[UPDATE: Greetings again to VFR readers. My comments on Mr. Auster's latest sally can be found toward the bottom of the comments field here.]
Al-Ghurabaa, the successor to the Omar Bakri jihadist group in Britain, Al-Muhajiroun, has been plastering the country with the sticker above (thanks to Kasper). Here is a letter to them about the stickers, and their response:
Your Letter:Dear Sir/Madam,
As a British citizen proud of the freedoms this nation allows me I was not impressed by your A5 flyers posted all over Bethnal Green this morning titled 'Islamic Values V British Values'.
By all means promote the value of your religion but please do not slander and insult British values.
By plastering these cheap posters on public spaces insulting my way of life you make me feel more not less negative to Islam and its values.
If you are an honest person with charitable values as you claim, I hope you will repremand those responsible for poorly plstering this antagonistic flyer in a public area, causing offence to myself and probably many other British citizens.
Kind regards,
peace be with you
Tom
Our Reply:
Thank your for your Letter.
Of course, although we understand from your letter that you disliked our sticker, we cannot stop doing whatever we can to better the British society for all of us, including you, me and everyone else. This cannot be done without to change the British Culture, removing all the British Values and teaching the people the Islamic Values. We must continue to discuss and debate this issue openly, especially in light of the British Governments recent arrogant efforts to push corrupted values and enforce this "britishness" that has already caused so much corruption and trouble in this country and abroad.
If it wasn't for the man-made way of life in britain, we would never have seen such high levels of crime, rape, alcoholism, homosexuality, adultery, theft, burglary, exploitation and terrorism in the UK and the world today! Why should we put up with all of this and so much more corruption in the society? Rather we must continue to struggle and change the British way of life and introduce and teach the Islamic Values to all, so that all the people in Britain can flourish.
Abdul Ilaah
Webteam
www.alghurabaa.co.uk
It's an important question, first articulated by Country Joe and the Fish: what are we fighting for? I recently had an unpleasant exchange with a commentator who believes we must fight to uphold the "whiteness of the West." I believe that idea is as repugnant as the one proffered by Al-Ghurabaa: that all Britain (and, by extension, the West) stands for is "crime, rape, alcoholism, homosexuality, adultery, theft, burglary, exploitation" and so on. We are not fighting for white supremacism and we are not fighting for debauchery. We are fighting for the values of Western civilization -- values that have become universal outside the Islamic world, and which are rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Among those values that are challenged by jihadists today are the equality of dignity of all people, the freedom of conscience (and thought, and inquiry), the nobility of artistic expression (including music and the representation of the human form), and the freedom, which is based on the Judeo-Christian idea of the dignity of the human person, to change religions or profess no religion. These things and others from the same Western tradition are worth defending: Al-Ghurabaa is setting up a false opposition -- which is, of course, just what they want to do.
The sticker and reply portends far reaching consequences methinks.
Individuals will band together for their own reasons. I'm not particualrly religious, but value my freedom (and then yours) above all else.I will not willingly submit to a theocracy or any other form of dictatorship. I'll fight for my right to be left alone.
Why we need honest teachers about the threat........There isn’t a major terrorist threat; just a little one. The massive overreaction called “the war on terror” is due to the fact that 9/11 hit a very big and powerful country that had the military resources to strike anywhere in the world, and strategic interests that might be advanced by a war or two fought under the cover of a crusade against terrorism. If 9/11 had happened in Canada, it would all have been very different.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=83326&d=6&m=6&y=2006
I'm sorry, but I can't stop laughing: "honesty" and "morality" are Islamic values?
Exactly Robert - Only morons want to replace Islamofascism with Nazism. Freedom and western civ ideals are more than enough to keep them away. We either fight for those ideal or lose them simple as that.
To do so: The Muslim must either comply with those ideals or face emmigation to a nation more suited for Islamists/Jihadists. Nothing else is possible for freedom to reign.
Of course, this Islamist sticker leaves out many cherished Islamic values like arrogance, slavery, kidnaping, beheadings, child abuse, stoning, hatred of all other religions and cultures, lying, thieving, stealing, extortion, exploitation and oppresion of women, terrorism, murder and general mayhem and ignorance. I'm sure Britain will be a great place to live in once they are the law of the land there -NOT!
The security forces have recently identified initial signs that World Jihad has begun building an ideological foothold in the West Bank, Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin said on Tuesday.
The head of the domestic security service told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that security forces recently arrested individuals in the Jerusalem and Nablus areas found with plans for terror attacks.
The plans were very general and did not include specific timetables.
Diskin reminded the Knesset committee that World Jihad also has an infrastructure set up in neighboring Jordan, but added that the Jordanian authorities are operating widely against the organization.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/723677.html
Since Islam is a religion of human debasement and subjugation, its ardent practitioners are experts at this game. This is a slick operation by very slick practitioners. We under-estimate Muslims, their intentions, and ALL of their actions to our peril -- as we see nearly every day now.
Also, take note of the truculence in the response - Without becoming even more demoralized, may I suggest that our British and European friends need to examine all the cues and signals they're giving off which have encouraged Muslims to think about you and your cultures in this manner.
The searing disregard for you as evidenced in the stickers AND the subsequent triumphal response is OMINOUS. Lies and conflations aside, encapsulated right before your eyes is a message, devoid of abstraction, and crystal clear in its contempt.
If sometimes I become quite sharp in my criticisms of our British Canadian and European friends here, it is with the intent of shocking you out of pleasant reveries about who you've allowed youselves to be surrounded by. Surely you can see how all of them are mortal enemies, if they promulgate or practice Islam. It's impossible to detach the noxious message above from the Islamic ball of wax. It has never been done. It never will be done.
I posted this earlier at JW -- perhaps it's germain here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009604.php
from: "What my friend and I were doing is part of our individual freedom."
The laughable and tragic part about this tale is the UTTER hypocrisy of all Muslim culture... They pretend there is no prostitution in Islam, pretend the A.I.D.S. virus doesn't exist, pretend they don't have STDs, pretend there is no fornication, pretend there is no dirt in Islam, pretend that child rape isn't going on, pretend that child rape is not sanctioned by their "religion" and the behavior of their psychotic "prophet", pretend that drug abuse doesn't exist in Islam.... ALL of it lies, all of it pathologically delusional. They disavow their flaws by foisting them on the "other" -- that is, the "infidel" or the "Jew", they systematicall cleanse their innumerable crimes by projecting them onto others, thereby exonerating themselves, and further dehumanizing those whom they want to destroy...
It is a very effective ideology... It is the world's largest dysfunctional family... Until we begin to throw their hypocrisy back in their lying faces, until we utterly reject their tendency to pretend that all the filth inherent in their culture or the insanity replete in their "religion" is somehow OUR fault, we will not begin to stop their grotesque lies... we will not begin to win back our future from their dark designs...
The sordid truth about Islam must be exposed for the festering sore that it is... When they foist their horror, their crime, their deficiency upon us -- we must do everything in our power to hold the mirror up to their filthy lying faces, and not allow them to squirm away from the horror of their system of beliefs. Our decency, our unwillingness to repudiate them, to point out their obvious flaws and failures in the vain hope that they will admit what we all know is failing -- in fact, it only fuels their dark delusions of superiority in the face of mountains of evidence that they are inferior and that Islam is a disease for humanity...
Posted by: jsla at December 30, 2005 07:05 PM
White, Black, Brown, Yellow, Red or Green supremacists. They all infer superiority and I want none of that. I too will fight to be left alone. State terrorism, What? Exploitation, Huh? Homosexuality, I don’t condone it but I don’t want them jailed or killed. Alcohol, don’t drink and drive. Gambling, never bet more than you can afford to lose. Did I miss anything?
someone should think about the poster that should be plastered throughout England. something like...
British values: scientific inquiry, Christian virtue, basic freedoms, and tolerance of private belief
Effect of Islam on society: blasphemy laws, honor killings, tyranny, political violence, intolerance of other traditions, and submission to a deity interpreted by an ego-sensitive mass murderer
... I know this is not yet catchy, but you can improve it.
"we cannot stop doing whatever we can to better the British society for all of us, including you, me and everyone else. This cannot be done without to change the British Culture, removing all the British Values and teaching the people the Islamic Values."
Wow. People who think that way have got to be exiled from the country in which they are living or jailed and reformed for subversion.
5 Years ago I would have thought that sounded harsh and old fashioned but thanks to Islamic Jihad we all know better now.
Europe likely has a bigger muslims population that the US but I can imagine muslims in the US getting away with saying their religion supercedes the values (and by logical extrapolation the laws) of a nation.
The temptation to numerous vices, including greed, envy, vanity, sexual excess, gluttony, violence, etc. are characteristics of human beings, no matter what society they happen to be born into. It is the oldest trick in the book for a collectivist ideology to claim, without proof (and in the case of modern Islam, in the face of 1400 years of mountainous contrary evidence), that the opposing ideology is the root cause of those vices. "Just put us in absolute power and all those terrible vices will certainly disappear, because we are pure of mind and spirit. Of course, we will have weed out a few obstinate millions of souls in a messy purge along on the way to achieve our utopia, but once there, trust us, everything will be swell."
The true test of an ideological system is to confine a group humans within its domain and see what happens--see who rises to the top, so to speak. One such experiment for Islam is happening in Iraq right now. How do you like the results so far? Such a wonderful model for all humanity.
please add "deception." the truth will set you free.
What a great advert by our arrogant friends pushing their fascist cult. I hope they plaster the WHOLE of the UK with these stickers, making sure that everyone can see where we are going wrong.
Go on Al-Ghurabaa, please, please, please educate us all. Then we can make our minds up. And when we decide we are not buying just get out of here and go to somewhere where you and your brothers can dictate, bully, kill and deceive to your hearts content you hypocrites.
I'm just surprised they can get away with printing the sticker. Just consider the flip-side, if non-Muslims had printed a sticker that listed Muslim values (we can all read that litany of mayhem in our sleep by now). Think of the outcry in the media, the politicians fighting each other to be first at the microphone to denounce the racist scaremongers who printed the stickers. Think of the Muslim riots in cities all over the world. How many dead would there be?
Again, the apologists are telling us how the Muslims are "just like us", they share the same values as us. Again, the Islamists make it clear that they are not like us, they have very different values from ours, and their values are incompatible with ours. Why won't we listen?
Incidentally, I don't think the Islamic version of "family values" (wife-beating, pedophilia, bigamy) are going to go over very well in the UK.
I completely agree with all the above posters, especially Turbinehead and jsla: that sticker didn't take long to appear on my own blog. I could almost hug the creator of that propaganda-par-excellance. Please, more of that, Mr. Islam-will-dominate-the-world. I can't get enough of such material!
(I want to hang you with it.)
special_guest - Print them I will buy you a printer or pay form them if need be. In fact you just gave me a great idea, thank you, stay tuned.
I was told years ago by a friend who spent his childhood in Saudi Arabia (son of an oil engineer) who tole me that upside down maps were very popular in Saudi Arabia, and that their maps placed Saudi Arabia (Mekkah actually) at the very center.
I have never given it another thought until this moment. It occurs to me that the importance of placing the word Islam over Britain is probably graphically important and significant to Muslims. This also comports with all the stories about requirements to place the Koran on the higher bookshelves in stores, and the placement of Mosques directly over older church and temple sites. There's a subtle but significant message in that graphic choice, if you know how they think...
Still no word on the "poison suicide vest". But Bruce Schneier has an interesting link to an article on chemical and biological weapons at the Register:
Homebrew chemical terror bombs, hype or horror?
Other Islamic values:
Slavery, sanctioned by Qur'an and Sunnah. Exhibited in 1350 years of the practice, including:
1. Tens of millions of black African slaves, a great many of them young males castrated on site, and then taken by slave coffle and dhow to the Islamic slave markets. Mortality rate: 90%.
The British stamped out the slave trade from Africa in the Persian Gulf (see J. B. Kelly, Britain and the Persian Gulf, 1795-1880 or for relevant quotes, google the book title and "Jihad Watch"); the French stopped the slave trade in North Africa. There was never a Muslim William Wilberforce, and could not be; slavery was practiced by that Perfect Man, Muhammad.
2. Millions of people from Western Europe, captured by Muslim raiders who went up and down the coasts -- not merely of nearby Italy and France, but all the way to Ireland and even, on one occasion, on Iceland, making off with a village. Looting, murdering, raping, and of course seizing Infidel slaves. For one example, see "White Gold" by Giles Milton, about Thomas Pellow of Cornwall. For more on Pellow immediately, google "Thomas Pellow" and "Jihad Watch."
3. Millions of people taken from the Balkans and the Slavic regions, and the Caucasus. Girls taken from Georgia and the Caucasus, for harems. Men and boys taken for other services.
4. The Mameluke system, the "slaves on horseback" who were such an important institution in Islam. See David Ayalon's collection of essays, "Islam and the Abode of War," especially the second essay, "Mamluk: military slavery in Egypt and Syria."
An end to slavery among the Arabs was supposedly achieved, and then only in 1962, as a result of Western pressure, in Saudi Arabia.
In truth it has never ended, for it accords with the letter and spirit of Islam. Blacks are still enslaved in Mauritania and the Sudan, and even, according to reports, and to Ayaan Hiri Ali, still alive and well in darkest Saudi Arabia. And those who work behind those palace walls in Saudi Arabia -- those Asian girls, from Thailand and India and the Philippines -- well, just what do you think happens to them? How different is their treatment from that of your worst imaginings about female slaves anywhere?
Occasionally a rich Saudi or Kuwaiti or other Arab couple takes along one or two of their house slaves with them to their villeggiatura in London (Park Lane, Cadogan Gardens, name your modest abode in Mayfair or Belgravia) (slavery just didn't look good)) or Virginia Water or Upperville or McLean, Virginia (kids enrolled at the Islamic school, parties for all kinds of Washington bigwigs who need to be impressed) and that domestic slave makes a run for it, and then there is a small article about it in (The Times, The Telegraph, The Washington Post) and then money is passed to lawyers, threats are made about oil and business contracts, and the whole thing is hushed up rather quickly.
That's Islam.
But there's so much more.
In the very same horrifying vein.
According to Diskin, weapons smuggling into Gaza has reached unprecedented proportions. Since the Israeli pullout which left the Egyptian-Gazan border in the hands of Egypt and the Palestinian Authority, Arab terrorists have succeeded in smuggling 11 tons of TNT into Gaza.
Aside from TNT, which vastly improves terrorists’ ability to manufacture more deadly Kassam rockets and explosive vests for suicide bombers, terrorists have smuggled massive quantities of other weapons across the Egypt-Gaza border.
Among the new weapons at the terrorists’ disposal were 10,000 rifles, 1600 pistols, RPG’s, Katyushas, and shoulder fired Strella missiles. The latter are capable of downing civilian aircraft. Some of the new weaponry entered Gaza viahttp://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=104926 the Rafiah crossing with Egypt.
So much for when in Rome do as the Romans do. It is pretty obvious that assimilation is not on the muslim agenda. This certainly proves that multiculturism is an abject failure.
Hugh:
I have to wonder how much of the white slave trade that is actively fought by the United States and Interpol in Eastern Europe is not just funded by thugs and gangsters, but actively endorsed and paid for by Muslim sheiks and the like?
This poster is excellent for us beyond how it should alienate this British. Islam's greatest weakness is in fact its family values. What type of family values are honor killing and the subjugation of women?
The disparagement of homosexuality is also positive for us. Gay people with the misfortune of being in Islamic cultures also represent a valuable fifth column against Islam. While Muslim women are often so misogynistic that they are willing accomplices--even instigators--to the honor killing of their daughters, Muslim women are in a situation where they become excessively and perhaps unhealthily attached to their sons. Most Muslim women will not want to kill their own sons as honor demands, but will want to advance their son's interest in society. These mothers will be intense in fighting for their sons. This is just as the mothers of gay children will ultimately undermine the Christian Right objections to gay marriage in Christian Right churches. There is no greater aid in fighting Islam extremism than creating a group of people in Muslim societies that have to fight to the death against Muslim piousness.
Support for women, gay rights, and a positive vision of family values should be the cornerstone of fighting Islam. As such, it should be the cornerstone of US foreign policy.
Anecdotal evidence from friends who have travelled in certain countries, and who have had remarkable encounters with blue-eyed Western women who, behind their niqab, begged for help, and were then whisked away by other women in black and burly guards, suggests that there is all kinds of stuff going on that, if the Western governments wished to make known to their own publics, they could -- but they don't because they are dead set on winning contracts from the Saudis and other rich Arabs.
As for Turkey, it is full of brothels, for local Turks, having their way with "natashas" -- all those wretched, and deceived girls, from Moldava, from Ukraine, from elsewhere who are lured by pimps (often women promising "employment") and then held prisoner for the delectation of those Turks exhibiting that fine sense of "morality" that the poster for Al-Gurabba (Islamic Values vs. British Values) mentions above. Again, not much attention, not much outcry. Why not?
Because the same rule applies there as it does to those who keep promoting and protecting the Saudis in Washington and other Western capitals:
Les affaires sont les affaires.
It annoys me to the extreme to be associated with white supremacists. It has me chewing my own foot off in rage to see that they are the only British political party prepared to address the problems islam is causing, and more importantly is going to cause.
People I speak to both on the net and in real life, on discovering that I see islam as a problem, routinely assume that I am racist, homophobic, xenophobic, and a facist. Even by people I've known for years, and I am none of these things.
It is a real problem, and one that the mainstream political parties are all too well aware of. The recent poll showing 25% of Londoners would consider voting BNP has hopefully hit home with the Tories, though they're of course still denying they're worried about islam in public. FFS, they have to take note - nothing like 25% want to see the BNP actually in power. It's just the one area of their policy that is appealing.
What would be the horrors enacted if per chance an Islamic party would come into power in one of the western nations .. Norway, England, France?
How many people would they purge (kill, maim, torture) to achieve the Islamic values the sticker above portrays?
Even thinking about this; is enough to scare me.
"Les affaires sont les affaires."
Should that be translated as "Their affairs are their own." or "Business is business."?
That deserves a re-write:
http://i5.tinypic.com/11v017q.jpg
Here's a case of people trafficking, rape, and false imprisonment by the Saudi authorities. The case is of a 16-year-old girl of Pakistani origin:
Saudi Arabia: Rape Victim Jailed Under Islamic Law
Wasn't the invasion of the Indian subcontinent by Islam a boon? People in parts of it lost their whole religion, culture, and history. Now their children are enslaved, raped, and then punished for being raped by the Saudis.
And people in Pakistan actively welcome their own subjugation and see Islam as "the answer". Well, if Islam is the answer, the question must have been a damn silly one.
I am sure the moderate islamic groups will be queuing to to condemn this bigotry and Ken Livingstone, the Grauniad and other assorted gay friendly groups will be condemning the homophobia.
Homosexuality is a specifically "British value"? Exquease me, but I've never gotten more offers for gay sex than during my forays into the Muslim world. Afghanistan was the most "exemplary" in this regard.
Expressions of homosexuality in the western world are generally expressions of a person's nature. In the dar al islam, however, they are almost always the product of men being unnaturally separated from normal contact with the opposite sex, like in prisons.
I also witnessed a lot of petty thievery and other criminal expressions in Iraq.
Is this add a cover for the real "Islamic values" ?
Jan III Sobieski, that was pretty good. I wonder what Robert would say to your changing the Web address to www.jihadwatch.org.
again, here is Jan's current candidate:
http://i5.tinypic.com/11v017q.jpg
Maybe there's a legal implication to using someone else's design. I don't know what is acceptable use, but this issue is important because anti-Islamic parody is on the list of excuses for violence and lawsuit among the sharia crowd.
Said C.S. Lewis (whom the sharia crowd should read extensively), "The devil hates to be mocked."
Assalamau- Laikum all,
This certainly made me have a little titter and I feel that it has caught many of you peoples out.
For your expectations of Islam is physical terror & possibly death....and what do get instead...a poster...the british way of doing things....what a turn of the book.
I would certainly take exception to "state terrorism" but could eaily add wild slutty womens behaviour.
You may not agree with what the poster says but a poster is a good step away from terrorism....give credit where it is due.
I also think it is a positive step to prepare the british peoples for their future...and that is Islam.
Naseem, you're disasterously mistaken if you think the future of the British people is islam. We much prefer the wild and slutty behavior of our women - and you must allow that it's fun even for those who only spectate. We'll fight for that and for the rest of our vices, when we get it into our thick skulls that the time has come. You may well be making gains elsewhere, but you underestimate the strength of the British culture. Being undefinable is what we like about it.
i think it's pretty pathetic that "Tom" used the "I'm offended" argument instead of coming back with real British/Western values. People don't seem to know what our values are anymore, and what "value" means at all. That's the result of decades of being told everywhere how bad the West and the white race are.
This "Tom" deserves the answer he got. He came across as whiny and impotent, just like all those who cry "offense."
wild slutty womens... LOL
What al-Bakri is NOT saying is that Islam incorporates first-degree murder into its ideology. Stonings, anyone? Beheadings? Dismemberment? Polygamy? Executions for apostasy? Burqas? Human trafficking? So,this is Islamic honesty? Charity? family-oriented? (I wonder if Saudis take their families to Chop-Chop Square on Friday nights to view homosexuals and other lucky recipients of Islamic charity and honesty being beheaded).
Isn't it odd Muslims have never understood that their religion's imperatives have been made more important than life itself. Yet without life itself these religious imperatives could not exist. In Islam it does not matter what a person thinks or feels about its so-called "virtues." Islamic virtues are literally shoved down your throat until you are so numb they become meaningless abstractions. Muslims obey because their mosque will off them if they don't approve. Isn't that just peachy!
Are you up for all that, fellow Brits?????If you are YOU can submit. As for me-----
I'll take the 'poofs' and 'materialismo' and other peccadilloes of Britain and other western nations ANY DAY over Islam's virtues. I'll take ANYTHING over Islam for that matter.
By the way, Muslims never effectively proved who or what al-lah ACTUALLY is anyway.
A strong case can be made that al-lah is a synonym for Satan (as in Lucifer of Biblical infamy). Worship of such an entity?????????
No thanks al-Ghurabaa.
Naseem said
I think most people here have expressed support for this sticker, see above. We do appreciate the bluntness of the message. It is most refreshing. The more we learn about Islam, the better. Thank you.
As for the wild slutty women, I don't suppose you got a number, did you?
"You may not agree with what the poster says but a poster is a good step away from terrorism....give credit where it is due."
So when ur not blowing us up u just insult us?
"I also think it is a positive step to prepare the british peoples for their future...and that is Islam."
The nazis had ideas on us aswell, so not only do u sound like a nazi u will fail like a nazi.
Naseem
I'm afraid you are getting ahead of yourself. Moslems in England are still a minority and they tend to live in their own area's. Have you noticed how we move away when you move in. You think we are weak because you believe the BBC and the MSM but you don't know me and my fellow English men and women. You don't speak to the people I speak to everyday. We don't want you or your islam. If you doubt me bring it on.
Hugh:
I had a feeling that was the case. Since I have an unrivaled hatred of rapists due to some personal history, the Muslim harem keepers who attain kidnapped women should hold their breaths if I ever gain a seat of political power in this world. I have a couple of books I have not gotten to that deal with the history of slavery, etc. and I'm sure that much of what you've touched on will be discussed in more detail in those reads.
But let me be clear: I view all slavers as cowardly, rapist pigs of the lowest order. Muslim or not, whether they be Russian mobsters pimping girls onto porn sites or Muslim Shieks adding to their polygamy count, it all amounts to the same kind of human trash to me.
A5 flyers posted all over Bethnal Green this morning
Two thoughts.
1 They have pinched my idea, I used to put stickers up which say :-
Sharia? Taqqyia? Dhimmitude?
You won’t like it!
Google Bat Yeor
Visit www.jihadwatch.org
www.faithfreedom.org
No Islam - Know peace.
until I realised that you can't take a sticker home to look up the address so now I leave the same message on little bits of paper, especially inside library books.
2 Bethnal Green is my ancestoral homeland. My Nanwould be turning in her grave.
Naseem you can't possibly be a muslim. You consitently greet non muslims with Assalamau- Laikum and that is verboten by der Prophetfuhrer.
Fess up. 14? live in middle america? book smart? a bit of a loner? dress goth? bigtme Marilyn Manson fan? into that whole "shock factor" thing?
=)
the Brits should put up their own fyers,
British Values: freedom of religion, speech, open to newcomers, charity, even to those muslims down on their luck via tsuamis, earthquakes, muslim dictators. etc.
Muslilm Values: no freedom of religion, no freedoms of speech, less value of life for non-muslims, or women in general. prefered entertainment: heheadings
with a dule knife, stoneing, poor hygiene, no plumbing, no modern technology, have to borrow it from the Brits.
you wonder why these muslims leave their ratholes and go to Western countries..Nasseem dont make me laugh.
She can't help it.
I enjoy Naseem to a degree, but I think DefenderofIslam is the best -- a talented wordsmith missing his anvil.
BRITISH VALUES-
FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, BELIEF & EXPRESSION
ISLAMIC VALUES-
SLAVERY TO INTOLERANT, DOGMATIC 'SUBMISSION'
Islamic values:
Worshiping Allah - Praying five times each day with their fundaments pointing skyward. Performing the ridiculous wudu before entering a Mohammedan armory; apparently, Isalm values a clean body above a clean mind.
Honesty - Honesty toward fellow traveling Mohammedans, but a different "honesty" toward non-Mohammedans.
Charity - Charity to Mohammedans, but neglect toward non-Mos.
Family values - The husband is the owner of the wife and is allowed to kill any realative who dishonors the family.
morality - ?????????
I forgot to say that Islamic family values sound very close to Corleone Family values. Look at what happened to Fredo.
55 posts later, I can't belive that none of you noticed that Abdul Ilaah's response was a ballsy one. Somehow, he missed tha taqiyya lessons at his local madrassah - this is more than Robert could have achieved had he been granted a 24 hour marathon interview by BBC, ITV, SkyNews, and every newspaper in London.
The alternative explanation is that Islam has gained such a critical mass in the UK that they feel emboldened to be that brazen about it. Ought to tell people where New Labour has flushed the UK.
Actually, in the dept of shining the light of truth on Islamic activities, I'd support al-Muhajiroun's idea of plastering these stickers on every lamppost in the UK, and egg them on. I would also take printouts of the follow-up correspondence between Tom and Abdul, for all to see. Even the BNP couldn't top that.
This is one more of those "it's there for all to see" cases in Britain - similar to the anti-cartoon demonstrations in February. After all, what's obvious to us here on J/W isn't obvious to the average Tom, Dick and Harry in Britain, so they need to see this for what it is, and hear about their goals from the horses mouths, instead of having us "Islamophobes" spread truthful propaganda about them. If this doesn't wake the Brits up, don't rule out another 7/7.
Keep talking, Abdul Mian, keep talking.
Jsla says "we will not begin to win back our future from their dark designs...
we must do everything in our power to hold the mirror up to their filthy lying faces, and not allow them to squirm away from the horror of their system of beliefs".
Jsla...how many more times are we muslims to be the viticm of such terrible words. Most muslims would be reviled by YOUR level of hate...that is what YOU need to look at in the mirror.
Think for a moment what you are saying...how your are saying it ....and what this means.
What are you to do with muslims who are british born & here to stay....many of whom will marry your pristine white daughters....and the burka wearing muslim offspring they will produce. They will have your very british blood running through their pale veins.
Many of you will have (loving) muslim sons-in-law ... (our kid) so you better get used to saying Assalamau-Laikum and having the obligatory compass and prayer matt in the spare bedroom...after all this is just common curteosy.
In this situation, could you say such things about the man that you pretty daughters have brought home. Also please note how their behaviour has changed and how they urge their mums to give up smoking & convert too.
And what about your childrens playing with muslim childrens in school. What if your daughter brings home Najma from her class who wears a burka and is her friend. Can you say don't play with that "paki"? Will you teach her racist attitudes?
You peoples go ranting and raving here...and not facing upto the reality infront of you.
Soon all your butchers will be muslim...all your meat will be Halal (jews...please take notice), your bank manager will be muslim offering you a fairer Islamic based mortgage...guaranteed by those nice peoples in Saudi.
Also listen out from those loudspeakers from mosque minerets at 5am in the morning and learn to appreciate those hero muslim cricketers who finally help you to win some cricket matches.
This Jsla is reality....learn to integrate and stop shouting ...nobody is at home...they have all gone to pray in the mosque.
Peace & Jilbabs be with you...
This is such bull crap, nothing more than pure TREASON!! The people who put these stickers up should be rounded up and jailed/deported. This is a direct assault on the British gov't and people and SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED! Can you imagine if a Christian group put this type of thing up against the gov't or *gasp* muslims!?!? The outcry and condemnation would be huge, but if it's from a muslim, uh oh, don't want to be a racist! To all my British brethren, STAND FIRM! Raise this matter with everyone, you guys are more on the forefront of the islam problem than your cousins in the US (that'd be me). ;) I am grateful to hear that your population (meaning muslims excluded) is getting sick and tired of islam in your country (as it should be). May God bless you and bring a peaceful solution to this problem.
Your long lost cousin,
Erik
I love it! You gotta hand it to the Muzzies, every time it looks like they might be gaining, they unzip and step on it!
Yes, they are stupid people alright, with not a wit of understanding of strategy. Unfortunately, they know that the West feels so confident in its own culture, that it will not react negativity to islamic propaganda. And that is indeed the case.
Anti-muslim propaganda, however, gets a swift reaction because people intuitively know that islam is a filthy third-world cult, and so it is very simple to spread that truth to rationally-minded people. Thus, any attempt to spread that word is treated very seriously as a hate crime.
Conversely, any attempt to convey the idea that islam is superior to the west, is so patently ludicrous that the government feels it has the luxury to ignore it. And to a great degree that is also the case. Witness these posters.
Naseem:
Islam is doomed even if you do not believe us posters here.
There is a such thing as Cause and Effect aka karma.
Because Islam incorporates first degree murder into its ideology and has slaughtered more human beings than any other force in human history, it is first and foremost a killing machine. That is what Islam does (and is) and that is what the universe sees. Our actions catch up with us. And it is our actions that really shape our inner selves. If you massacre or support terrorism the universe knows one way or another. We cannot change that and there is no hiding from that reality either.
And the time will come when Islamic ideology and its killer-zombies will have to pay for their murders. Even if Muslims were told (and believed) killing was necessary for the continued practice of Islamic ideology, the universe knows when killing is unjustified and will take care of that on its own. Islamic killing mostly is NOT justified and the universe will respond accordingly in its way. Islam attempts to rewrite the universe and its laws--and fails, so beware.
The universe knows Islamic ideology commands that its followers pray and kill people.
So, Naseem, remember KARMA IS A BITCH!!!!!!!!!!
OK, Naseem -- You're my favorite, not DefenderofIslam -- I had no idea you'd be so put out.
Still, I think Defender deconstructs the English Language more beautifully than you. But BOTH your hearts are pure, of that we can be sure!
Better?
Naseem,
thank you for reminding us all just what this jihad struggle is all about.
Hitler promised the Germans that he would get rid of the Jewish influence. Today's jihadists want to get rid of the influence of liberated women on Muslim culture.
In the weeks immediately after 9-11, I heard a radio report on how so many young African men were converting from Christianity to Islam. They said one big reason was because they didn't like what they saw in America. And what didn't they like about America? "In America," they said, "all your women dress like half-naked sluts."
Male dominance is an integral part of Muslim culture. And when we hear claptrap about "Islamic values," I would like them to list what they think the rights of women are in Islamic society. Not just Muslim women, but also non-Muslim women who happen to be living in a Muslim country. Do women have the right to wear bikinis in public? To sunbathe topless on the beach? To choose whom they want to marry? To have sex before marriage? To have a husband jailed for wife-beating? To have a boyfriend jailed for date rape? And are non-Muslim women entitled to the same rights that Muslim women have in these areas?
I'm guessing the answer to all these is: No.
There's a real strain of misogyny in everything going on in Muslim nations: rampant wife-beating, women covered in burqas from head to toe, forced arranged plural marriages, the list is endless.
Young Muslim men, like all young men, are feeling those "raging hormones." But in Western society, they are being forced to treat women as equals, not as chattel. And that frustrates the hell out of them because their culture doesn't teach them how to deal with that. Along come these radical Muslim preachers, reassuring these young Muslim men that when Islam triumphs, those "wild slutty women" will be put in their place once more.
Nazism told Germans it was all right to satisfy their blood lust by murdering Jews. And Islam tells young men it's all right to abuse and degrade women.
Robert asks: "what are we fighting for?"
Well, thanks to Naseem, I think you have your answer, in a concise form that would even fit on a bumper sticker: We are fighting for the right of women to be wild and slutty.
Don't laugh. What Naseem calls "wild and slutty," we Westerners call "strong willed, independent, playful and fun loving." And that seems to be noticeably lacking in fundamentalist Muslim societies.
They only thing they'd know about a "strong willed, independent, playful and fun loving" woman would be how to kill her.
This poster is excellent for us beyond how it should alienate this British. Islam's greatest weakness is in fact its family values. What type of family values are honor killing and the subjugation of women?
Don't forget polygamy, incest, and the frequent mental and physical defects resulting from consanguineous marriages, traditional in tribal societies.
One must feel very special to have dozens of half siblings, a distant, distracted father who is only interested in the sexual gratification provided by multiple wives, and who doesn't even know the names of his many offspring, much less establishes relationships with them. Add spousal and child abuse and the inherent Islamic contempt for females and you've got a perfect family.
Why are muslims in Western societies? Our "leaders" have miserably failed us in so many ways I cannot count them all but the muslim invasion is more than a failure, it is a contemptible crime. They should all be held accountable for what they have done to us.
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...
Varma! Try not to cross post in each thread!
Actually, Al-Ghurabba might be onto something here. It's possible that if the Brits were to give up their state terrorism, exploitation, homosexuality, gambling, alchohol & wild slutty women, they might have some free time to learn how to play cricket.
Naseem said
Once again, the poor Muslims have suffered horribly at the hands of the infidels. Once again, they have undergone their own 9/11 or 7/7. Once again, the only response can be [cue the uulations....wait for it....wait for it]...MORE JIHAD!!!!
Islam will not allow crossbreeding with the infidel dogs and rats. To befriend (let alone fornicate with) Jews/Christians/Hindus/atheists is halal. You can keep your compass and prayer mat; the spare bedroom is where we keep the Mohammad dartboard.
Naseem is absolutly correct in her visions. And unless the liberals in the west allow for cut off thier welfare states muslims/islam has already won by simply out breeding the infidels. Most ironic of the whole scenario is the leftists and thier ideals will be most harmed living under Shaira law! Most will be slaughterd! While defenders of freedom and Conservative Catholics like me can make a relativly easy transistion.
Me likes them 'wild & slutty womens' and they likes me too!
Me drinks a bit and has a good game of poker too...
Me no likes them burkha-hijab-jilbab bulls*#t...
Me no likes them beardy, smelly kaftan-men cooking explosives and preaching hatred...
Me no likes them mosques in the neighborhood...
Me likes to take action to export this cult, lock stock & barrel, sooner is better...
How 'bout right NOW?
How I love this. What we should be doing is sending letters to Tony Blair urging him to fund this and turn it into a national campagne it should be printed especially on Beer mats and posted on Double Decker buses, it is this continual needling that is getting to the indigenous Brit, you can see it clearly in the smouldering row over the English Flag offending Muslims. In my young days when I grew up in the heart of the English countryside you saw the Cross of St. George from the top of the local Church for Christmas Easter etc. but hardly at any other time. I have not been back to my own country in years but I'll bet it is being flown everywhere and flown with pride. By the way Granny Weatherwax I think I would have liked your Nan.
I'll take the British values any day. Hey can't we make stickers of 'Human values' vs. islamic values'.
Steven L says "Don't laugh. What Naseem calls "wild and slutty," we Westerners call "strong willed, independent, playful and fun loving."
Now there you go again trying to put words in my mouth. There are plenty of "strong willed and fun loving" womens in Islam too.
It is the "independent, playful" aspects that I *strongly* question. These are not compatible for humankind.
Independent means moving away from Allah SWT and ignoring the checks & balances created so carefully and meaningfully in the Quaran.
Playful aspects are the slutty dressing up , alcohol and cigarette smoking, one-nite stand issues that you are so proud of.
All these wilful aspects need to be (gently) controlled....womens need be brought back in the way of Allah....back to the cloth if you will.
You are cutting yourselves off...by independence they also mean ...no childrens....now this may be OK for you ...but not for Islam....so this must change....it is all our duty to get this right ...as we prepare for Islam proper and onto Calipah rule.
Remember...those who control the womens (gently) will rule ....only peace & jilbabs matter
Naseem
You are not what you seem.
How unseemly,
Are the Naseemlies.
Womens and childrens
are aware
So beware.
Having had a look at www.alghurabaa.co.uk - the source of the repugnant stickers in question - I stumbled upon the following answer to a letter from a concerned non-Muslim:
"We must be honest with the non-muslims if we are to invite them to Islam, we need to be honest in all our sayings that we DO believe in Jihad, we DO believe in violence, we DO believe in terrorizing the enemy of Allah, we DO believe in fighting for the sake of Allah and supporting the mujahideen and we DO believe that the one who insults the prophet (saw) must be killed under Islamic law and that is the DIVINE punishment set by Allah and is the ONLY suitable solution."
How can this website be allowed to operate? At least it gives us a clear insight into the minds of the Jihadists in Britain..
it gives us a clear insight into the minds of the Jihadists in Britain..
Yes, quite a valuable resource isn't it?
Naseem, time to come out of dream world. While you claim that Islam is growing; Christianity is growing much faster, with the global south being in the driver's seat and all set to send missionaries to the west to do the Lord's work of evangelizing the west and bringing it home to Christ and the Christian faith.
This URL explains it futher :
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/1255-.html
Naseem,
"Remember...those who control the womens (gently) will rule ....only peace & jilbabs matter "
Meaning to control as to "oppress" women?
I dont know if it's already been stated because I haven't had the time to read all the posts but I'd like to point out that bethnal green is none other that "gorgeous" George Galloways "manor" and constituancy.
Shorely shome coincidence?
Please excuse my flippancy but the muslim mind makes me laugh so much sometimes I find hard to function.
Here I sit in my lovely part of the peak district friendless but oddly smug.
Why?
10 plus years ago telling everyone I knew that the influx of islamic culture and the building of mosques will eventually be a thorn on our sides and should be stopped at all costs.
I hate to say I told you so but the P.C. useful idiots sold us out many moons ago.
I do however encourage such islamic behaviour and would even help distribute such ordure.
Because as the saying goes "give em enough rope"
Your average man in the street Brit will not tolerate this for much longer.
It just takes us longer to get worked up but when we do we can repel any threat.
Here I sit in my lovely part of the peak district friendless..
You are definitely not friendless here. Let us know when you blokes start getting worked up. We will be here.
"Please excuse my flippancy but the muslim mind makes me laugh so much sometimes I find hard to function."
Jaw dropping gobsmackery -- we are researching this disarmingly insidious weapon of Jihad.
Naseem wrote: What are you to do with muslims who are british born & here to stay....many of whom will marry your pristine white daughters.
I'm not going to say it directly but you can be sure it starts with a click and ends with a bang.
"What are you to do with muslims who are british born & here to stay..."
- Naseem at June 6, 2006 09:02 PM
Thought you were in Dumbassistan, Nas. The word 'here' implies the vicinity of the one making the statement.
You have a clone in the UK?
Astrally projecting?
Banging your head against the ground five times a day got you so you don't even know where you are anymore?
Peas and jailbait.
"I would certainly take exception to "state terrorism" but could eaily add wild slutty womens behaviour. "
nashemm always fails to talk to us about the passion for bestiality always shown by the internet searches of the muzlim countries...
I have no idea why.
Also, I don't get her obsession with slutty women.
Maybe instead of slutty women, muslim men prefers slutty animals? Nasheem, don't portray your fears on our culture, if your man prefers a goat to you, talk to him or to a specialist.
"What are you to do with muslims who are british born & here to stay....many of whom will marry your pristine white daughters...."
we have places called "mental institutions". When your fanatic death cult will be declared a mental disease, we won't have anymore problems. Please book a bed in advance for you and your family.
"And what about your childrens playing with muslim childrens in school. What if your daughter brings home Najma from her class who wears a burka and is her friend. Can you say don't play with that "paki"? Will you teach her racist attitudes?"
infidels and muslims cannot be friends, didn't you get the memo? End of the problem.
"Remember...those who control the womens (gently) will rule ....only peace & jilbabs matter "
how is your genitalia mutilation nasheem? was it fun to do it?
An aside for View From the Right readers:
Lawrence Auster, who champions the "whiteness of the West," is continuing his obsessive and fantastically disproportionate campaign against me, linking to this post and misrepresenting it, as is his fashion with my writing: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005832.html
He claims that the Judeo-Christian principles I enumerated above are actually "liberal universal values" and that I do not in fact "stand for the historical actuality of Western society and the Western peoples."
I think this, as well as his earlier criticisms of my work, indicate that he does not understand or appreciate the real historical actuality of Western society and the Western peoples. The principles I enumerated, particularly equality of dignity, and others are espoused by great thinkers of the Western tradition throughout history -- as I have explained before, and he has ignored. They are unique achievements of the Judeo-Christian tradition and have no necessary connection to modern relativism and multiculturalism. That he is apparently unaware of that is a gaping hole in his analysis, and ironic in light of his haughty claims to intellectual clarity.
And his assertion that I agree in principle with Hirsi Ali in her "campaign" (which he has mightily overblown) against Christian parties in Europe is simply false. Why he wishes to purvey such falsehoods, I do not know. But if you are coming here from his site, caveat emptor.
Robert Spencer
Mr. Spencer says that it is repugnant that Mr. Auster favors a white US. Does he find it repugnant that India will allow only ethnic Indians to immigrate? How about China? How about every black nation in Africa? How about Japan?
In fact it is only white nations that allow immigration by those of other races. Does Mr. Spencer find all other nations repugnant? Are only white nations not repugnant?
And of course, those non-white nations do not only exclude whites. China excludes Africans, and Africans exclude Chinese, etc. They don't necessarily think that whites are uniquely bad.
Myself, I enjoy experiencing the diversity of different countries. That's why I would like to be a tourist in these other countries.
There is a difference in preferring your own race to live among full time, and thinking that your race is superior.
I'm sure that several races think that they are inferior in some important ways to some others, but still would prefer to live with their own race.
Islamic values:
Worshiping Allah - Praying five times each day with their fundaments pointing skyward. Performing the ridiculous wudu before entering a Mohammedan armory; apparently, Isalm values a clean body above a clean mind.
Honesty - Honesty toward fellow traveling Mohammedans, but a different "honesty" toward non-Mohammedans.
Charity - Charity to Mohammedans, but neglect toward non-Mos.
Family values - The husband is the owner of the wife and is allowed to kill any realative who dishonors the family.
morality - ?????????
Pelayo,
Sky don't matter to them. The black rock of mecca does. One zombie on this site actually said he used mapmaker.com to calculate the earth's irregurularities as a sphere in order to calculate the shortest way to mecca.
Cleanliness : The muslims wash hands up to the elbows with water, and rinse their mouths out, and wet their feet. Does this make them cleaner ? This was used recently by a muslim troll on this site. Cleanliness. Heck, when I work on my car, I have to wash 20 times to get the grease off. So I am better ?
Honesty : The biggest killer of muslims on the globe is, well, muslims. If they can't be one in their killer faith, how can we, the infidels, expect them to be honest to us.
Charity : Who donates to natural catastrophes around the world, disregarding religion (cult in my opinion ). Fill in the blank. Who gives money for new mosques all over the world ? Fill in the blank. And all the charity the muslims believe in is on their eid day. This is ONE day in their calender year, when they saw off the heads of any creature that they find, give exactly 5% of the meat in "Charity", and take the rest home.
Family Values. : Am too tired.
Mr. Hume:
Your questions about other countries allowing in only people of the same ethnicity are beside the point. You and Mr. Auster evidently have not noticed that there are black Americans, and have been for hundreds of years. What is your cut-off point for racial and ethnic purity in North America? 1600? 1500? Many of those black Americans, despite politically-motivated racial polarization today, have contributed a great deal to American society.
In characterizing the defense of the West as defending its "whiteness" Auster is overreacting to that racial polarization, and embracing a disastrously reductionist view of Judeo-Christian civilization.
The genius of the West is not its whiteness, but in its civilization, which Auster claims to revere but severely misunderstands. People of many races, not just white people, have proven able to adopt Western values and perspectives. For Auster to prescribe a white U.S. as the remedy for modern racial politics is to adopt a parched and impoverished view of Western civilization. Our laws, our language, and our literature come from England, but there are many people from all over who are quite capable of accepting and embracing them.
Certainly we need to restore sanity to immigration policies, which I have maintained for years and now he accuses me of opposing (but of course he hasn't read my books in deploying his slander). Economic immigration -- people who come to the West to make money but do not accept our values -- is a huge problem. Certainly we need to regain our confidence in ourselves and in our civilization, which can only come from proper education, and defend these things. But that civilization is not entirely white, and never has been. Would Auster prefer John Walker Lindh and Ibrahim Hooper, both certifiably white, to Ward Connerly and I. M. Pei? Of course, I would not stoop to the vulgarity of adducing good examples from each race, like a 6th-grade social studies book printing pictures of white, black, and Asian children playing happily together, but this is the kind of response Auster's reductionism calls forth.
Our civilization is Jewish and Christian, and on that basis is worth defending. To claim that that defense is possible or worthy only on the basis of race is to retreat into an ahistorical fantasy America -- one that never actually existed and never will exist.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
What I would recommend is a return to a version of the national quota system that existed 1924-1964. That would allow the same proportion of ethnicitys to immigrate as we currently have in the US. That would result in stability and each ethnicity would at least know that basically the current situation would last for several generations. We could plan for the future.
This would certainly acknowledge the contributions of blacks, and all other ethnicities; and whites would not have to fear that they, alone among all races, will have no country in which they are a majority ... which, given immigration to Europe and Canada and Australia and the US otherwise seems likely to occur in a few decades.
One way to implement this would be for the census, each 10 years, to ask each citizen which country he would like to allocate his vote to.
This would allow for those whites who wanted to help poor blacks by allowing them to immigrate to the US to do so with their own vote and to run campaigns to persuade others to so vote.
Actually, since studies on the Inductivist blog suggest that, in the US, of all races whites are the least ethnocentric, such a census poll is also likely to result in a less-than proportional influx of whites.
I would also suggest that the census also ask by what percent each citizen would like the US population to increase/decrease by over the next 10 years; and the proportion of immigrants to be admitted by skills as compared to family unification.
Whether or not race selection in immigration is desirable, or consistent with US history, or not; the reason for my pointing out that it is the policy of most other countries was to show that if it is repugnant that it is also totally human.
Mr. Hume:
Your suggestion is reasonable. Insofar as those quotas were based on the recognition that America had a national character that was worth preserving, there was nothing wrong with them.
But it is a long way from there to the simplistic, dangerously misleading, and, yes, repugnant Austerian notion of defending the "whiteness of the West" as such.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
I would say the values Robert lists in the article are liberal values; they are also Christian values (but are not equivalent to Christianity itself). The traditionalist position, as I understand it, is that such values have to be realized in a larger, "transcendent" framework of tradition, nationality, and religion. (Auster argues that race makes up PART of that framework. He is not a racial idealogue who reduces everything to race.)
The problem is, if a society defines itself purely in terms of liberal values - as the Dutch have done in making tolerance of gay culture a litmust test for immigration - it ends up actively defending immorality because this is the true test of liberal tolerance. I don't think such a society can effectively defend itself from jihad. For instance, any restrictions on Muslims must be equally applied to Christians. Violence can be prosecuted, but Islam cannot be rejected AS A WHOLE as an alien and dangerous belief system. Furthermore, in a declining, ultra-liberal society, people will be increasingly drawn to Islam's transcendent certainties.
So, above and beyond defending the equal dignity of all people, we must fight for the nation, culture, and traditions that we belong to, that make us who we are. To do this, we need to recover a strong culture in which minority groups accept their status as minorities and do not try to remake the larger culture in their own image. Issues like same-sex marriage and mass third-world immigration thus are related to the fight against jihad.
I think in this sense the struggle against jihad is a conservative one. Liberals and conservatives can work together, but it's a mistake to bring in radicals and far-leftists.
After reading the above I have come to the conclusion that most non white countries are extremely exclusive. It seems that the atmosphere for the blending of races only exists in western white majority countries. Why this is, I do not know. Are whites more inclusive by education or possibly heredity? Again I am not sure. I do know that what ever the race America should be about the heart. It is not about the wallet although a good job is important it is not about making America more like where you came from. People have waited in line for a lifetime, risked life and limb, tossed aside all that they had to come here and be a part of what is America. Those who do not have that American heart should always be turned away. All those who seek America should be found regardless of race. Because those who possess the American heart, wherever they exist, have strength and will that can only make us better as a nation.
Immigration controls? Yes. But based on ideology, not race. Moussaoui was French, but I don't want him here, not because of his race, but because of the insanity festering in his head. I don't want any jihadist "white" people coming here; I have no problem with productive, peaceful non-Muslims coming here from predominantly Islamic nations.
It would be nice to be able to distinguish "extremist" Muslims from "moderate" Muslims, but I don't know how that could be done.
Auster continues, for reasons known only to him, to fulminate and purvey falsehoods:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005833.html
He says: "Glancing through the thread, I notice that Spencer, never failing to demonstrate to the world his amazing blindness to himself, describes my reply to him today as showing an 'obsessive' attitude. Gosh. He writes an article calling me an exponent of white supremacism, but if I answer, I’m obsessive."
In the post above in which I allegedly called Auster a white supremacist, I didn't even refer to him by name. Why not? Because I was not referring solely to him. I used his words -- the "whiteness of the West" and referred to our unpleasant recent exchange, but I was speaking more broadly of people who hold such views. Obsessive? There have been two articles about him at Jihad Watch, or three if you want to count this one. Last time I counted there were no fewer than 15 articles about me at his site, and he has added more since then.
Note also the irony: he continues his insistence that I am engaging in personal attacks while he working in the realm of ideas -- however, he has never responded to any of the many substantive points I have offered him, and he accuses me here of "amazing blindness to [my]self." Anyone can scan the remarks I made about him above and see if there is anything remotely personal about them -- there isn't. A little later he says I initiated a "name-calling attack" -- ignoring the fact that he launched many name-calling attacks on me without provocation at his site long before he was ever mentioned here (except for one article link I had forgotten about).
He also accuses me of "knee-jerk recourse to the racism charge," ignoring my reasoned explanations of why I oppose his position. He criticizes me for not being interested in being called a conservative, although he rejects the term for himself here:
http://www.affbrainwash.com/chrisroach/archives/019675.php
He accuses me of wanting to silence him, No, Mr. Auster, keep talking. People need to see what you are really made of. But even he admits that I "will probably let [him] reply at [my] site if [he] want[s] to." But, he says: "look at the crap I have had to take in order to engage in a discussion with him."
There is no discussion. From my first reply to his attacks, I have given him substantive points that he has ignored -- and he continues to ignore them. I have pointed out again and again that the equality of dignity of all people, which he thinks is some multiculturalist effluvium, is a Judeo-Christian principle as old as Genesis and has nothing necessarily to do with multiculturalism, relativism, and unrestricted immigration at all -- yet he has made no reply, except to dismiss this in an email as an "old argument."
Well, Mr. Auster, I don't tell time by an argument, and I don't tell arguments by time. Old argument it may be, but it is a good one, and it shows one of the many holes in your thinking. There is no intimidation, as you also accuse me of attempting, except that in which you yourself are trying to engage in with your attacks on me at your site. I called you one name, an innocuous and facetious one, and apologized; you have made many false charges against me, long before that, and have never apologized. You continue to spread these falsehoods: claiming I charged you with racism (I didn't at the time you claim, as anyone can see -- I am at this point not so sure the label is inaccurate, however) and misrepresented the emails I sent you (in fact, I did not answer your last three, after requesting twice that you stop writing me -- now you claim it was an equal number on both sides).
You are correct that there are issues between us that are worth discussing. But you, sir, have made that impossible in many, many ways. I expect that your attacks and slanders will continue. That's fine: they will eventually show, even to the most hard-headed partisans, what is really going on here.
Robert Spencer
SF says above: "Auster argues that race makes up PART of that framework. He is not a racial idealogue who reduces everything to race."
Auster says: "...race is THE controlling issue in the civilizational crisis."
Compare and contrast.
Auster's statement is here:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005746.html
I have pointed out several times the inadequacy of this formulation: very simply, white people can just as easily be jihadists as brown ones. Auster has never attempted to clarify his position on this or many other points I have raised, preferring instead to pretend that I am merely engaging in "personal attacks." Well, that is certainly easier.
Of course, if he were engaging me in the realm of ideas, he would no doubt say that the white jihadists, despite their race, would not be welcome in his dream West because of their ideology. But in that case race is NOT the controlling issue in the civilizational crisis, and his formulation is inadequate.
Robert Spencer
Dear Mr. Spencer,
I've been a reader and contributor to your website for a long time. We've corresponded via e-mail while I lived in Europe and I've been an admirer of your work for the past two years. I always recommended your site to those few concerned with the Jihad and thought your last book "The PIG to Islam " was valuable in the counter propaganda wars. But in the last few weeks, your feud with Lawrence Auster has caused me to reconsider my support for you.
I do think you are helping in your own way in resisting the Moslem onslaught, but Auster has revealed kinks in your ideological/rhetorical armor.
You in fact do support liberal progressives like Ms. Hirsi, despite her radical liberal agenda which embodies the essence of the detoriation of the West. When Auster talks of this, you refuse to answer the substance of his argument. Why? Can it be that you are right in many of your of your correct observations of Islam and so wrong in your blanket attacks on Auster's traditionalist analysis on the liberal dismantling of the West from within?
This massive social engineering experiment by apparent liberals and sympathisers such as yourself, has already yielded it's fruit in every nation foolish enough to subscribe to it from Sydney to Malmo. LIBERALISM IS THE PROBLEM. Yet you obviously reject Lawrence Auster's measured and rational analysis of the entire substance of the crisis in favor of attempting to patch together your own ideological framework which plays fast and easy with the essence and civilizational culture of the West.
To me, you hate the idea of the continuing conflict with the Other (Islam), more than you hate the myriad of spokespeople whose message may be anti-Western, Judeo-Christian traditionlist like Ms. Hirsi.
To dismiss the racial, immigration, cultural aspects of this argument is to be a liberal who just want a different version of what it is that makes America a Western nation.
You want to ignore all anti-traditionalist inroads into the West except the greatest threat which is Islam. What further proof do I need than your support of the intellectually unsound, anti-traditionalst Ms. Hirsi? When the foundation of America becomes unsound, how can America be America anymore?
This is why I think your dismissal of Lawrence Auster's well formulated philosophy is very misguided. Because you attack a person who see's America as it was and was intended to be. Not an America that is obligated to the forces that demand her extinction. You sir, make unprincipled exceptions which make me question your objectivity and vision for this civilization you declare to champion.
Anthony, New York
Mr. Hume:
You display your ignorance when you declare that “every black nation in Africa” has a racially exclusivist immigration policy. “China excludes Africans,” you say, “and Africans exclude Chinese, etc.”
Wrong. Black African nations such as Kenya and Nigeria have tens of thousands of Asian and Arab immigrants.
According to 1989 census data, there were about 29,000 “Indians” in Kenya, and another 7,000 “Pakistanis” and “Other Asians.” These are immigrants, as distinguished from the 53,000 so-called “Kenyan Asians” (native-born descendants of previous South Asian immigrants).
Also, there were 34,000 people described as “Kenyan Arab” (native-born to previous immigrants) and 8,000 as “Other Arabs” (immigrants).
Contrary to excluding non-blacks, Kenya has experienced a recent upswing in Asian immigration. Here’s what Kenya’s leading newspaper, the Nation, reported in 1998: “In the last four years, Kenya alone has received between 40,000 and 50,000 Gujarati [from India] and Pakistani unskilled or semi-skilled labourers. They have gone to work in Nairobi and various major towns in Central and Rift Valley provinces...”
As for Nigeria, here’s what prominent journalist Reuben Abati wrote in 2004 about the Indians and Chinese in his country: “They are all over Nigeria. They are in charge of many of the businesses in the land, and in the last few years, particularly under President Obasanjo, Asians have been spreading across the land, in virtually every area of our lives, like cancer. They must be given a special credit for bringing a special dynamism to the entrepreneurial culture in Nigeria, for creating jobs and opportunities [and] for teaching Nigerians a few lessons about service delivery…”
Doesn’t sound like the Africans are “excluding” anyone, Mr. Hume. Why do you claim that they are?
I find it absolutely astounding that in response after response to the question of how we should respond to a Muslim poster comparing the values of today's UK against the supposed values of Islam - whose denizens were brought into the West in general and to England in particular by liberalism and its followers - what we need to do is trumpet the value of liberalism even more!! Other posters, were quick to point out the mendacious nature of Muslim claims regarding Islamic values, and did both.
So, here's the list:
ISLAMIC VALUES:
Worshipping Allah, Honesty, Charity, Family Values, and Morality
BRITISH VALUES:
State Terrorism, Exploitation, Homosexuality, Alchohol, Gambling
Mr. Spencer asks: "What are we fighting for?" That's a very fine question, indeed. He goes on to state: "I recently had an unpleasant exchange with a commentator who believes we must fight to uphold the "whiteness of the West." I believe that idea is as repugnant as the one proffered by Al-Ghurabaa: that all Britain (and, by extension, the West) stands for is "crime, rape, alcoholism, homosexuality, adultery, theft, burglary, exploitation" and so on. We are not fighting for white supremacism and we are not fighting for debauchery. We are fighting for the values of Western civilization -- values that have become universal outside the Islamic world, and which are rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Among those values that are challenged by jihadists today are the equality of dignity of all people, the freedom of conscience (and thought, and inquiry), the nobility of artistic expression (including music and the representation of the human form), and the freedom, which is based on the Judeo-Christian idea of the dignity of the human person, to change religions or profess no religion."
Jan Sobieski gives this list in response:
ISLAMIC VALUES:
Honor killing, Deception, Rioting, Indignation, Dhimmitude, Hatred, Beheadings, Anti-Semitism, tyranny, hijackings.
BRITISH VALUES:
Freedom, Equality, Soccer, Music, Falafel, Robust Economy
Does Mr. Spencer honestly believe that the the UK regime, and others ruling the west, seriously care one iota about "the equality of dignity of all people, the freedom of conscience (and thought, and inquiry), the nobility of artistic expression (including music and the representation of the human form), and the freedom, which is based on the Judeo-Christian idea of the dignity of the human person, to change religions or profess no religion"? As for the supposed universality of such values "everywhere outside the Islamic world", would that include places like North Korea, Zimbabwe, other African kleptocracies (take your pick), China, Cuba, Vietnam, Burma, Venezuela, Bolivia, Haiti, other Latin American and Caribbean kleptocracies? Bastions of western civilization all!
Back to Europe (and the UK), anyone who dares to criticize Islam, Homosexuals, Feminists, or any specially designated group - even in the course of a private conversation between individuals - can be charged with "incitement to hatred." Muslims, naturally, are charged with this only rarely, even after openly advocating violence. In today's secular Europe, one can express all the hostility, venom, hatred and vitriol towards Christianity they please - even mounting 'artistic works' portraying Christ's mother made from Elephant-dung - and the ruling class and sycophants will clap and cheer. Hot cross buns - banned! (They might offend someone!) Don't dare print any cartoon depicting you-know-who, though, no matter how innocuous. We must show respect! Like Napoleon the Pig in Orwell's "Animal Farm", some are apparently 'more equal than others' as people. I'll leave the reader to take a wild guess as to who is on the bottom of the totem pole in the 'hierarchy of equality.'
Freedom to defend one's own person and family against jihadis or even run-of-the-mill thugs? Not a chance! Try it and you'll end up in prison while the thugs sue you for damages. Firearms? Only for those who guard the oligarchs, the jihadis, and the thugs.
So much for "freedom" and "equality" in BRITISH VALUES. Let's see: Soccer - Wow! that's important. I seem to recall that they play soccer in Iran, too. Music (let's not forget the high cultural value of Gangsta Rap!), Falafel and Robust Economy (how pathetic). Perhaps we should try to avoid some of the other of today's post-Christian British 'values' in addition to those already mentioned by Al-Ghurabaa (alcoholism, homosexuality, adultery) like promiscuity, pornography, fornication. pedophilia, abortion, etc.
In response to Mr. Spencer's shot at a Larry Auster "as repugnant as the one proffered by Al-Ghurabaa" (based on a complete mischaracterization of Auster's view on the relationships of ethnicity, culture, and civilization in the first place), Robert Hume directed a rather pointed question:
"Mr. Spencer says that it is repugnant that Mr. Auster favors a white US. Does he find it repugnant that India will allow only ethnic Indians to immigrate? How about China? How about every black nation in Africa? How about Japan?"
Mr. Hume then goes on to say:
"There is a difference in preferring your own race to live among full time, and thinking that your race is superior. I'm sure that several races think that they are inferior in some important ways to some others, but still would prefer to live with their own race."
Spencer's response to this is very telling:
"Your questions about other countries allowing in only people of the same ethnicity are beside the point. You and Mr. Auster evidently have not noticed that there are black Americans, and have been for hundreds of years. What is your cut-off point for racial and ethnic purity in North America? 1600? 1500? Many of those black Americans, despite politically-motivated racial polarization today, have contributed a great deal to American society."
Thus, from a thread initially about Tony Blair's little Orwellian slice of EUtopia, and what (if any) Western values remain there to hold up against the values touted by the Muslims (lies though they are) in their printed posters, Mr. Spencer spins and pulls the rabbit of 'American exceptionalism' out of his hat - mentioning how there have been in blacks America since the 1500s and how much they've contributed so to American culture. (There were Indians here even before that!) He manages to avoid Hume's question on the issue of ethno-cultural preservation altogether and flips into a defense of the universal Judeo-Christian values on the basis of some blacks' success in adopting them in America! We weren't even talking about America!
England, Canada, Australia, along with most nations in Western Europe, were overwhelmingly white as recently as the 1950s. Now that liberals, even those who love to talk about Juedo-Christian values (the "conservative' post-Vatican II papacy springs to to mind), have opened Europe's doors to Muslims and other third world invaders in the name of 'diversity', 'tolerance', 'anti-racism' - not to mention pure greed and exploitation over the last 50 years, some liberals now want to pull a Wizard of Oz number: "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
This way, they can indulge in a huge unprincipled exception when it comes to Muslims - and thus prop up liberalism's rotten, maggot-infested un-dead corpse one more time.
Mr. Spencer, in his first post respnding to Auster's VFR site ends with the following about Hirsi Ali: "And his assertion that I agree in principle with Hirsi Ali in her "campaign" (which he has mightily overblown) against Christian parties in Europe is simply false." While it's true that you've stated that you disagree with Ali on some things, Mr. Spencer, you haven't been particularly forthcoming about what which issues (other than abortion) you disagree with her on. As for your characterization that Auster has "mightily overblown" Ali's "campaign against Christian parties in Europe", I sharply dsagree. Ali, as a Dutch MP, voted to ban a Christian party for the sole reason of not being politically correct. She also advoated the banning of an immigration-restrictionist party in neighboring Beligium. These, I stated on an earlier thread, are the actions and words of a leftist totalitarian, not one who believes in freedom of political expression. No rational person who clains to value "the equality of dignity of all people, the freedom of conscience (and thought, and inquiry)" could characterize these actions as "overblown" in light of the 150 million corpses stuffed into mass graves at the hands of other leftist totalitarians in the last century. As a I said before, Ali would surely be much more at home in Kim Jong Il's North Korea than in the USA.
Mr. Auster is correct - you are indeed a liberal, Mr. Spencer. While this does not in any way negate your exposure of eiher Islam's evil or the stupidity and outright treason of westerners in their treatment of Islam, Islam will never be defeated through liberalism.
[Correction to previous post, paragraph 1]
....Other posters, were quick to point out the mendacious nature of Muslim claims regarding Islamic values, and still others did both - denoucing Islamic claims while touting more liberalism as the answer.
"[Ayann Hirsi] Ali would surely be much more at home in Kim Jong Il's North Korea than in the USA."
-- from a posting above
All those familiar with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, all those who have read what she has written or spoken directly to her, should ask themselves: does Ayaan Hirsi Ali strike you as someone who would be "much more at home in Kim Jong Il's North Korea" than in "the USA"?
I have read her. I have spoken with her. And what is clear is how much she detests the collectivist nature of Islam, and the collectivist nature of what she sees as a new spirit in Holland in the countries of Western Europe, willing to treat immigrants as members of a collective to be dealt with by the rulers of that collective.
She would not last a minute in North Korea. And though there is not exactly a great tolerance for the individual in this country, either, for the lone crank who refuses to go along with everything --that everything including a lot of what is called "liberalism" and a lot of what is called "conservatism" (they are such degraded versions, both of them, of what they once were or should be that they grade into, or at least deserve, each other)-- she may well last more than a minute in this country.
I'm looking forward to her arrival.
Speaking of India, which I am familiar with, the Indian constitution does allow people who have lived in India for 5 years and who want citizenship to apply for it and become citizens. Western citizens who want to migrate to India do have legal ways of doing it. So do Africans, but I don't know of too many in either category who have.
It's not accurate to say that India allows only ethnic Indians to migrate. What India does do is allow people of Indian origin a special status that allows them to visit India on more liberal terms than a typical foreign visitor. India does also have arrangements with certain countries to allow its citizens to hold dual citizenship of India as well as those countries. But this PIO business is only applicable for Indian emigrants and their immediate generation: I doubt that 5 generations from me, my descendents would be recognized as such.
The countries that do have the most onerous citizenship requirements are the Arab countries. Although it's international law that a person born in a country X is automatically entitled to the citizenship of X, this isn't something that the Arabs respect. One's family could live in an Arab country, like Oman or Bahrein for several generations, and not be entitled to citizenship. In fact, I believe citizenship to an Infidel would be out of the question, while citizenship to a Muslim may happen. This does seem to be restricted to Arab countries - Iran, by contrast, seems far more liberal, taking in Afghan refugees by the thousands.
Some interesting facts form the "CIA World Fact Book" in response to all of those who have been jumping on Mr. Hume and seem to think that Africa and Asia are made up of multicultural paradises with wide-opne borders:
AFRICA
Nigeria (total pop. 131 million, 250 native ethnic groups of which the top 7 make up 88%)
Kenya (total pop. 34.7 millon; non-African 1%)
South Africa (total pop. 44.2 million; non-African 21% - not for long if its even that still)
Zimbabwe - SA's future (total pop. 12.2 million; non-African Ghana (total pop. 22.4 million, non-African 1.5%)
Uganda (total pop. 28.2 million, non-African 1%)
Mozamibque (total pop. 19 million; non-African 0.3%)
ASIA
China (total pop. 1.3 billion; Han Chinese - 92%, other nearly all Asian, 8 %)
Japan (total pop. 121 million; 99% Japanese, 1% other Asian)
It's just a multi-culti paradise out there! Liberals just can't help themselves, it would appear.
[Error correction - would not post 'less than' symbol!]
Zimbabwe - SA's future (total pop. 12.2 million; non-African less than 1%)
Ghana (total pop. 22.4 million, non-African 1.5%)
Mr. Fitzgerald,
OK, I'll take your word for it that Ali would be less than pleased with Kim Jong Il's little slice of paradise. After all, you've talked with her, not me.
You failed to address the substance of my point, however. If she's willing to ban political parties - not one of whom advocated violence - just because they happen to oppose her feminist ideology - is she not a totalitarian? I could certainly understand if she'd vote to ban some party consisting of The Muslim Brotherhood, not least because some of those guys have been quite explicit about their plans for her. That's really not the same thing at all, though.
I live in Bethnal Green, but haven’t seen any of these posters yet. If I do, I’ll take a picture of it ‘in situ’ and send you a copy.
I’ll be more than happy to get some ‘alternative values’ posters printed up and put them alongside these ‘Islamic Values’ nonsense. Has everybody agreed on a final wording for these posters yet?
Dear Anthony:
You say: "You in fact do support liberal progressives like Ms. Hirsi, despite her radical liberal agenda which embodies the essence of the detoriation of the West. When Auster talks of this, you refuse to answer the substance of his argument."
In fact this is not the case. I have answered it again and again, while he has continued to insist that I have not. I have stated that I do not agree with her on many things, but that we can sort out our differences peacefully, while if we do not unite against the jihad threat, we will not survive to do so. That is my answer.
You say: "Why? Can it be that you are right in many of your of your correct observations of Islam and so wrong in your blanket attacks on Auster's traditionalist analysis on the liberal dismantling of the West from within?"
I have made no such "blanket attacks." I have defended myself against Auster's mischaracterizations of my work. He has a letter up now suggesting that if I believe blacks have a place in America, I must be a relativist multiculturalist. Since I have spoken so often against multiculturalism, I think this is inaccurate. I do not believe our only choices are multiculturalism or racialism.
You say: "This massive social engineering experiment by apparent liberals and sympathisers such as yourself, has already yielded it's fruit in every nation foolish enough to subscribe to it from Sydney to Malmo. LIBERALISM IS THE PROBLEM. Yet you obviously reject Lawrence Auster's measured and rational analysis of the entire substance of the crisis in favor of attempting to patch together your own ideological framework which plays fast and easy with the essence and civilizational culture of the West."
There is nothing in this to which I can reply. To assert that his analysis is "measured and rational" while mine is "patch[ed] together" does not establish the fact.
You say: "To me, you hate the idea of the continuing conflict with the Other (Islam), more than you hate the myriad of spokespeople whose message may be anti-Western, Judeo-Christian traditionlist like Ms. Hirsi."
I restated my position on this above. Also, I do not believe in the entire accuracy of Auster's characterization of Hirsi Ali.
You say: "To dismiss the racial, immigration, cultural aspects of this argument is to be a liberal who just want a different version of what it is that makes America a Western nation."
I think you're right about that. I have not done so, however.
You say: "You want to ignore all anti-traditionalist inroads into the West except the greatest threat which is Islam. What further proof do I need than your support of the intellectually unsound, anti-traditionalst Ms. Hirsi? When the foundation of America becomes unsound, how can America be America anymore?"
The foundation of America has already become unsound. America is already in deep internal crisis. I do not share Mr. Auster's diagnosis of the problem, or his idea of the remedies. However, I do believe, as I have written many times, that the loss of our identity and values is very grave and possibly a mortal wound. You can read this in my book "Islam Unveiled," which I wrote in 2001. I do concentrate on Islamic jihad, yes, and Mr. Auster has several times taken my narrow recommendations for immediate action (for example, on immigration) as complete policy statements, which they were not intended to be, and he jumped to false conclusions on that basis.
I have never claimed to be offering a comprehensive social critique or prescription. Would you fault a criminal lawyer for not practicing property law, or a doctor who sets bones for not treating allergies? It is true that society faces many problems other than jihad. This, however, is Jihad Watch.
You say: "This is why I think your dismissal of Lawrence Auster's well formulated philosophy is very misguided. Because you attack a person who see's America as it was and was intended to be."
I would never have said a thing about him were it not for his repeated attacks on me. Or, as he says, am I not allowed to reply?
You say: "Not an America that is obligated to the forces that demand her extinction. You sir, make unprincipled exceptions which make me question your objectivity and vision for this civilization you declare to champion."
I do not believe, and have never stated or suggested, that America is obligated to the forces that demand her extinction. Nor are my "exceptions" any more unprincipled than that of FDR and Churchill when they allied with Stalin to defeat Hitler. Anyone who characterized them at the time as endorsing everything Stalin said and did would have been more than a little unfair, don't you think?
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
Carolus:
"Does Mr. Spencer honestly believe that the the UK regime, and others ruling the west, seriously care one iota about 'the equality of dignity of all people, the freedom of conscience (and thought, and inquiry), the nobility of artistic expression (including music and the representation of the human form), and the freedom, which is based on the Judeo-Christian idea of the dignity of the human person, to change religions or profess no religion'?"
No. Nor did I say they did. What I was suggesting was a basis on which people would believe the West was worth defending. You can find criticisms of Bush and Blair at Jihad Watch and in my books and articles for, among other things, not upholding or even speaking about those things.
You say: "As for the supposed universality of such values 'everywhere outside the Islamic world', would that include places like North Korea, Zimbabwe, other African kleptocracies (take your pick), China, Cuba, Vietnam, Burma, Venezuela, Bolivia, Haiti, other Latin American and Caribbean kleptocracies?"
No, it wouldn't. However, most or all of these states are signatories to the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, and could be rebuked on that basis were the UN anything but a farce or even a force for evil. Only the Islamic states have met to reject explicitly some of the points in that document by saying that all rights must be seen in light of Sharia.
You say: "Back to Europe (and the UK), anyone who dares to criticize Islam, Homosexuals, Feminists, or any specially designated group - even in the course of a private conversation between individuals - can be charged with 'incitement to hatred.' Muslims, naturally, are charged with this only rarely, even after openly advocating violence."
Yes, I have criticized this many times at Dhimmi Watch.
You say: "In today's secular Europe, one can express all the hostility, venom, hatred and vitriol towards Christianity they please - even mounting 'artistic works' portraying Christ's mother made from Elephant-dung - and the ruling class and sycophants will clap and cheer. Hot cross buns - banned! (They might offend someone!) Don't dare print any cartoon depicting you-know-who, though, no matter how innocuous. We must show respect! Like Napoleon the Pig in Orwell's "Animal Farm", some are apparently 'more equal than others' as people. I'll leave the reader to take a wild guess as to who is on the bottom of the totem pole in the 'hierarchy of equality.'"
Yes, I made the same point in this article:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20622
You say: "Freedom to defend one's own person and family against jihadis or even run-of-the-mill thugs? Not a chance! Try it and you'll end up in prison while the thugs sue you for damages. Firearms? Only for those who guard the oligarchs, the jihadis, and the thugs."
Yes, this is a shameful situation.
You say: "So much for 'freedom' and 'equality' in BRITISH VALUES."
As I said above, I do not believe these things are being upheld. Your points about "soccer" and other things listed by commenters here I will not address: I did not make these statements, and I don't see why you are discussing them when apparently discussing my views.
You say: "He manages to avoid Hume's question on the issue of ethno-cultural preservation altogether and flips into a defense of the universal Judeo-Christian values on the basis of some blacks' success in adopting them in America! We weren't even talking about America!"
Very well. You weren't, but I was. You want to talk about Europe? Fine. Europe should end its current suicidal immigration policies, and recover its Judeo-Christian identity. I have said this many times.
You suggest, as does Auster, that I favor opening "Europe's doors to Muslims and other third world invaders in the name of 'diversity', 'tolerance', 'anti-racism.'" This is false. I have written against this many times.
You say: "While it's true that you've stated that you disagree with Ali on some things, Mr. Spencer, you haven't been particularly forthcoming about what which issues (other than abortion) you disagree with her on."
I am a Christian. I hold to traditional Christianity. I do not agree with Hirsi Ali on anything in which she departs from that. As I have explained before, I believe we can sort out all that peacefully if we survive this present threat, which we may not.
You say: "Ali, as a Dutch MP, voted to ban a Christian party for the sole reason of not being politically correct."
I do not condone the banning of any political party. I think they should be banned at the voting booth. However, this too is an imperfect process, especially given the state of society today. In any case, while I do not agree with her on this, I think it also interesting that most Christian groups would also disagree with the party in question, which if I recall correctly thought women should not hold office of any kind. Such a party should be allowed to participate freely in the political process with all others; my only point here is that to characterize it simply as a "Christian party" is misleading, since its Christianity is not one that would be accepted by most Christians, or would be in line with traditional Christianity (which has accepted queens in power since time immemorial).
You say: "Ali would surely be much more at home in Kim Jong Il's North Korea than in the USA."
I think, as Hugh Fitzgerald has noted, that this is a huge mischaracterization of a woman who has courageously stood up to collectivism.
You say: "Mr. Auster is correct - you are indeed a liberal, Mr. Spencer."
As I have pointed out many times, he has established this by misconstruing statements I have made and mischaracterizing my views.
You say: "While this does not in any way negate your exposure of eiher Islam's evil or the stupidity and outright treason of westerners in their treatment of Islam, Islam will never be defeated through liberalism."
Correct. I said as much in my 2003 book "Onward Muslim Soldiers," and elsewhere -- showing again the inaccuracy of Mr. Auster's critique.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Lawrence Auster is a shallow thinker who is simply following his tasetes to their logical conclusion. Clearly the US is an offshoot of British rule and values. Immigration to America from Jamestown until the early 19th century was primarily British (leaving aside the involuntary import of slaves), but that leaves his anscestry out in the cold, doesn't it? Fortunately waves of other Eurpoean immigrants from the 1820s or so on brought in other immigrants- Eastern Europeans, Northern Europeans- a lot of Germans and Swedes. In order to draw an arbitrary line that doesn't "include him out" he cannot talk about Britishness (private property, the rule of law even for Kings, the Magna Carta,) so he is reduced to whiteness as Western-ness. Otherwise, he has a problem: Mexico clearly is a part of the West, a north American nation colonized by Spain, which looks like it's in Europe on my map.
The problem is not who immigrates but rather how to adopt immigrants. It is parter of the larger culture debate that has been going on for some time.
(As for some of the other things, I can only point out that I know an American, a Spaniard, an Irishman, and several Britons who have given up their native citizenship to become Japanese citizens, so I am not sure that the person who commented on immigration practices above has the slightest idea what he is talking about).
Auster seems also unable to grasp that the American idea indeed has liberal elements, as well as some strongly conservative ones. It is just as fruitless to argue whether the founders were liberal or conservative as it is to argue whether they were Christians or deists. There were some of each involved, and it took some doing to get the likes of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin to work with Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams.
Carolus:
Who said that African nations are “multicultural paradises with wide-open borders”?
I responded precisely to Robert Hume’s claim that “it is only white nations that allow immigration by those of other races,” which was a ridiculous thing for him to say… a blind guess masquerading as haughty authority.
It took me five minutes on the Internet this morning to learn that there are 100,000 Chinese in South Africa. Looking beyond Africa, there are 10,000 Chinese in Jamaica.
Conversely, you’ll find plenty of Nigerians and other Africans in the so-called “Arab Quarter” of Bangkok, Thailand. Wow, black African restaurants and nightclubs in Southest Asia… Who knew?
Also, there are close to a million Filipinos in Saudi Arabia -- more Filipinos than you’ll find in any country except for the Philippines and the United States.
My case is made. Clearly, it is NOT only white nations that allow immigration by those of other races.
Nice work, Undercover Black Man.
Undercover Black Man:
Jumping to unwarranted conclusions based on tendentious readings of what is being said has been a recurring theme of this exchange with Auster and his friends.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
UBM,
You are obviously unfamiliar with the concept of generalization. Mr. Hume's statement, while not precisely accurate, is accurate in a general sense. No African or Asian (or Latin American, for that matter) country allows mass, uncontrolled immigration from completely alien cultures. This phenomenom is found only in the west. The fact that a very small Chinese and/or Indian minority is present in some African countries functioning as a mercantile class does not alter the basic point. In East and South Africa, the Asian minorities have been present since colonial times.
This is hardly surprising, as the suicidal beliefs and dogmas inherent in liberalism really exist only in the west, though there is some evidence that they are beginning to rear their heads in India also, at least among the political class there.
Mr. Spencer,
I think I'm beginning to see that at least part of the disagreement between yourself and Mr. Auster stems from a different focus with respect to the crisis facing our civilization. You are clearly very focused on the Islamic threat, while Mr. Auster is more focused upon the corrosive suicidal force of liberalism that destroys from within.
"Mr. Auster is more focused upon the corrosive suicidal force of liberalism that destroys from within..."
"Focused" is not the word for it.
"All liberals disagree with me," states Mr. Auster . "Therefore," he concludes, "all who disagree with me are liberals."
He should be reminded that universal affirmatives can only be partially converted. "All of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan" And so on on.
I doubt that Carolus, or anyone else, is still checking out this thread. But before the discussion is formally closed, I can’t resist getting in the last word.
Carolus proclaimed: “No African or Asian (or Latin American, for that matter) country allows mass, uncontrolled immigration from completely alien cultures. This phenomenom is found only in the west.”
The fact is, BRAZIL welcomed immigrants from Asia, the Middle East and Europe on a large scale for much of the 20th Century… on the order of 50,000 to 100,000 new immigrants per year. Brazil took in more immigrants than any country in the Western Hemisphere except the United States. And the culture and demography of Brazil have been shaped in part by those immigrants.
Today, there are some 10 million “Arab-Brazilians” (mainly Lebanese Christians or their descendants). And there are about 1.5 million Japanese in Brazil… more Japanese than in any country besides Japan.
So Carolus, if you wish to argue against non-white immigration, please do so without claiming that white nations are the only ones that’ve welcomed immigrants of different races.
Brazilian Ethnic Groups: From CIA World Factbook
"white 53.7%, mulatto (mixed white and black) 38.5%, black 6.2%, other (includes Japanese, Arab, Amerindian) 0.9%, unspecified 0.7% (2000 census)"
0.9% ?!! Hardly analagous to what's happening in the west.
In yet another attack here:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005852.html
Lawrence Auster quotes a couple of his supporters for two purposes: first, once again to misrepresent what I said (this time about Jackson/Farrahkhan race baiting, which "Bruce B." falsely asserts that I implied was the province of a "few" minority leaders), and second, to claim yet again, in the words of "Sage McLaughlin," that I refuses "to deal with [Auster's] criticism head-on. 'Stop calling me that' is not that same thing as 'I am not X because...'"
Mr. Auster can repeat this falsehood from now until Doomsday and it won't be any more true than it was the first time he said it. I answered his false charges with several "I am not X because..." arguments in my first post about those charges, and have added more since. Mr. Auster continues to ignore this while simultaneously preening about supposedly having offered substance in his attacks.
There are several words for this sort of thing, but I suspect you know them already.
Robert Spencer
The CIA Factbook is a fine resource, Bruce. But in this instance, you would've been better served to delve a little deeper. At your fingertips, after all, is access to a wide, wide world of information.
Brazilian journalist Marina Sarruf, writing for the U.S.-based Brazzil Magazine in 2004, reports that ethnic Arabs constitute 7 percent of Brazil's population. If that estimate is anywhere close to accurate, that means there are more Arabs in Brazil than there are Indians, Pakistanis and blacks in the U.K.
Here's her article:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:c9_TOqhcOuYJ:www.brazzil.com/content/view/3289/51/+Arabs+Brazil+UN&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9
I meant to say: There are more Arabs in Brazil as a percentage of the total population than there are Indians, Pakistanis and blacks in the U.K. (a combined 5.1 percent of the population, according to the CIA Factbook).