Creeping Islam in context

Lest you  think this is going to be “another anti-Muslim rant”, it’s not.  For a start, there’s no “racism” in calling attention to the rise of certain things in society which are untoward and threaten to consume that society.  Thus this blog calls attention to the global socialist drive, to third wave feminism, to the plummeting of taste, to the sexualization of children at a younger and younger age and to the mire of the current education system.

It’s all been said elsewhere by someone and I’m adding what I can to the discussion. There’s no discrimination in targets because there are so many – be they quangos, banks, teenage mothers on benefits, even forcing people to go over 100 miles to find work and that’s supposed to be the hallmark of a stable society?

The Muslim threat is one of those. That’s all.

Looking at it from the point of view of the average Muslim shopkeeper’s family, they’re clearly not happy with the anti-Muslim feeling, brought on by radical Islam, especially in the cities. My local shopkeeper is not Muslim, he’s a Sri Lankan Hindu, I think but it hardly matters because he’s accepted by the local community, on first name terms and this draws attention to why.

He has no agenda other than the profitability of his little shop and yesterday, recognizing me as a local, the boss asked me which products I always wanted to see on the shelves. No doubt there are people like him up and down the UK. When the numbers are low, as they are in our area, then no one seems to mind and such immigrants are more hardworking and family oriented than many of the locals. In two years, I haven’t seen one incident which could be called racist and the shopkeeper certainly sees me just as a valued customer.

So when I see the following, courtesy Gruffy and Grumpy:

… I have mixed feelings. Firstly, no great anger in his wishing more and more Muslims into power in parliament, as everyone does that for his lobby – more women in parliament, more gays, more flat-earthers, more whatever.

Yet anger at what the agenda behind the remarks is all about.

For whenever Muslims reach significant proportions in a society, identifying themselves by the tag Muslim rather than, say, by nationality or race, which this man in the clip is doing, then he is inviting in a “Muslimness” to the country and all Muslims know that the rulers of Muslims are the Imams, the Mullahs and the goal is Sharia Law across the nation.

This is quite unequivocal and beyond any further debate. We are long past the “oh it’s not that bad” stage or “that’s racist” [an inane comment if ever there was one].  It’s not racist – it’s “oppressive-religious-systemist”.

My personal attitude has always been based on what people do and say, rather than what they are. However, in the case of the average Muslim family out there, what can one say? They themselves are fine, probably not all that religious but following the rules, just as Christians observe Christmas and try to follow the commandments, with varying degrees of success.

It’s just that what nominal Muslims are loosely attached to, in all innocence and having grown up with it, is essentially evil. A social system which oppresses one half of society and uses violence to achieve its aims is certainly not anything but evil. If that’s an extreme word to use, then it’s a fitting one.

Again – it’s not the Muslims themselves who are the problem but Islam.

Islam.

That is the crux of the problem, just as Nazism was and the bully boys who promoted it plus the tacit and sometimes express approval of the majority.

So Mr Shahid Malik needs to be opposed and his agenda stymied, as far as is humanly possible, for the good of the people of our fair land.

No more immigration from Muslim countries please or from any other countries with a natural tendency to violence and prejudice against minorities. What’s done is done and let’s accept those already here into our way of life as it once was – the way which attracted them in the first place but which we’ve now lost sight of.

Also, fine to be altruistic and fine to give asylum to the oppressed people of those lands but up to what point? We’re not animals here, we dip into our purses and wallets to help Biafran or Rwandan children but inviting droves and droves of their parents over here to alter the face of the nation – that was never the idea in our minds although it certain was in those of the globalists.  That’s an entirely different question.

There has to be a balance somewhere

Should a particular group constitute 2%, 5%, 10% of a society? What about when whole cities are 70% of a foreign group? Look at the problems in Fiji and in Malaysia, where the indigenous people are fast rivalled, in numbers, by the Indians or the Chinese.

There has to be sanity, there has to be balance.

The only humane way to get close to it is to halt immigration from those lands, as already stated and to do it now. Thus we don’t get the French situation of large minorities refusing to assimilate, we don’t get the underclass and the ghetto-ization of the cities, we avoid exacerbating these problems.

This is just plain [un]common sense.

The utopian ideal

6 comments for “Creeping Islam in context

  1. Patrick Harris
    October 6, 2010 at 12:04

    Not that old chestnut again.
    Tell Geert Wilders, maybe he can use it to defend himself against being charged with “telling the truth” although disguised as inciting hatred.
    Tell me, maybe I’m wrong, isn’t the basis of justice predicated upon the truth?
    So what do we do:
    1. Write a strong letter to the editor of the Times?
    2. Seek a face to face with your local MP at his/her next “surgery”.
    3. March through the streets of London and on to Parliament square, passing the Parliament buildings leading to the door of No. 10, no, it will be banned by the police/home office.
    4. Sit at home getting more and more angry at all of the above, it’s an option because it’s not a crime (yet) and anyway it would be hard to frame the charge of “getting angry about all of the above”.
    5. Find a Muslim and punch him/her in the face, no, because once the fleeting satisfaction had passed there would be no lasting effect.
    6. Set fire to a Mosque…
    It’s not hard to see how it might escalate?
    Personally, I haven’t a clue.

  2. MadPiper
    October 6, 2010 at 12:58

    That is one of the scariest videos I have seen from a politician as he was very direct about his Muslim agenda.
    God help you all.

  3. October 6, 2010 at 13:50

    Yup. If in doubt apply “plain commonsense”. I don’t see any other way of doing it.

  4. Patrick Harris
    October 6, 2010 at 16:50

    MadPiper – All the more scary that this video dates back to March 2009 and very few of the British public will have seen/heard his message, Cue – Main Stream Media.

  5. October 6, 2010 at 20:57

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2010/10/06/failed-new-york-bomber-warns-war-with-muslims-has-just-begun-as-he-is-jailed-for-life-86908-22612955/

    “Brace yourselves, the war with Muslims has just begun”

    It doesn’t get more explicit than that but it looks like its going to be my children who are going to have to die to sort out the mess made by the neo-liberals. I hope they burn in hell, right next to the primitives my descendants will dispatch there.

  6. Patrick Harris
    October 6, 2010 at 22:30

    Not only will our descendants have to contend with job seeking competition from the constituent countries, the numbers of which are bound to grow, of the EU they will have to constantly look over their shoulder in fear of the next religious sacrifice. My dread is that when it comes the poor buggers will have nothing with which to defend themselves.

Comments are closed.