Easter accords in Ireland, Easter deaths in the Sri Lankan island, and the appeasement of anti-integrationist Islamic forces in the United Kingdom. In this extended post, The Slog digs beneath received Truth to reveal facts that will alarm, surprise and inform those with an open mind. Needless to say, the thing uncovered by the dig is a sarcophogus of perverted power lust.
The review of the newspapers on Sky yesterday morning took but a few minutes to fulfil my hunch that the death of Lyra McKee would start Remainers drivelling on about the Easter Sunday Accord “and how fragile it really is and yet now finds it’s existence threatened because of Brexit”. The unfair illogic of that “analysis” is exceeded only by the muddle inside the head of the young woman who posited it. But it was all so tediously predictable.
Over on Twitter meanwhile, there was an equally forecast major-league squabble going on about Farage is wonderful v Farage is a control freak….a debate that is as counter-productive as it is pointless. One tweeter last night wrote, “Nigel is not splitting the vote”. Well, there are two responses to that: first, don’t be silly, if TBP is on 19% and UKIP is on 7%, then the vote’s power is being reduced by 28% compared to all the votes going to one candidate; and second, despite the obvious value (both electoral and moral) of TBP pledging to reverse the SPA “reforms” that have left over two million British women destitute, Nigel is clearly not interested in doing that.
It’s a bizarre decision given that polls show over and over again that 70-80% of SPA victims are traditional women more likely to be traditional and therefore pro-Brexit. Not only would TBP get almost all their votes, Farage could’ve had an instant field force of experienced activists, skilled in the persuasion of reasonable people to their cause.
Anyway, a golden opportunity to flex the muscles of all the ignored in Britain is being frittered away. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Mr Farage is doing this because he wants all the glory for himself. But in the meantime, he is the best weapon we have, and so it makes sense to encourage the maximum number to vote for him and against the duopolous Establishment.
Still, nihil desperandum….and a belated Happy Easter.
Unfortunately, it was going to be a Happy Easter. But then 207 Christians and Westerners died, with a further 459 injured, in seven bomb attacks across Sri Lanka.
Different governments have different ways of avoiding unpleasantness when churches get torched and bombed. The French way is to declare the Notre Dame fire an accident before anyone came up with a more awkward explanation. The Sri Lankan approach is to avoid the M word at all costs. The British way is to daub anyone who criticises Islam with the “racist” graffiti. Yet another example (harking back to this weekend’s essay here) of muddle – a religion is not a race – and kneejerk denialism in the race to escape reality in favour of happy-clappy land.
OK, so we have churches and posh hotels being bombed, and this is Easter Sunday….one of the holiest of Christian days. Sri Lanka is a largely Buddhist country with a sizeable Sikh minority and a tiny Christian population. Given there is no track record (pretty well anywhere) of friction between Hindus and Christians, the finger begins to point at Islam. Given the dual targeting of churches and swanky hotels, it begins to point at Jihadists. Given the locale, Islamic State.
The co-ordination of the attacks is reminiscent of previous Isis atrocities. The focus on five-star tourist hotels follows the pattern of the attacks in Mumbai in November 2008, when a Pakistan-based Islamist group Lashkar-e-Taiba killed 165 people in hotels, restaurants, the railway station and a Jewish community centre.
It may be a false flag of course. It’s just that, after four hours of thinking about it, I haven’t an inkling of the motive. Coming as it did immediately after a twitterfest of pro-Islam apologists, however, it was gruesomely ironic.
It surely, at last, raises questions about the Islamic population of the UK, and when (or even whether) they will prove their supporters right by coming out en masse against the violence associated with the religion of Mohammed.
Although the appeasers refuse to accept the tricky issue of Islam’s place in British culture, the problem exists on a number of levels….and none of them are to do with ‘race’.
There is first of all the organisation on a substantial scale in Britain of Jihadi cells with a long history of random violence. In May 2015, MI5 intelligence officers told The Times they had identified 23,000 Jihadists in Britain. In September of that year, Gilles de Kerchove, the EU’s counter-terror coordinator, said he expected “more atrocities” given that the UK is home to the highest known number of Islamist radicals in Europe. Kerchove added that, “The flash to bang is really short. They decide to do something and a week later they do it. And people aren’t necessarily using bombs, they’re using knives and cars and everyday items…so where is the trigger to escalate attention from the security services?”
This century in Britain, there have been 44 attempts at mass killing by Muslim extremists, some 26 of which were thwarted or interrupted without loss of life. In 2018, The Guardian attempted to pull off one of the most dishonest articles in its history when it ran a headline saying that White terrorist attacks in Britain outnumber those associated with Islamism. The two gaping holes in the propaganda are (1) Islamics are 5.02% of the population – compared to 81.9% who are white; and (2) the extremes among whites included SNP, Welsh, and Irish political extremists covering a host of various discontents and issues. None of them were religiously motivated. Thus, as a percentage of the populations involved, Islamics are 16.4 times more likely to conspire to commit terrorist acts than white people. As it says on the tin, facts are sacred at the Guardian.
The classic observation trotted out by apologists for Islam is “Jihadists only have the sympathy of a tiny minority of all Muslims”. but since 2006, study after study has shown this simply isn’t true. The latest – by the Gatestone Institute in 2016 – found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathise with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts. Moreover, only one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved with Jihadists.
Longstanding black race relations expert and former Human Rights head in Britain Trevor Phillips said at the time that British authorities needed to “adopt a far more muscular approach to integration than ever, replacing the failed policy of multiculturalism… Britain’s liberal Muslims are crying out for this challenge to be confronted. … There is a life-and-death struggle for the soul of British Islam — and this is not a battle that the rest of us can afford to sit out. We need to take sides… We have ‘understood’ too much, and challenged too little, and in doing so are in danger of sacrificing a generation of young British people to values that are antithetical to the beliefs of most of us.”
In addition, 23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations. So almost a quarter of the members of a minority representing just 1 in 20 of the population want their own legal system. As I have written many times before (and Mr Phillips obviously agrees with me) this is the end consequence of multicultural lunacy: l’état dans l’état, and a fractured Britain spiralling down into anarchic chaos. It’s bad enough watching the Rule of Law we have being trampled into the ground by ‘liberal’ fanatics and neoliberal capitalists: the last thing we need is a whole plethora of legal systems fighting for attention.
As for Trevor’s remark about “values that are antithetical to the beliefs of most of us”, he is as usual right on the money. Gatestone found that 52% of the Muslims they surveyed said they believed homosexuality should be illegal, nearly half did not want their childrent taught by a gay, and almost a third (31%) of British Muslims think polygamy should be legalised.
Not a little of this comes from what British Muslims too often hear at the Mosque….and in their own media. In February 2013, regulator Ofcom found that several Islamic channels available in Britain were “employing Islamic clerics who preach hate”, including the notorious hatemonger Dr Zakir Naik who had this to say: “If a Muslim becomes a non-Muslim and propagates his new faith against Islam then he should be put to death.” The unenviable reputation that Muslim clerics enjoy among senior British figures is built largely upon their intransigence whenever politicians have tried to intercede and reason with them. And the anti-semitism on some fundamentalist websites has to be read to be believed.
Connected to this is the demand that they “deserve” their own separate education system. There are currently over 100 independent and seven state-funded Muslim schools in Britain. While this may not sound a lot, there are at least 2,000 madāris in the U.K. These madāris are explicitly Islamic schools for students learning to become future a’immah and community leaders. In short, opinion influencers.
In May 2017, undercover cameras and mics went into one of these schools – the Darul Uloom Islamic High School in Birmingham – which had (in 2009 under Labour) been given a glowing review as “a centre of interfaith awareness in Britain”. The recordings showed teachers describing Hindus as “idiots who worship cows”, and referring to those who left Islam as “the lowest form of life”.
In addition, there are hundreds of illegal and unregistered Islamist schools – and the number is growing. Figures released in 2018 by OfSted showed that at least 350 unregistered schools have been recently set up across Britain, according to the education regulator. There had been ‘a surge in home-educated Muslim children whose number has risen by almost 50% in five years to at least 33,000’.
Beyond this unofficial and official self-applied religious alienation, Islamics in Britain are not slow to make demands in the State education system. In March this year, LGBTQ lessons were halted at the Parkfield Community School in Birmingham, following weeks of controversy and backlash from angry Muslims. Some 600 students, about 80% of the school population, were reportedly yanked out of class by furious Muslim parents who objected to having LGBTQ ideology “aggressively” taught to primary school children.
A great many Britons (myself included) beyond Islam have huge problems with such teaching too. But where most of us differ from the Muslim parents is that we dislike the attempt to “celebrate” homosexual lifestyles as somehow a role model. Islam, by contrast, holds that all gay relationships are an abomination and should be criminalised with the full force of the law. In the Middle East, these include stonings and sexual mutilation.
Islam as a whole is far from “tolerant” in the sense employed by contemporary Westerners. After the 7/7 attacks in 2005 that killed 56 Londoners, The Muslim Council of Great Britain flatly refused to condemn the bombers for fully six days, until wiser, more liberal heads prevailed. In the years that followed, the censorship of anything the MCGB saw as offensive to them (via the bullying of media contractors reporting on the darker side of Islam) lost them many friends in the media.
Last but probably most offensive, the assembly and grooming of sexual abuse rings in Britain – which, we keep being told – are “an accepted part of Islamic culture” has been a scandal on many levels. The “accepted part” defence is, I’m afraid, a pitiable excuse that makes one fear for the sanity of its acceptors. Many voters who are politically unaligned these days (and that’s often a euphemism for disenfranchised and disgusted) continue to wonder why Leftists and feminists are capable of defending the outrageous male misogyny and female genital mutilation within Islam.
One thing they bang on about more than most is this quite ridiculous idea that Islam is the Religion of Peace. It is a historical and contemporary lie worthy of Josef Goebbels on steroids. The prophet Mohammed formed an army and recruited Islamic followers by force. His belief in Islam and his own role as the “Messenger of God” revolutionised Arabian warfare and resulted in the creation of the ancient world’s first army motivated by the ideology of holy war (jihad) and martyrdom (shahada).
Today, 1.4 billion Muslims follow his teachings, in which the twin principles of insurgency by deception and conversion by force recur disturbingly often. Practically all the diaspora recorded in the 5th century AD in the Middle East is down to people running as far away as possible from the scourge of the Caliphet.
These are the many highly pertinent features of Islam that – unless the religion undergoes a much-needed Reformation and the Establishment classes take a more robust attitude – make it highly unlikely that liberal Islam (not a small force by any means) will make any headway in the United Kingdom. As Trevor Phillips asserts, they are being hung out to dry by élite appeasement.
As is so often the case in our perverted culture, the answer seems to lie in asking a further question: Cui bono – who benefits?
How can a radical Labour feminist see fgm and misogyny, but instead decide to call out this mythical thing ‘Islamophobia’? The use of a cod medical term is much employed these days by ideologues keen to sprinkle a little scientific pixie-dust over their madness. Sadly, it remains true that a phobia is the unnatural fear of an imaginary threat. There is nothing imaginary about Islamics smashing artefacts, beheading infidels, bombing churches, demanding Sharia Law and stoning unfaithful wives to death.
When Labour deserted the working class after John Smith’s untimely death, it occurred to their strategists early on that they would have to find new voters from somewhere. Philip Gould had already argued successfully that some would come from aspirant liberal midde class University graduates. After 1997, Tony Blair let in four million more immigrants than Jack Straw thought was wise. Leaks and memoirs of the time suggest that, in doing so, Blair was looking for more new Labour loyalists. The vast majority of them integrated well. Islamics didn’t.
Tony Blair came close to endorsing legislation suggested by the MCGB (to the horror of several Cabinet colleagues) in early 2005; only the 7/7 bombings stopped a Bill being presented to forbid all criticism of Islam whether factual or not.
The conclusion, it seems to me, is obvious: Blair – now recognised as a ruthless sociopath and inveterate liar – would do anything to attract new electoral franchises. Ironically, this strategy has been continued by metropolitan Labour under Miliband (sexuality minorities) and Corbyn (the ethnic poor and young strugglers) as a means to building up a large set of minorities support _that is, in turn, approved wholeheartedly by the bourgeois fluffy virtue signallers. Hence the aggrandisation of peripheral issues like LGBT and Windrush at the expense of the SPA “reform” scam.
In case you are in any doubt, by the way, in the 2017 election, a staggering 85% of UK Islamics voted Labour.
But the Conservatives don’t get away with it on this one either. I used to feel when younger that the Labour Party lacked any commercial perspective, while the Conservative Party was devoid of ethical perspective.
Today, all both of them care about is power. But the Tories have never lost sight of the crucial influence that Mammon can have on popularity. Here are some facts I’d be willing to bet you haven’t seen before:
- In the first year that Theresa May was in office, export licences to sell arms to Saudi Arabia leapt from 331 to 855 – a 250% increase in one year.
- After the Tories came to power during 2010, the level of arms sales to the Saudis by 2016 had increased from £341 million to £2.8 billion. A more than eightfold increase.
- In the first year of May’s Premiership alone, arms sales to the Saudis rose 68%.
Now if there is one thing the Saudis won’t have under any circumstances (apart from a Palestinian within 500 miles of them and a single Jew left on Earth) it’s anyone coming down hard on Jihadists. And there’s a very good reason for that: no Arab nation comes close to Saudi Arabia in the League Table of Islamist bankrollers.
Going all the way back to their oil-boom years of the 1970s, the Saudi Royal Family has been actively funding Wahhabi terrorism. According to a 2013 European Parliament report, the Saudis chucked €10 billion at it between 2008 and 2012.
The Saudi government has for decades promoted a strict, fundamentalist, highly intolerant strain of fundamentalist Wahhabism. It spreads this repugnant doctrine of cruelty and hate through its official state-sanctioned mosques….and through the madāris: remember those from earlier? Yup, the same schools preaching hate in Birmingham.
When Met Police detectives discovered a money and vice ring demanding backhanders from UK arms suppliers sixteen years ago, the Saudis made it clear to Tony Blair how much Britain had to lose by prosecuting Islamists. Within 24 hours, Blair had called off the Sweeney.
So folks, if you’re wondering why the UK Parliament is soft on intolerant Islam, you have two answers right there: votes and money.
And those words spell power.
If you want to follow The Slog, and get updates by email, press the button on the Home Page – et voilà: you’re a follower.