incident that ignited the rioting in the UK have nothing in common with the details of the case you picked out of the air for your whataboutist apologism, either. The UK police response doesn't have any resemblance to the conduct of the police in the Mississippi case, either.
So my point stands: your comments are still off-topic.
You're also relying almost entirely on an Emotivist appeal, and emotivist appeals should be suspected, because they focus on the horror, pain, and sorrow of the victims in one incident in ways that lead an audience to forget that there isn't anything special about one particular example: every victim of mayhem or violent assault experiences severe suffering. But emotivist appeals are undeniably effective at working people up, which is why they're so often used as a war propaganda tactic. As I write this, both sides of the Ukraine War are doing it. Both sides in the Gaza War are doing it. Emotivism accounts for a lot of what keeps blood feuds going long after the original participants are on the other side of the lawn.
Stop reading fake history weirdo.
Oh no. Bad things happened to some people in the past.
And? What is your point?
Not his people so why should he care?
Neil Boortz, retired WSB Atlanta talk show host, used to respond to accusations by saying he was a "culturalist" and not a racist. Neil, like Christopher, correctly stated that there are great differences between cultures and the emphasis and security they bestow on the individual within a framework of moral law.
Culture matters.
Agreed. Cultures matter precisely because they aren’t interchangeable. If they had the same outcomes we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
But if we say our culture matters to us we are accused of colonialism and white supremacy. However we must acknowledge that every other culture has merits.
Our culture is best. Objectively. Results matter.
We are not allowed to say this. We must spend all our time apologizing for our White Privilege and colonial history.
This crazy experiment of mass immigration of whomever is failing all over Europe. And the US is quickly catching up. It is not a future I look forward to.
The declining birth rates in the West is a complete slow motion disaster in terms of the sustainability on the social welfare systems and the impact of immigrants who don't want to assimilate. The question is whether Western governments and leaders will wake before inevitability occurs. Not a lot of time to do so.
Zero chance they are trapped by their own ideology
Amen to that.
What a tough topic for westerners unexposed to the east!
IMHO, until islam reforms, and remember it will not be us who reforms it, our culture and theirs will be oil and vinegar. It is not the race. It is not the color. It is not whether you are arab or not. I agree Chris that It is culture. But dive one step deeper. It is about indoctrination. About propaganda. Like praying FIVE times a day. It is the woke mind virus on steroids, administered FIVE times a day. Or teaching children to hate. It is the only religion so radical. The only religion that based itself on war with the others it replaced. People are fundamentally the same but culture AND religion are not. I know this sounds very inconvenient to "relativistic" western philosophy, but it explains a lot. Of course, despite the indoctrination not every muslim is indoctrinated. But they live in fear and barely have a voice. The solution in England sadly is the recognition of the failure.
I've spent some time in the Muslim world—Africa, Middle East, Central Asia, Western China. Had some good experiences, but it's naive to think that these are cultures that could easily, and without concerted effort, assimilate to Anglo norms.
I'm convinced of it, I have no doubt at all. When you are born into these very foreign and different cultures and spend your formative years being saturated with their religion and cultural points of view, it's near impossible to throw that off merely by changing your geographical location! Which is why they don't assimilate.
Yes the ‘magic soil’ theory
I agree completely. I spent 10 years living and working as a teacher in the Middle East...2 years in Iran until the fall of the Shah, then 8 more years in Saudi Arabia. I have spent time in the majority of the Middle Eastern countries as well as Israel. What I realized most of all was that the differences in people in different countries around the world was that it is first and foremost culture, and second, culture driven by religion that creates the vast divide between people. Islam in particular is strange in what it does to people. In S.A. almost every sentence was punctuated by the words "If God wills it." What I soon realized was that this sentence uttered dozens of times each day had as one effect that a person removes all culpability and consequence from his actions....if God wants something to happen, you can't change that, God willed it. I also realized that Islam by its very nature taught its followers to not question anything, and certainly to not question any of the Koran's dictates. In addition, this ingrained attitude was in pretty much everything...just don't question anything, essentially. So much of life in S.A. in particular was tied to a very rigid version of Islam and Sharia law. At the time I was in Iran during the Shah's time, it was much less like that. Religious, but also secular. I don't think it's like that any more, however.
I also saw so very clearly that just like there is no way I could ever assimilate into their culture (to say nothing of not wanting to!), equally there was no way these people could truly assimilate into Western cultures because of how repelled they are of Western cultural practices. In my teaching experience with other Muslims, I saw how ingrained their beliefs were and moreover, even if they had spent time in the West or even if they wanted to live in the West, that did not in the least mean they wanted to adopt Western culture in any way, shape or form.
In the middle of my time in the Muslim countries, I took my first trip to Israel. The difference was like night and day. It was the culture of Israel that made the difference and showed up the stark contrast, and yes, it was also very familiar to me as an American. Different from America, yes similar in so many ways. Culture.
Thanks for sharing your experience.
In Saudi Arabia (which I always considered as the most extreme practice of Islam), the separation of men and women was a huge influence on attitudes. I'm a woman and I taught in a Saudi medical university. I taught only women, and the women's section of the university was walled off from the rest of the university. Women were covered head to toe and only males who were close family members would ever see them. Inside the female part of the university (inside only) the women threw off their veils and coverings and it could seem almost normal. But the men were incredibly restricted from acting normally. They would be matched up by families with (often) first cousins, couples would perhaps meet one time before getting married, there was no dating or ability to meet other women, there were no normal interactions between men and women. So the men and their male-female attitudes became what I considered to be quite twisted. In that context, seeing foreign women wearing modest but more normal clothing (I had to wear ankle length skirts, tops with sleeves to my wrist, no low necklines, and a scarf loosely over my hair), hair and faces visible, this was upsetting and considered extremely provocative to these men, many of whom would never have a female partner. Men were taught that they could not control themselves around women, hence the necessity of head to toe coverings. Eliminate temptation, that was the goal. I should emphasize that this was cultural, and not required by anything in the Koran (which told women to dress modestly). So Saudis interpreted that as "cover up head to toe" and they were quite Nazi-like in enforcing it. The Saudis had armies of "religious police" to go around making sure everyone was following the rules.
So men often resorted to homosexuality as a sexual outlet, although they would never admit it because religiously, it is considered an abomination in Islam. Ultimately, if you put a lot of these men into our socially free Western societies, it's not surprising there is so much rape in Western nations such as Sweden. In the male-female aspect alone, these people don't assimilate. Period. To them, uncovered women out alone are seen as prostitutes in their minds. They don't make distinctions of cultural differences.
I spent 4 years as a woman on my own in UAE and can definitely say I would never have gone to KSA in the same circumstances. I felt perfectly safe and as long as I dressed modestly and respected their ways, especially during Ramadan there was no problem. The really irritating thing was this "if God wills it" which applied to the most mundane things like when your fridge might be delivered and life or death situations such as when uttered by a mother whose 5 children had been killed in a car crash, none of whom was in a car seat or safety belt.
But our former president, Mr. Obama declared Islam a religion of peace. Surely, you would not suggest he was misleading us?
I would suggest that he was (and is) FOS- on so many topics and levels.
The "religion of peace" statement was President George W. Bush, not Obama. https://www.npr.org/2010/10/13/130516428/is-islam-a-religion-of-peace
Bush said it in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks. It was more about hopeful rhetoric than a statement of fact. Politics. Hopeful sentiments have persuasive value. The more Muslims can be persuaded to back away from carrying out acts of terrorism by statements of conciliation, the better. Simply considered in practical terms, it's an inexpensive gambit.
Playing the Good Cop can obviate a lot of unnecessary complications. Too bad Bush decided that he had to play the trigger-happy Bad Cop, too. (He didn't even play smart with the pursuit of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. Read your Sun Tzu.)
At the same time he was saying that he was arranging for Bin Laden's numerous extended family members living in our country to be quietly evacuated back to Saudi Arabia on private aircraft without first finding out what they knew.
This question about what makes a country, and how much can it change, and how fast, needs to be asked seriously, in high places, rather than blindly accepting that reverse colonization is the price to pay for some perceived original sin, or, just, it must be good and right, because, well, we're following the prime directive, tolerance.
Nations cannot stand as nations if their national "stories" that everyone follows and in which they believe no longer work. Add in that no one READS the same news either--that is objective in some sense. So that online fracturing has also produced these terrible national conditions. Add in that our cable "news" does not report on what is happening in Europe as citizens in the various nations are trying to fight back to keep their cultures. People here better wake up--and fast.
I rather fear that it's all too late, but, we don't know for sure, so we should at least slow down until we have really thought these things through.
Bingo.
I so agree that we can say that all individuals are equal as in being humans, but that cultures created by humans are vastly different and are, often, not able to co-exist without violence. Belief systems are among the most powerful entities that humans ever create. Facts just slide off of them.
And on earth peace to “people of goodwill”. Sadly we’re not all of goodwill.
They are full of goodwill if you agree with them and allow them to treat you like dirt.
When you stated that the elites believe, "Individuals are interchangeable. To think otherwise is to engage in bigotry.", I made an observation. To believe that individuals are interchangeable is to consider them as THINGS - not people. This is where 'those in charge' so often get it wrong. They make decisions for "pawns", not people. It's extremely easy to lose the HUMANIZATION when one is separated from the immediate scene. Here's how backwards it has become: The people who claim to be morally superior (and they believe this of THEMSELVES) are the very same ones who VIOLATED you in the worst way possible during the pandemic, CAUSED by a disease THEY engineered. We are supposed to have "leaders" in this country that are EQUAL to us, and we are witnessing the actions of RULERS.
Something I recall reading years ago. "The Left LOVES The People, it people they don't like."
You jarred my memory! Thanks!
The LEFT loves 'the people', it is the PERSON that they don't like.
Wasn't that in Orwell's "1984"?
The party LOVES the people...