In "Come to Londonistan, our refuge for poor misunderstood Islamist victims" in the TimesOnline, Melanie Phillips skewers British dhimmitude and denial:
ACCORDING TO REMARKS attributed in the past few days to security sources, no fewer than 1,200 Islamist terrorists are biding their time within British suburbs. Yet does Britain even now fully understand the nature of the threat it is facing, let alone have the will to deal with it?The recent report by the Commons Intelligence Committee on last July’s London bombings barely scratched the surface of the failure by the security establishment. It failed to note, for example, Britain’s dirty little secret: that from the 1990s, Islamist radicals had been given free rein in Britain in a “gentlemen’s agreement” that if they were left alone, they would not turn on the country that was so generously nurturing them. The result was “Londonistan”, as Britain became the hub of al-Qaeda in Europe.
This intelligence debacle, however, was only the tip of the iceberg. Among Britain’s governing class — its intelligentsia, its media, its politicians, its judiciary, its Church and even its police — a broader and deeper cultural pathology persists to this day. Londonistan is more than the physical presence of Islamist extremists. It is also a state of mind. To a dismaying extent, the British have signed up to the false narrative of those who are laying siege to their society.
The problem lies in a refusal to acknowledge that Islamist extremism is rooted in religion. Instead, ministers and security officials prefer to think of it as a protest movement against grievances such as Iraq or Palestine, or “Islamophobia”. They simply ignore the statements and signs that show unequivocally that the aim is to Islamicise the West.
Read it all.
A "gentleman's agreement" with the soldiers of Allah, how very british! Looks like such agreements only work between gentlemen...
The rest sounds very much like "No matter what happens, we refuse to name the enemy, we refuse to tackle the cause, but we will keep on treating the symptoms..."
Good luck!
Melanie Phillips should be running the BBC. Or better still running the country. It was madness to give these people free rein.
Locals had been complaining about the Finsbury Park Mosque for years before the police raided it.
The Biased Broadcasting Corporation had Alistair Crook (former British intelligence officer) on the Today programme saying, in effect, that Muslims have to resort to terrorism because their political grievances are not being addressed and that the solution is a political one. In other words, give them what they want.
This "gentlemen's agreement" has made Muslims very confident. A debate is being held at UCL, boldly entitled "The Future of Europe in Islam". Not "The Future of Islam in Europe":
You can't get much dirtier than that.
And still the flow of immigrants from Dar al-Islam is not stopped. Blair should be hanged from Traitors' Gate.
Huge upheavals and great suffering are coming and it was all avoidable.
"Gentleman's Agreement" = "Just Kill Jews. Not Us"
Come out, come out, where ever you are...
Some clearly understand the peril. But what can be done to lure the other munchkins out of their holes? Enter Glenda (the Good Witch) who floated in on a beautiful shimmering ball....
Somehow I doubt the awakening in Canada, Britain, or Europe will be so lovely. Maybe it's the only.
way.
You can hear Ms. Philips talk in greater deatil 1 hour MP3 Here:
http://multimedia.heritage.org/mp3/Lehrman-051006.mp3
"Melanie Phillips should be running the BBC. Or better still running the country." -Cosign :)
Alistair Crook, mentioned in Interested's post above, is the former MI5 official who had dealings, very friendly dealings, with Hamas. He was removed from the Middle East, and now runs a business offering "consulting" services. Guess who his clients are? Guess what he thinks of Israel? Guess what his views are? He should be arrested and charged with treason. That he has not been says a good deal about the confusion and general mental disarray, confusion and disarray comparable to that which could be observed in England, among those whose duty it was to instruct and protect, in England, from 1933 when Hitler won a plurality in the German elections, right through to September 1, 1939.
They continue to strike their foot on the same stone...
Melanie Phillips says: "Britain effectively allowed itself to be taken hostage by militant gays, feminists or “anti-racists” who ... [forced] the majority to give in to their demands. So when radical Islamists refused to accept minority status and insisted instead that their values must trump those of the majority, Britain had no answer."
Wow. Even gay blogger Andrew Sullivan and lesbian feminist Tammy Bruce have a simple answer to that: Namely, gays and lesbians aren't waging a worldwide jihad against straights! Gays aren't demanding that straights must become gay or else they die. There are no gay and lesbian suicide-bombers. Islamists are eagerly violating other people's rights; gays and lesbians are not.
It's very simple, really. There's an old-fashioned word, "subversive." Islamists are subversives. Gays and lesbians are not. And it's suicidal for a society to be generous to subversives.
The British elites can't be that dumb. They have signed aboard this accommodation to Islamists for cynical reasons of their own: Anti-semitism (never quite eradicated in Britain); guilt over Britain's colonial past; and a "sophisticated" view of their society that sneers at British heritage and denounces patriotism as outdated. The British citizenry knows the difference between gays and lesbians trying to live fulfilling lives vs. Islamist suicide-bombers and terrorists. They are being shamed into silence by a very cynical bunch of opinion leaders.
Maybe we can help Britain get over their collective guilt over colonialism. The Senate should pass a bipartisan resolution forgiving Britain for the Boston Massacre.
"The Senate should pass a bipartisan resolution forgiving Britain for the Boston Massacre."
Sounds bully, but what do such resolutions mean coming from a rogue nation?
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/06/steyn_and_tortu.html?promoid=rss_daily_dish
Not sure that Andrew is bright enough (or non-radical enough for that matter) to come up with the explanation you did, Steven L., although it's a good one. Tammy Bruce is a different matter. I think Melanie Phillips brings up an interesting point regarding the fringe megaphones who shout the loudest and thereby become the self professed spokespersons for their "groups". This is a part of Western Balkanization, and underlies the multi-cult.
I believe that ALL victimology pimps (Andrew Sullivan is one) who have stolen the impetus behind "liberation" and "civil rights" and who have conflated those things with their various personal pet (and nearly always radical) agendas are part of the problem, and not the solution.
That is not to say that they are directly responsible for Muslim aggressions and transgressions. Just part of the milieu which has ushered in the confusing times we're in, and indirectly help to conceal or confuse us from understanding what the Muslims are actually up to. They have taken a page out of the Victim Pimping playbook and turned the dance into one of their own.
The Muslims are the ones we should focus on mainly -- but is it even possible to contend with the challenges they pose without also challenging or dismantling the social infrastructures which help to hide their murderous agenda, or which confuses average persons to such a degree that they have no way of knowing who their real enemies are? This is a nearly inpenetrable thicket WE have created -- and the Muslims have learned to exploit it for maximum damage.
I'm with you, jsla. Of course, Melanie Phillips had a point. She's not a fool.
The majority population has been put in a state of permanent guilt by special interest groups. Undoubtedly, most of these special interest groups are non-violent (and that is partly why they have been listened to sympathetically by the majority, let the bashers of the majority note). Unfortunately, the majority population is now stuck in self-accusatory mode and is a soft touch for special interest groups that are far from non-violent, specially if they're prepared to dissemble a little.
Come to Londonistan!?
No. Thank you. I'd have a better time staying at home watching TV.
Many of you seek to blame gays, and attack Sullivan only for one reason: he is a homosexual. Sullivan is one of very few gays who speak out against Islam, and yet you attack him nonetheless. I am not suggesting that you cannot disagree with Sullivan, but it is clear that the attacks he receives by those commenting here have to do with he does with his penis, not that fact he owns a beagle (or his opinions). To attack Sullivan as a ‘victimization pimp” resembles Moslems’ arguments against gays, and are almost certainly based on Christianist notions of morality. Go preach to Sullivan as he professes to be a Christian, but I don’t want to hear it. I don’t believe in your man god or the Moslem’s make believe “prophets” of doom.
Yojimbo:
"The majority population has been put in a state of permanent guilt by special interest groups. Undoubtedly, most of these special interest groups are non-violent (and that is partly why they have been listened to sympathetically by the majority, let the bashers of the majority note). Unfortunately, the majority population is now stuck in self-accusatory mode and is a soft touch for special interest groups that are far from non-violent, specially if they're prepared to dissemble a little."
So then differentiate accordingly. Single Moslems out for disparate treatment. Stop vilifying gays.
JSLA:
"I believe that ALL victimology pimps (Andrew Sullivan is one) who have stolen the impetus behind "liberation" and "civil rights" and who have conflated those things with their various personal pet (and nearly always radical) agendas are part of the problem, and not the solution."
Are you saying gays have not been the subject of abuse and severe discrimination? Stop kidding yourself; stop the self-delusion. I personally have suffered tremendously for who I am and I don’t need you to tell me otherwise. Neither I, nor Sullivan, are playing the victim – we are the victims of Christian discrimination. So when you say those things, it appears that your extremist religiosity is showing. And wtf does this have to do with Islam? Will I be asked by fellow JW/DWs to accept the “lamb” now?
Is Phillips right about the problems with Moslems in the UK? Sure. But Phillips' assertion that gays, feminists and other races somehow "weakened" the UK thereby paving the way for Islamic jihadists is unimaginably offensive. Conservatives wonder why the left fails to heed the danger signs of Islam. Instead of pointing out the dangers of immigration that leads to increases in the numbers of Moslems, conservatives -- like good little Christianist soldiers -- continue the culture war that they dread they have lost. Instead of reaching out to the left at a time of great danger, they attempt to destroy the left. This in turn weakens conservatives' arguments. That truly is a shame since there is so much to what Phillips (and so many others) is saying. Alas, these conservatives are fools for taking such tact. Who on earth will believe that gays are responsible for terrorism? Pat Robertson? (Christianist Imam Robertson in the US who blamed 9/11 on gays.)
Phillips is also dangerous to England. Her brand of racism has the potential to divide non-white Britons precisely when they are needed. The real problem was immigration of groups such as the Pakistanis. Is immigration of similar people such as Hindu Indians, troubling to you too as well? Additionally, stop attacking gays and feminists when it is all too clear that the fate of England was sealed with its immigration policy starting in the 50s. We buggerers, whom you Christians hate so much, had nothing to do with that. Your kind let 'em in, not mine.
Wait, there is more. You Christianists actually EMPOWERED Moslems, and sought to use their religiosity against Soviet atheism. You reckoned: better then fanaticism of Islam, than the atheism of the communists. (What a foolish thought, as China will ultimately bury us all with our stupid religions.) So you Christians nurtured the movement with love, money and support. All of this was done in the name of working with your co-religious brothers in arms, the Moslems. Now the joke it on you. Oh and, where was your man-god on 9/11 and 7/7? Oh, I forgot, Imam Robertson answered that; the man god couldn’t protect us since I am a buggerer and my sex with another man removed the Star Warsesque “force field” that previously protected us.
"Britain effectively allowed itself to be taken hostage by militant gays, feminists"
Huh??? Melanie just about has it right on islam, then she goes and completely unneccessarily attacks the groups she should be working with. As mentioned above, Gay-rights groups and feminists aren't issuing death-threats or planning bomb attacks. They aren't advocating a system than denies basic human rights. They want people's hands chopped off for punishment, rape-victims stoned for 'adultery'.
Stick to the issue Melanie: a culture that wants to enslave us all under sharia law. And gays and feminists would be its first victims.
um 'don't want people's hands chopped off' etc.
Please, can we have an 'edit' button????
Kafir Nonbeliever, just a quick note to beg you not to leave this forum because of some anti-gay statements. We (gay, feminist etc) are needed here to show the world that concern about islam is wide-spread and growing across the political spectrum.
RE: Edit button
Yes, I concur.
Ich hatte dass für eine lange Zeit gewollt. Vielmals habe ich Fehler gemacht und wollte sie korrigieren.
cheers,
Kafir
Thanks Lili, there certainly are few of us around and you can see why.
Melanie's point was that the Left is the ally of the islamic menace. And within the left, you have the leftists groups like the radical feminists and the gays.
She wasn't bashing homosexuals. She was bashing the ideologues that use homosexuality, or feminism, as a platform for the Left. And the Left would love to see islam win this battle. Note that few if any leading feminists speak out against islam. Most are in bed with it. Why? Because they care not for women, but for championing any cause that is Left. You will also read few critiques of islam from homosexual groups. Being ultra liberals, the homosexual ideologues in the media, won't touch islam with a ten foot pole. They would rather attack Christian principles than islamic ones. They take public issue with Christians for frowning on homosexuality, but will say not a peep about islam murdering homosexuals as a matter of doctrine. Same story with feminists. They rant about how bad things are for women in America, but won't stay squat about girls being executed for being raped.
That's the rub with the left. That's what melanie is referring to.
like good little Christianist soldiers ...
Melanie Phillips is Jewish.
Her brand of racism has the potential to divide non-white Britons precisely when they are needed.
She is not racist in the slightest. Many times she has spoken in favour of immigration - controlled immigration, that is. Her problem is with the ideology of Islam, not with the race of its adherents, which varies, of course. You may find this of interest.
I was delighted to see, on another thread, that Robert finds repugnant the idea of upholding "the whiteness of the West". As well as being repugnant in its own right, the white supremacist argument is a distraction from the matter in hand, namely Islam.
Islam is an ideology not a race. Those who call its opponents racist, and those who see racist politics as a solution, are all missing the point.
I listened to her on the site you posted. She singled out gays and transsexuals for blame; her attack on the rights culture. I am not sure what you wanted to point out, although she made many good points, but what she said re: the alliances between right/left and left/Islam, but considering her audience (extreme Christians) and Christian pandering hardly prove her point. For instance, although she did not specifically say so, she implied that Britons were wrong to be uncomfortable with an American president that claims to speak to God. I have news for her. I am disturbed by his religiosity even if she is not, and yes, Britons are justified in being concerned.
In fact, it proves me right. Again, I ask, WTF do her statements about gays have to do with Islam?
She denounces those who oppose "Judeo-Christian" values, and as such, she clearly would be opposed to say, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists. HAHAHA. Interested, my friend, with due respect, you could not have given me more fodder.
Phillips' Israel cover-up:
Sure Phillips is on to something, but she is wrong when she implies that geopolitics play no role whatsoever in the root cause of the jihad movement, as if Israel has no fault; as if its existence (and actions) are totally justified; as if Christian (conservatives such as Thatcher and Reagan) did not themselves greatly amplify the jihadist movement by attempting to co-opt Islam to combat communism; as if our actions in Iran were justified (Mossadeq); as if Palestinians have no justifiable grievances whatever; as if the US has not been grossly one-sided by vetoing countless UN resolutions against Israel; as if the refugee situation in Palestine is not a cancerous sore. I am not suggesting that Israel is the root cause of all hatred, but to pretend that it plays no part is utter deceit. Please note that I am not anti-Western, anti-British or desirous of seeing an end to the Jewish state, but the truth is far muddier that she wants you to believe it is.
None of this means that I will not resist the movement, but we must recognize that the causes of the problem are multifaceted. I also admit that whether Israel or not, the Moslems would still seek the destruction of the West, whether through immigration or otherwise, for many reasons. Nonetheless, the intensity of the conflict is enhanced by the situation in the ME.
LOL, the more I listen to her, the more ridiculous she sounds. She timidly attacks Thatcherite acceptable of Moslems for “business” reasons. And then has the audacity to complain that the left is anti capitalist. She bemoans the state of ultra free speech, although she rightly points out the hypocrisy with the Islamists calling for an end to the West. She claims that Britain is morally bankrupt and that’s the reason the Moslems are angry. Please, spare me.
She herself is not Western. Lets talk about Hirsi Ali, now SHE is Western. Strange. Ali is from Somalia
Although I do not agree with all of this author's assertions, and very much believe that Londonistan has significant points that need to be addressed and freely discussed, it is also riddled with problems.
To see a counter view, click here:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sunny_hundal/2006/06/londonistan_versus_londonstani.html
Kafir Nonbeliever
You completely misconstrue my post. But I know that the issue of your own sexuality looms large as you mention it frequently. No offense, but that may opacify to some extent your perception or understanding of what's being said sometimes.
You seem to completely forget other places where I have staunchly argued against victimization of the kind you infer above. My post dealt with the topic in the most peripheral way.
I'm sorry you choose to take my words as hurtful. They should not be if you read what I actually said... and refrain from projecting something which isn't there.
And OH MY GOD -- if you interpreted my Wizard of Oz conceit as somehow referring to gays -- GOOD LORD -- It's about all the deniars and hiders and obfuscators that refuse to see what's standing in front of their faces.
"it appears that your extremist religiosity is showing". Another projection. A silly one.
Somewhat related: how did the term "Londonistan" come about? Stan would imply a country - wouldn't Londonabad be more appropriate?
Kafir & Lili
I'm glad you are still a part of this campaign. Although I myself don't agree with much of the Gay agenda, I'm put off by a campaign that seeks to put the opposition to gay marriage on a higher agenda than recognizing, let alone confronting, the threat that's Islam. Also, I suspect that the GOP campaign this time on the consitutional amendment won't gather conservative traction, because the #1 issue is terrorism. There is no way that the GOP can persuade many of us that they are serious about terrorism as long as they are either ignorant of, or willfully ignore, Islam as being the root cause of this problem.
Although Melanie Phillips may denounce those who oppose Judeo-Christian values, I, although a Hindu, don't oppose them; even though I don't practice either of the above religions, I don't expect that any Western country endorse Hindu values in order to accomodate me and other Hindus. I'm perfectly happy with most values - Judeo-Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Confucian, and even Athiest (the Ayn Rand type, but not the Marxist type) values. None of the above values imply forcing me to follow something I don't believe in - something that's not true about Islam.
JSLA,
Rest assured I am not stereotypically gay. As such, I am no real Wizard of Oz (or Liza Minelli) fan. Any such reference to pop-culture, whether new pop-culture, or old, would go right over my head. Why do I know about Liza Minelli? Well I have been around gays who seem to idolize her. So if you mentioned anything, it went right over my head. I did see Flight 93 recently, so I suppose I am pop-culture savvy, eh. Before that I saw a few European movies. I had not seem a movie since LoTR. Between grad school and then later law school, I lost touch with pop-culture. I am in no hurry to catch up on it.
I read far more than I watched television or movies. However, I do occasionally watch Wiz of Oz on tv every other year or so. I remember reading that it is an allegory. I still watch it carefully to see if I can detect the political subtitles of the day. I know. I am different that way.
So on a day when I am not enjoying the beach or outdoors with members of my family, I prefer Jihadwatching to TV. So, I missed the Wiz thing.
Should I be silent about my sexuality if I am Jwatching? I don’t flaunt it here or anywhere. I don’t understand why you would have that impression.
Cheers,
Kafir.
Implicit in your post is the FACT that most Americans are simply decent folks. I think that most Americans smell a rat whenever there's a Terry Shaivo moment, or a "Protect Marriage" moment and even a "Constitutional Flag Moment". Somewhere else a sneering Brit equated love for a flag as "Flagolatry". So funny. So smug. Well I can tear up at my flag because I love what it represents. I love both the symbol and the thing it symbolizes. I'm sad for persons who are so stiff up the ass that they can't imagine falling in love with your country -- or they imagine that such a thing must mean you've turned into a jackboot stormtrooper.
(BTW -- why don't the Republicans ever get pissed about those vulgar "Joe Millionaire" or "Very Merry Brady" marriage shows on TV? THAT defames marriage as much as anything. Not that I want to hear them belly ache about that either.
The Dems need to keep their fricking hands out of my wallet, and the Republicans need to keep their fricking eyes out of my bedroom. That's how I see it. Sorry for this sickeningly OT post.
That last post was addressed to Infidel Pride -- sorry if any confusion.
Guys
I am from India, Yesterday in the news, The mulim patriots of India wants a ban on th 100 yeard old National Song.
I am really very hurt at their demand, how can they be so rude...I know that muslims are the worst people to live along with but from what does they get this rude and unyeilding behaviour to ask for a ban on everythig and anythign that they dont like that to in a country where they are a minority.....
I guess when they breed well to even 30 to 40% I can see the temples being blown up frequently...
The World heritage site of AJanta and Ellora were recently saved by cracking a plot to blow them up...
Multicultaralism is a bane for any society.Secularism renders our societies fragile and prosperity cannot last on a fragile society...
Chinese are best placed in the 21st century rather than any other country becuase they ae almost all are huns....
Just wait until London gets hit by an Islamic terrorist attack -- then things will change...
jsla
I largely agree with you. Personally, I'm more Libertarian than anything else, and had the Libertarian Party not been pro narcotic-legalization, and been explicitly anti-Islamic, I'd be supporting them over the GOP. (No, the fact that they don't have a prayer of winning doesn't affect my vote - I'd support whoever I most agree with and would theoretically like to see in power.)
On the GOP not having responses to Joe Millionaire shows, I think the reason is that that's a social, rather than a political issue. It doesn't make sense for the RNC to pass resolutions even deploring it. It does make sense for social Conservative organizations like Focus On the Family to come out against it (Incidentally, that's not an organization I support, since they tend to marginalize people who may be not conservative enough on social issues like abortion, school prayer, et al).
Just that the current GOP is too fiscally Liberal, too socially uptight, except in the place it matters - Islam. And sadly, it seems that too many Republicans (not just Bushies) would prefer Muslims over Athiests, without a clue about what it implies for the US.
Varma
Which song were the Qatloos wanting banned?
Kafir and LiLi, what is wrong with Judeo-Christian values?
They are the values from which all liberties in the West have come.
I am a Christian yet support gay and feminin rights, ( the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness), but I abhor most gay and feminist organization because I believe that they are about power, and not the defense of rights.
Melanie, refers to those organizations and not individual gays.
To the effect that they in some ways aide the Islamist and attack the majority culture makes them an enemy of the West and all our cherished values.
Individual gays I have no problem with, I strongly believe that gays as fellow humans have the right to live their lives and that no one should impose their will on them.
My Christian faith compels me to love my brother, even if I don't agree with him.
Kafir ask yourself if Islam is a million times less tolerant of gays then Christianity, why aren't gay organization at the forefront of the defense from Islam.
Or, why are gay organizations attacking the West so much when their lives as well as mine would be very dark about Islam,
Kafir we must not fight culture wars while the enemy is at the gate and his knife is drawn to cut our throats.
Let's all work together to stop Islam, Right, Left, Christian and gay.
United we can live on to the resolve the many questions that challenge our society, if we are divided we will never get the chance.
I coined the term flagolatry because the attitude of some (perhaps all) Americans to their flag comes a little too close to religious reverence for the taste of most Brits. There are histoical and cultural reasons for this difference of outlook which have nothing to do with being smug, sneering or tight up the ass.
Also I think calling the deaths of five people a massacre is a bit of an over-statement, but then I suppose thse things are relative.
Gays, Catholics, Protestants, Blacks, Indians, Jews, feminists, communists, Feminists, red necks, labor, tories and everyone else in Brition who values your freedoms and freedom from Islam should unite to sqwash this menace. No time to point fingers at each other or you're all screwed.
- CCC says Catholics should treat gays with respect and dignity (and everyone else)- while under islamic shaira law you will be executed public square like with stones or sword. That's the difference. Islam is a manace to society period. Nothing but complete moderation or elimination of it will save Briton.
Isn't the gay icon Judy Garland, rather than Liza Minelli?
Q: Where do you go to weigh a pie?
A: Somewhere over the rainbow.
kafir nb,
nobody's perfect and we Israelis don't claim to be perfect. But the Arabs have a history of more than one thousand years of oppressing, exploiting persecuting Jews. And that includes in the Land of Israel. Indeed, during the Holocaust the Arab nationalist and Arab royalist leadership were overwhelmingly pro-Nazi, including Amin el-Hussein, British-appointed mufti of Jerusalem, who collaborated in the Holocaust, living mostly in Berlin during WW2, etc. I don't like this constant scrutiny of Israel to find faults when the British news media ignored the massacres of Blacks the Muslim and arabized Sudan government for almost fifty years. Further, the very notion of a "palestinian people" did not exist before establishment of the State of Israel. The Arab irregular forces in Jerusalem, for instance, tried to drive Jews out of the city starting after the UN General Assembly vote for the partition plan on 29 Nov 1947. Jews fled south Tel Aviv and the Jerusalem neighborhood of Shim`on haTsadiq in December 1947. The "palestinian people" notion is a trick used by those who hate Jews to justify massacring Jews. It has long been very strong in Britain [the "palestinian people" notion] and it was probably there that it was invented.
"the attitude of some (perhaps all) Americans to their flag comes a little too close to religious reverence" by WallyUK.
Smug? Naw.
Sneering? Nope.
Stiff up the ass? Never!
I have read several of Melanie Phillips' other writings and I have listened to her talks. She really is claiming that the mindset of identity politics took over in Britain due to the activism of certain groups--gays/lesbians and feminists among them. Laws were passed giving these groups special favors. And then this mindset got translated to Islamists as well, enabling them to demand their own special favors.
However, Melanie Phillips understands what many folks on both the Left and the Right do not--some minority groups have behaved better than others, and therefore, some minority groups deserve better consideration than others! The Left has attempted to treat Islamists the same way they have treated blacks, gays, lesbians--as yet one more minority group facing discrimination from the power structure, and hence deserving of special favors. (The fact that Islamists are advocates of sedition and subversion, the Left just ignores.)
But I think Melanie Phillips is engaging in a little bit of pandering to the American "Red State" Right (whom she lauds), when she implies that the activism of gays and lesbians and feminists in the last 30 years is specially to blame for all this. She knows better. She knows who Antonio Gramsci was.
The Communist Party and the rest of the radical Left had always championed the rights of various minorities, but for their own cynical purposes: Jews in the 1930's, blacks in the 1950's, welfare recipients in the 1960's, gays in the 1970's, and now Islamists. They never really cared about any of these groups particularly, but they used them as warm bodies, cannon fodder for their main goal: Destabilize and Balkanize the West.
But the Right has also chosen to treat these groups similarly--they've reflexively stood in the way of all their rights. In the 1950's, it took William F. Buckley and his then new magazine National Review to finally purge the Right of its traditional anti-Semitism. The Right was opposed to the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.
And now, the Weekly Standard reported on a recent poll of card-carrying rank-and-file Republicans as to the issues they cared about most. Most respondents said they cared more about ending same-sex marriage and abortion than they did about ending Islamist terrorism. That's right, these Republicans feel more threatened by gays and lesbians engaging in civil marriage than they do about Islamists threatening to terrorize the West if we don't submit to Islamic law.
We've now reached a stage in this country where the rank-and-file in neither major political party cares much about fighting Islamist terrorism. That's scary.
Cannibals are people too!
the attitude of some (perhaps all) Americans to their flag comes a little too close to religious reverence
Yes, but that's because they haven't got a Queen.
Steven L.
You indicated that Phillips is undoubtedly familiar with Gramsci. In what context do you think he is relevant to her discussion here, because in the US you have a situation where the left is certainly not in power? However, it is important to note that Gramsci was certainly a leftist - a communist. There are exceedingly few real communists in the US. Phillips, like so many other extreme religious conservatives, seems to make a fatal mistake of oversimplification of political affiliation that is so commonly heard in the US. More specifically, she incorrectly mixes the concepts of liberalism with leftism. The two are certainly not the same. I consider myself a liberal. I can assure you that I am not a leftist.
Phillips weakens her own arguments through her attacks on so many disfavored groups. Instead of opening the eyes of far more Britons, she creates a backlash. That is very unfortunate when we need to unify to prepare for a multifaceted campaign of attacking radical Islam on all fronts, both on the battlefield and in the media. Look what many Britons think when they here of her writing after it becomes so clear she is bigoted. http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2006/06/native_misinformants.html
Note that the author of that article is a gay man who is perplexed as to why there is no gay rights movement save the one by a handful of Lebanese Christian gays. of course, all of this takes place in "progressive and pluralistic" Lebanon (which, before the mujahedin arrive shortly, still has some non believers and Christians in it). Where are the "progressive" Moslems Mr. Whitaker? He is delusional about Islam.
She claims to be writing as an objective journatlist. That is hardly the case. Had an objective secularist made the same assertions that Phillips made about the Moslems, without the loudspeaker blaring religious “Judeo-Christian” baggage, her message would have resonated far further than it has. Instead, her own hatred blinded her to the need for unity. End the F-ing culture war Phillips, the enemy is within our midst and it aint a queer, feminist or black man you need to worry about.
The possiblity of editing.
I took a glance at my writing from last night. It is in dire need of editing. I suggest an edit feature with a time period on it if that is possible. I know. I know. It's called preview.
Ok, I'm tired. It's been a long day. G'nite.
Kafir - in the end though, isn't it the case that it is YOU who will be forced to choose sides merely to survive (as a minority "special interest" group") between the western Christians (the evangelicals being the only ones who are apparently in this fight) and the Muslims?
Won't gays ultimately have to align themselves (as a definite minority group) with one or the other? In other words, when push comes to shove, won't it be YOU who has to make the difficult choice rather than imagining, as you appear to do now, that it is somehow up to the majority culture to court your interests when the rest of the majority non-Muslim culture is forced into literal survival mode?
Unless what you mean to suggest is that the west cannot survive without your support? But how could that be? Are you suggesting that Gay westerners would throw their support behind Muslims? That seems unlikely because gays would be the biggest losers in that scenario. So who needs whom ultimately? And if it is the case that gays need westerners (Christians) then I don't understand what you're on about, to put it bluntly.
Caroline,
You present that "choice" argument as though there were two possible truths: Christianity and Islam. I reject both utterly. You also speak as though the moral islamic police was coming to my neighborhood and I must choose whether to join my Christian neighbors in a shot out contest. Come on now.
Neither is "truth" as you would have it. I stand with modern secular society. To the extent that either of the aforementioned groups confirm to a lawful modernity, they are free to exist. As we all know, Islam is highly unlikely to survive the test I have just described. There you have it.
kafir: "I stand with modern secular society."
Yes. I understand that. But does modern secular society (which I take it would include those who would vote to legalize gay marriage) ultimately have what it takes to defeat the jihad? Or do they have to align with the Christians to do it?
In other words, do you think that the modern secular society is in the forefront of the anti-jihad movement and that it is Christians who need to get on board with them or is it vica versa? Who needs whom?
Caroline,
Right now, few really get it. Secularists get it - they always hated Islam - but they simply do not see this Moslem threat as a grave one. Perhaps that are right in the sense that Islam is not as powerful as some would have us believe. Conservatives are still busy in attack mode against my status as a Sodomite, who has time to deal with Mohammedans?
I am glad to see that you as a Christian have realized that Islam is dangerous too. This was not the case for Christians previously that until recently, as I mentioned above, got cozy with their co-religionists to defeat communism. I hated communism too, but look what we have managed to replace it with. Christians have made many conversions of late. It's nice to hear that moving from fossil fuels for their large vehicles has been given sanction by your churches - as if Christians cared about the future of the planet before (our days were already predestined by your god). Now they are all so converted out of a desire to prevent more money from falling into their religious "competitors' for 'truth'" hands, they are so very suddenly concerned about the environment.
Steve is right. I read the Weekly Standard regularly. Conservative Americans are more concerned with gays marrying than they are about the Moslems. Fools. The leftists are too busy kissing Moslem arse and using them as a pawn. The leftists are also too busy defending themselves in the culture war that Christians are waging daily. To them, and to me, the social gains that were hard won are being assailed by marauding Christian corsairs intent on our destruction. When those Christianists let up, it would go a long way towards unifying the nation.
Here's an amusing thought for you: When the wahhabis come, I will practice gay/secular taqiyya and happily take the Shahada only to subvert them in any way I can at a later time. After all, no one is better at straight Taqiyya than we are. We gays are used to cloaking ourselves in all societies, Christian or Moslem. Don't you think we have practiced our entire lives? We learned it to stay alive Caroline.
Goodnight.
"It's nice to hear that moving from fossil fuels for their large vehicles has been given sanction by your churches - as if Christians cared about the future of the planet before (our days were already predestined by your god)."
This is unbelievable. This is the wholesale consumption of the most dark interpretations of commerce, automobiles, American culture, Christianity, and more Kafir Nonbeliever -- I fear you have some raging battles in your mind that need quick resolution. This depiction is so out of wack with the America that I know -- I'm left perplexed.
It's clear that Kafir Nonbeliever believes he's an isolated target between two horrific foes -- As a sign of the reality on the ground, does the huge defeat of the preposterous "Defense of Marriage" motion mean nothing? Even if it had past its first hurdles (which was never anticipated anyway), don't you recognize the gargantuan chasm between the supposed agenda of the Far Right, and the which would be meted out to atheists, Jews, Christians, Buddhists in an increasingly Islam tainted West?
The difference is gargantuan. The conflation of a false Western Christian cartoon version of reality with the genuinely soul crushing reality of fascist Islam is hysteria exemplified. I don't wish to sound harsh, but Kafir Nonbeliever, you need to get a hold of yourself.
Hey Caroline! How's shakes?
Kafir,
Melanie Phillips is not just trying to wake up Britain, but she's also trying to wake up America.
Most liberals in America will not buy the idea that there is something especially wrong with Islamic culture. (Go ask them.) If you do, then more power to you. You're almost alone among your fellow liberals in this.
So Melanie is reaching out to the American right-wing, where she thinks she has more of a chance to sell her pitch to oppose Islamism. And here, I think she is pandering to the American right-wing audience, because she knows all too well what issues really excite them. As I said, a poll of rank-and-file Republicans taken a few months ago showed that their top priorities were ending abortion and ending same-sex marriage. Their third priority appears to be a tough crackdown on immigration. Not just Islamist immigration; it's all immigration that they're really worried about. The bellwether election in California yesterday showed that immigration can still win elections for Republicans despite their disastrous track record in other areas. According to that poll, fighting Islamist terrorism was not a top priority for them.
So Melanie is trying to "sell" her ideas by piggy-backing them on top of the big concerns that most ordinary right-wing folks have, particularly in the heartland "Red States." She's pleading with the American right-wing to oppose Islamism, by including it in the "culture war" which includes bashing feminists, gays, lesbians, immigrants, hip-hop singers, Hollywood, etc.: As long as the American right-wing wants to crack down on Hispanic immigration, why not also include Muslims in that?
I don't like this one bit. But I have seen the reaction by the American right-wing to Andrew Sullivan. And you just saw Bush and the Republicans try (and fail) once more to get a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. Republican activists had told Bush that if he didn't endorse such a ban, they would stay home this November and not campaign or vote for Republicans at all.
So Melanie probably figures that she'll sell anti-Islamism any way she can. She'll try to sell it to an American right-wing that considers homosexuality to be sinful, abortion to be murder, and support of "Christian values" to be an important priority for the Federal government. That's whom she's got to work with.
I think Mel is confused. Muslim females and gays are persecuted and disenfranchised by this religion as much as everyone else. Hirsi Ali has liberated herself from Islam's strictures and is a strong, independent woman whom Mel has said she admires. Hirsi Ali is pretty much a feminist in my books. People like Peter Tatchell have been in the forefront of criticising the Mayor of London's decisions to invite mad mullahs at taxpayers expense to London. Of course, the left has used gay and women's rights in the past as platforms to push their own agenda. That doesn't mean that gays and feminists have to be lumped in with Islamists. There was a documentary shown on Channel 4 recently about the hardship and persecution of Muslim gays within their communities. We should be encouraging and helping these people, not slagging them off.
Melanie Phillips' analysis is remarkable and is particularly striking to me, as 99,9 % of what she says also applies to France. Although the moral situation in Britain is probably worse... the British civilisation is slightly more advanced than the French civilisation. I mean more liberal, more diverse... weirder in many ways. Hence it is also more "degenerated".
The mere fact that a Melanie Phillips addresses those issues publicly is precious (and very couragous from her -we have another woman who does the same in France, she speaks on a Canadian radio because no French radio will broadcast her). The fact that she is speaking to the American Right does not change anything. The French gay associations do not criticise Islamic homophobia. They only have a problem with the Pope, and the Catholics. Hence they are dishonest and coward, and do not deserve to be taken seriously.
The Catholics, the GOP etc, frown at the gays, and yes it is annoying that they frown at us. However, they will not kill us or "look in our beds" as JSLA prettily says. The Catholics are civilised people, nowadays, at least in France, and they accept homosexuality very easily (when they are not openly gay themselves).
But the Left, by supporting criminal ideologies, represents a real danger to the gays, and the gay associations are part of the Left (unfortunately... it comes from their weird idea that people's sexuality also must be "political").
My feeling is that the gay associations not only fail to denounce the Islamic homophobia, but also, because they have mixed all the issues and are mainly obsessed with destroying the Christian heritage and Western values, actually encourage homophobia -indirectly.
... and by the way, the gay assocations have never represented the gays... I believe most gay people dislike those associations which intrumentalise homosexuality to make their points. I should actually sue those associations which claim they are pro Palestinian and "Pro choice" etc etc., for stealing MY sexuality to appease their own political obsessions.
If only they did it cleverly... but they are gross. They think the Pope is evil and that's the end of their reflection. It has not crossed their mind that some homosexuals are conservative. Nope, beyond their intellectual abilities.
joiesauvage, you are one of the wild mens! And your brilliance shines like a diamond. I feel bad for Kafir Nonbeliever's pain, but I find that wallowing in the sump of self pity is repugnant.
How would it appear to non-Americans if every post I made mentioned how victimized I feel as an American from 9/11? That may be part of my motivation to post, but it hardly qualifies for a rational basis for my discussions. Professional victims seem to me to be like large plump babies hiding in the bodies of adults. They've become accustomed to being coddled and held when they cry and whine. They have become spoiled by that attention.
Worse: They marginalize themselves further than they already may be.
Even worse than that: They allowed themselves to become ensnared in a trap without an exit. There is no possibility that the things which made them feel like victims can be erased. Those things happened and are part of the past. That isn't to say they need to forget their suffering, or pretend it didn't happen. But the endless repetition of their sufferings also mean they endlessly re-experience the pain that suffering inflicted, even when it is not happening to them in reality.
Eventually everyone MUST shut their ears to this kind of pattern, no matter how valid their suffering was, or how valid other points they wish to make are.
I have coined a term "Victimology Pimp". It isn't a nice term, and it isn't meant to be. Maybe I should also coin another term: "Self Pity Whores" who work for the "Victimology Pimps". It is an ugly cycle and it distracts from the true menaces in the world.
JSLA, I am one of the wild WOmens lol. But I love you too. You are bright and patriotic. Have a good day.
(By the way I was just talking with a gay militant, a friend of mine... she said the gay associations are waking up and soon her association will organise a conference about homophobia and Islam... she invited me. I sure will go).
It was interesting when she said that the gay associations do not attack Islam because they "do not want to stigmatise a community" i.e. the Muslims. I said "but you stigmatise the Catholics all the time" and she said "errrr yes that is true, but the Catholics are not discriminated in their everyday life". I said "so if some ppl are discriminated they have the right to be homophobic ?" and as she is honest, she had to agree with me.
Encouraging...
JSLA:
Uh. I am not sure when I cried a river here. Nevetheless you seemed sincere in yuor concern. I am not sure where you got the impression that I was seeking sympathy. I am old enough to know I cannot expect much from people. I simply shared experiences with people with whom I share a great deal in common, fellow JWatchers.
joiesauvage:
Define militant gay. If that is a person who wants rights, than count me in for militancy. If you want a quiet, hard working, tax paying, patriotic, masculine gay who would likely shock you if you met him, I'm the one. I suppose I am militant too under your definition.
By the way, how is jsla patriotic anyway? Because he defends the US flag? We all defend it. We all love our countrys. Isn't that why we are here? Just because he disagrees about the first amendment (free speech) issue does not a patriot make. Im not questioning JSLA patroitism, but I want to make clear that superficial differences dont mean much.
As for the gays decrying Islam, they will. Well, you dont seem to like them joiesauvage. That's ok. I wouldn't be shocked if that's the case. I work in a highyl anti-gay environment every day, and life goes on. However, I see you are looking forward to the gay anti-Islam meeting. Interesting. Doesn't the company of "Sodomites" disturb you?
I just checked for you and "I'm_Gay_and_I_can't_stop_talking_about_it_even_when_it_gets_over_the_top.com is still available...
You seem to have a curious desire to continue talking about it too. Is there something you'd like to tell me?
Kafir, I was absolutely not refering to you, I was talking to JSLA, whom I like very much. I don't know what you are talking about. I am gay myself and I adore sodomites lol. I just dislike some gay associations because I find them dishonest. Their constant, gross anti Christianism does not sound very constructive to me and they mix political issues with gayness (they talk about immigration, abortion, and just about anything).
That's all ! Peace to you xxx.