Multiculturalism and Britain's suicide

OK, solution:
Enforce UK law among Muslims. That will render Islam effectively illegal. Muslims will then have the choice between apostasy, emigration or armed insurrection. The minority who take the third alternative can be dealt with using overwhelming lethal force, escalating up to genocide.

Enoch Powell was right:

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

How about this, Nations should have the right to control immigration based on culture and that immigrants should understand that they are moving to live in a particular culture and they do not have the right to demand that the culture change for them, nor does a nation/culture have the obligation to accomadate other other cultures existing within it. THis is a little more complicated in immigrant nations like the US or Canada, but would work fine for European nations (if the EU would allow it).

Nothing surprising here. There is now something akin to a separate Shariah based state operating unoffically in Great Britain, and I assure you, the people under its jurisdiction no longer enjoy the full protections of a liberal democratic country. Islamic norms regarding dress and gender aparteid will be enforced through the usual mechanisms, apostates will be under continuous threat, and non-muslims will be driven out. The state will try to avert violence (and mask their stupidity) by accommodating as many of these Shariah based laws as possible. Any actions to reimpose the authority of the state will be met with cries of outrage, accusations of racism and outright violence.

I read this piece recently about India. Sound familiar?

"During the last sixty years, from every Muslim majority area of South Asia - without exception - be it Pakistan, Bangladesh or from India's own Kashmir valley, non-Muslims have been massively driven out to India. This occurred when the Muslim population there achieved political power through majority status. Also, laws and conditions have been put in place to deliberately marginalize non-Muslims. In almost all of these cases, mosques and the clerics played a major role in facilitating this "conquest". In India the Muslim population percentage has increased from about 10 percent in 1951 to about 15 percent now. Even within 85 percent non-Muslim India, in some Muslim majority towns this phenomenon is getting repeated. These South Asian populations share language, food habits and culture but differ [only]in religion. . . ."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=33ADCAA3-1E36-4665-881D-8E6C4F6C8D7B

And when he says "massively" driven out, he means it. The Hindu populations of Pakistan and Bangladesh have fallen from about 10% and 30%, respectively, to about 1.5% in Pakistan and something like 7-10% in Bangladesh (And, as he notes, during the same period the muslim population in India has actually thrived); It's the same story everywhere: Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, Gaza, S. Philipines, Nigeria, S. Thailand. . . .

Bloody borders, bloody innards.

>>>>
You've put out a lot of ink admiring the problem, Rod. What do you see as the solution?
Posted by: ds0490 | January 6, 2008 2:23 AM
>>>>

That's a good question - and one that Rod never seems to reply to.

My own thoughts - enforce our secular laws vigorously and do not tolerate no-go zones.

Here's Patrick Sookhdeo's take on the problem - the bit on the islamic notion of an ever expanding "sacred space" is especially interesting (toward the end):

“ . . . . The Muslim writer Amir Taheri, tackling the question of ‘Why Paris is Burning’, described how France’s policy of assimilation began to fail when (Muslim) immigrants grouped themselves in concentrated areas. The resulting alienation, says Taheri, opens the way for radical Islamists to promote religious and cultural apartheid. Some are even calling for Muslim majority areas to become like an Ottoman millet, i.e., to organise their own social, cultural and educational life in accordance with their religious beliefs. In parts of France, says Taheri, a de facto millet system is already in place, seen in Islamic headdress, Islamic beards, Islamic control of the administration, and the elimination of cinemas, dance halls and shops selling alcohol and pork.

"The Muslim community in France is well on the way to becoming a millet, a state within a state. The only substantive goal still outstanding is the implementation of Islamic law (Shariah) instead of French law.

"Muslims in France have by and large rejected the concept of the integration of individuals and are working instead for the integration of communities. The same is happening in the UK, where the concept of multiculturalism has long been popular.

"Two other Islamic principles are important subjects of debate among contemporary Muslims. The first concerns ‘sacred space’. Islam is a territorial religion. Any space once gained is considered sacred and should belong to the umma for ever. Any lost space must be regained — even by force if necessary. Migrant Muslim communities in the West are constantly engaged in sacralising new areas — first the inner private spaces of their homes and mosques, and latterly whole neighbourhoods (e.g., Birmingham) by means of marches and processions. So the ultimate end of sacred space theology is autonomy for Muslims of the UK under Islamic law.”

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/14443/will-london-burn-too.thtml

One must remember some things about Enoch Powell:

1. He was the most politically skilled Tory (certainly far more than Ted Heath!) of his generation. Had he never given the Rivers of Blood speech, he would have been prime minister. For that reason, if no other, he clearly gave his speech out of principle, not expediency.

2. Parochially, Wolverhampton is a town in a demographic path much like the towns northwest of Dallas (Carrollton, Irving, Farmers Branch) which are historically Republican but now filled with illegal (and surely, Rod, some legal) Latino immigrants. So there was a selfish concern by Powell about losing his seat in Parliament. (Although, even with the population of Wolverhampton now almost half-minority, Powell's old seat didn't fall to Labour until 1997, the Blair landslide.)

Powell loved politics. So much so that, after Powell (a Shadow Cabinet member and potential leader, no less!) left the Conservative Party for his views, he moved to Northern Ireland and became a Unionist member of Parliament favoring discrimination against agitating Catholics. In a constituency almost half-Catholic. Hmmm. (You can't say the guy didn't like battles ...)

3. Powell gave the speech at a precise historical moment -- 16 days after the assassination of Martin Luther King. He chose to distill all the fears of the riots of those two weeks to the people of Britain, instead of relating the hopes that King had instilled in the entire American people (not just African-Americans) up until his death, and even now four decades later.

Powell may not have been a "racist" in the sense he wouldn't have shared a drinking fountain or a lunch counter with an Afro-Caribbean or an immigrant from the Subcontinent (or a Catholic in Northern Ireland).

But lest we forget, the "Race Relations Bill" Powell was lobbying against was the U.K. equivalent of the 1968 Fair Housing Act in the United States. Remember the lifelong stain on Barry Goldwater -- a man no one would say was a personal racist -- for his vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

So the effects of Powell's words have lingered long -- in shame, in infamy. "Enoch Was Right" is still the motto of far-right racist parties in Great Britain such as the British National Party and the National Front.

Powell may have been a masterful politician. The world is blessed he never became British Prime Minister.

Larry - I actually don't know much about Mr. Powell - and you clearly do - but I'm not sure that Powell's opinions about "third world" immigration generally are directly relevant to this post. I don't have any particualr objection to immigration, as long as it's carried out in a sensible fashion, but I see Islamic immigration as far more problematic than other varieties, not because of race or skin color, but because islam offers, and sometimes imposes on pain of death, an overarching form of identity, social structure AND governance that is overtly intolerant, expansionist and directly at odds with most liberal democracies. You'll probably say something like, "All immigrant groups have been tarred with a similar brush," but I'd like you consider, just consider, the possibility that at least in the case of islam, we might have legitimate cause of concern . . .

Well, nice of the liberal Christians to notice this, 30 years after it was too late to do anything about it.

Powell was a bit stupid, as well as obnoxious. He talked about the black man holding the whip, etc. (as an aside, he was quoting from Tristram Shandy, which actually makes an anti-racist statement - weird from someone feted as an intellectual). The issue in Europe is not race, and not even religion in general, but just Islam. Most blacks actually strongly side with whites over this. Do you think that Nigerian immigrants, having seen what Islam has done to their country, have the slightest sympathy with Pakistanis in the UK?

The problem with Muslims is not merely that they are violent and intolerant, but that they are unemployably stupid, and breed like lice. Their stupidity is as much a genetic as a directly cultural issue. I do not mean this in racial terms, but just as an observation of the effects of continuous marriage of first cousins. The problem is not just one of mental incapacity, but also things like hereditary deafness, which runs at massively higher rates among Muslims than anyone else. The Muslim habit of forced marriage between 50-year-old men and 9-year-old girls doesn't help, either.

Rombald, The problem with Muslims is not merely that they are violent and intolerant, but that they are unemployably stupid, and breed like lice.

I don't see how breeding like lice is a problem; in a world that is depopulating, it's a plus for your culture.

Their stupidity is as much a genetic as a directly cultural issue.

Religion is not a genetic issue (unless you are arguing only low IQ people would convert, or only low IQ people would lose in battles to Muslims and be forced to convert). Could be; I note Muslims couldn't defeat any high IQ cultures in battle.

If you are talking about Muslims from the Middle-East, they have an IQ about half a standard deviation below that of the typical European. So what? They are no Japan, sure, but certainly not too low an IQ for a decent economy, say the level of Mexico.

continuous marriage of first cousins. The problem is not just one of mental incapacity, but also things like hereditary deafness, which runs at massively higher rates among Muslims than anyone else.

Even factoring in this issue, they still have a much higher IQ than say Africa, so I don't see this as a huge issue.

The Muslim habit of forced marriage between 50-year-old men and 9-year-old girls doesn't help, either.

How? Methinks there is no genetic problem here as old men's sperm still works the same, even if the count is probably low. Shouldn't effect the culture much.

Larry said:

" . . . The (admittedly alarming) rise of militant mosques, in the East End of London and some of the (former) manufacturing towns in the Midlands and North, has only occurred in recent years in the U.K."

_________

Larry:

There have been lots and lots of Islamic Hijrahs in the last 1400 years, and "recent" does not necessarily mean unprecedented or out of character. Andrew Bostom has alot to say about the outcome of those previous migrations - and for the most part, I'm betting it's a pretty bleak tale. (Any day now, I'm going to start reading "The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of the Non-muslims." Really.)

Huh? Of course you're talking about the UK. My point being, that the "hijrah" of muslims in the UK (or anywhere else, for that matter) is just one of many such migrations, and that, although radicalisation may appear to be a recent phenomenon - it may actually be part and parcel with islam's central narrative: a process of initial migration - peaceful at first, while the community is weak - followed by a period of consolidation of power and implementation of Islamic norms, leading up to agression, confrontation and ultimately conflict for the dominance of Islamic law. . . .

Maybe I missed something.