The cost of monitoring Muslims in the U.K. must now be staggering. The cost includes putting non-Muslim agents -- or paying Muslims who may not always be, and who very often may not be, reliable -- to monitor nearly two million people. The thousands (by now) of mosques, the madrasas, the coffee shops, the curry-shops, the convenience stores, the very monica-ali streets, reeking of Rawalpindi in the midst of John of Gaunt's once-sceptered isle (the scepter being quite different from the decapitatory knives of today), have to be patrolled, not only for the usual crime, but for the Islam-promoted schemes and plots, of which are so many.
There are, at the moment, about 2,000 groups or individuals that are apparently being watched. What does that take, in round-the-clock manpower? How many policemen or security agents are left for the task of protecting British citizens from ordinary crimes, when so much time and money must go into the monitoring of Muslims?
That monitoring is made necessary because of the ideology of Islam, which inculcates several basic ideas. The first is that the only real division of humanity that counts -- and how it counts! -- is that between Muslim and non-Muslim, that is, between Believer and Infidel. And Islam further inculcates the idea that all Muslims have a duty to further, through "struggle" or Jihad, the aims of Islam. And the aims of Islam are essentially not otherworldly but very much of this world: to remove all obstacles to the spread of Islam (the Constitution of the United States, for example, is such an obstacle), and then the dominance of Islam, everywhere.
Islam inculcates a view of a world that is divided in two (leaving out the nearly-insignificant, hardly-existing, lands of transient "truce," or Dar al-Sulh), between Dar al-Islam, the lands where Islam dominates and Muslims rule, and Dar al-Harb, the Land, or Domain, or House, of War, where Islam does not yet dominate and Muslims do not yet rule. Between the two Houses, between Infidels and Believers, a permanent state of war exists and must exist, until the whole world belongs to Allah and to his people. This is not a fabrication made up by those who for some unaccountable reason have it in for Islam. This is Islamic doctrine. It is not the less Islamic doctrine if your smiling Muslim co-worker earnestly, with a great show of sincerity, attempts to deny this doctrine or at least professes amazement and puzzlement when you attempt to ask him about it, as if he simply had no idea. Every single apostate has testified to what Muslims discuss freely, and of which they are certainly well aware, when they think no Infidels are around to overhear. Again and again they stress the well-practiced mendacity of Muslims. Should we disbelieve Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and all the other "defectors" from the Army of Islam? Can't we tell that they are sturdily and bravely telling the truth in what they speak and what they write? Can't we see the obvious meretriciousness not only of the CAIR people, but of those Muslims, groups or individuals, who attempt to deny that what is in the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira, exists? Or if it exists, they would have us believe that it cannot possibly mean what of course they know perfectly well that it means.
Some, admittedly, may fail to admit this not out of deep and sinister malevolence, but only out of embarrassment. But even if it is only out of embarrassment, one has to ask: why do you still call yourself a Muslim, why do you remain loyal to a Total Belief-System that indeed does inculcate such things, even if you, personally, are at least indifferent to, and possibly opposed to, the most dangerous and disturbing and worst of what Islam teaches? What is the hold of this on you? Why do you insist on not openly telling the truth about it? Why are you yourself not a defector from the Army of Islam? Why do you not even recognize -- this to Pakistanis and Iranians and other non-Arabs -- that at some point in the past, your Hindu or Jain or Buddhist or Zoroastrian ancestors were forcibly, not willingly, converted to Islam because they hoped to avoid the status, to which as non-Muslims was the very best they could hope for, of dhimmi, which meant permanent humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity?
The texts of Islam are immutable. What Islam inculcates remains, to be found, always and forever, in those texts. No matter what selective or bowdlerized version the British or the French or other governments, in government-funded mosques, think they can present and so mold the minds of Muslims to accept a sanitized Islam, the real texts will always be there, always available to the Believers. Large-scale integration of those whose creed is not only alien but also permanently and deeply hostile to all non-Muslims, simply is not possible for any Infidel nation-state. Those who put their faith in such policies of integration are foolish, building on sand, evading reality. That reality will have to be confronted, and confronted soon, while there is still time. The steady degradation and greatly rising expense for Infidels has not yet reached, as it soon will, nightmarish proportions.
Think right now only of that: the sheer expense of Muslims living in large numbers in Infidel lands.
There is the expense, for Infidels, of paying for all the benefits -- the free health care, and free education, and free or nearly-free subsidized housing, even the generous family allowances -- that Muslims all over Western Europe receive, and take advantage of in fiddling ways that are not to be believed.
And think what those huge Muslim families -- huger by far than those of the indigenous Infidels, or even of the other, non-Muslim immigrants -- and the burden they place on Infidel taxpayers. Think, for example, of the expense those huge families have caused the National Health Service in Great Britain -- think of the obstetricians, the gynecologists, and of course the translators who so often must be paid. And think of the much higher incidence of serious congenital illnesses among Muslims, because of their insistence on marrying, so often, relatives, illnesses that must be expensively treated. And that rampant and even fanatical endogamy reflects the general mistrust of others that is observable among Muslims, who growing up in a faith full of acts of aggression and deception, helps mold men of similar inclinations or worries.
And the monitoring of Muslims, the agents, the tapping of phones, the huge payments to informants (who may themselves be merely getting on the Infidel payroll, and not really offering anything of value), the enormous costs of securing airports, train and bus stations, planes and railroads and busses, schools, government offices, symbols of authority, churches and synagogues and Hindu temples, the residential dwelling-places of important officials who may have earned a special hostility, and all the rest -- it adds up.
I have heard different calculations for the cost of each Muslim in a non-Muslim land. One person has suggested a figure of $100,000 annually; another has suggested a figure of $250,000 annually. Take your own pencils and paper. Find out what your government spends, in monitoring Muslims and in guarding non-Muslim sites, in giving Muslims health care (used disproportionately) and education (used sparingly, but often the education of fellow non-Muslim students is disrupted by the atmosphere created), and housing, and all the rest.
Go ahead. Figure it out.
Now ask yourself a few questions. Here's one to start with: how many non-Muslims in Great Britain are now routinely being denied procedures that might save their lives -- new but expensive cancer treatments, or open-heart surgery -- because the NHS "doesn't have the money"? And ask why it "doesn't have the money" and how long you think you, or others, should be expected to quietly endure, as you have endured, this situation?
Let them in through asylum and guess what heavy price infidels have to pay in their own lands. Islam and Sharia are dangerous and violence is what we see in Islamic countries day in and day out. If not that then totalitarian control of every aspect of your lives according to the barbaric and inhumane laws of Sharia.
And still they are being brought in because?
Oh, that's right. They reliably vote Labor.
The same is likely to be true in the United States.
Hugh, could you answer a question?
The issue of Islamic immigration should be addressed in the Presidential campaign. Even if it were mentioned, the paradigm would be, "Oh, you can't discriminate between religous groups; religion is a private matter and is protected by the Constitution."
The paradigm needs to be questioned; and one tool that might help upend it is Robert Spencer's forthcoming book.
My question is, Why did Robert Spencer and the publisher decide on publishing Stealth Jihad after the election? I wonder if the book can be brought out early, even now.
Am asking this with a desire to protect what we have and with a desperate sense that the effort is against the odds and will not succeed.
By the way, Colin Powell today endorsed Obama. Here was the MSNBC coverage:
*****
"Stressing that Obama was a lifelong Christian, Powell denounced Republican tactics that he said were insulting not only to to Obama but also to Muslims.
"'The really right answer is what if he is?' Powell said, praising the contributions of millions of Muslim citizens to American society."
*****
The "right answer" asks a question. It would be good if people had an answer to that inner question, an answer that conforms to history and current reality.
Powell said, praising the contributions of millions of Muslim citizens to American society."
Bush has also praised American Muslims as the best thing since sliced cheese.
"Your love of family, and gratitude to God have strengthened the moral fabric of our country," Bush said in a message to Muslims around the world on the eve of the holy month of Ramadan.
"Our nation is stronger and more hopeful because of the generosity, talents, and compassion of our Muslim citizens," he said.
Come November, we'll be going from the frying pan into the fire.
Bravo Hugh!
This subject, by the way, is one of several I have been squawking about to anyone who would listen, for some time.
The fact is that the influence of the proverbial "tiny minority of extremists" is so pervasive and negative that they are causing the peaceful and productive portions of the world vast expense and loss on a daily basis.
And it has to be faced that this supposedly tiny minority are a tiny minority of mohammedans, not Buddhists, Hindus, Bahais, Methodists or anyone else.
The inescapable conclusion is that mohammedanism is a net loss for the world as a whole.
How can I put this?
If all the mohammedans of the world were to move to a colony on Mars tomorrow, within a matter of months, perhaps weeks, the world would become a richer, safer, more pleasant place to live.
The same might be true if all the mohammedans of the world converted to Quakerism overnight. Although it would probably be a slower process.
Mohammedanism, with the toxic "tiny minority of extremists" that it harbors and nurtures within the folds of its robes, is an objectively and undeniably destructive influence in the affairs of this world.
The public has to bear in mind that every extra machine gun we have to make for our soldiers, every extra surveillance camera we mount in the street, ever salary for every extra intelligence agent represents a piano that won't be bought for a school, a scholarship that won't be granted to a poor student, a computer that someone won't buy for home use.
And every minute spent inspecting airline queues, every minute spent on trying to strategize about the problem, every detour taken to avoid dealing with jihaddis or their sympathizers represents time taken away from the productive and enjoyable pursuits of this world.
I expect that the brighter ones among the jihaddi leadership are aware of this and revel in it. They would consider it an ongoing stream of victory.
But I don't think that the outside world recognizes this much at all.
It is the strongest argument I know of for taking definitive measures against both the jihaddis and everyone faintly associated with them, to remove this destructive impediment from our lives.
I heard John Burns of the NYT give an interview not long ago (he had transfered from Baghdad to London) in which he asserted that there were likely closer to 2.5 million Muslims in the UK.
I wonder. Listening to what George Bush and Gordon Brown say about the glorious contribution of Muslims to our (obviously unconvinced) people...is doesn't make sense. This is what always strikes me. The sheer absurdity of such claims; the slap in the face to the native-born who have to pay the price and endure the tensions.
Is it, could it possibly be, all about oil? Could it be that we have got ourselves into such a pickle, by letting them in in the first place and now having to continue, that ceasing, even not increasing, Muslim immigration, would be seen as an act of war against oil-producing countries such as the very sensitive Saudi Arabia?
Hugh, I entirely agree with your description of the problem, we face. Crucially, you are missing any prescription. At least, President George W Bush has done the most to alienate the faithful Muslims from the Western countries. There were reports of Muslims, many of them illegal immigrants, fleeing USA to Canada. The Muslims wanting to come to USA is now reduced because of George Bush's tenacious effort to conduct war on terror in Iraq, which you don't support. While I agree that George Bush has mistakenly called Islam a religion of Peace, at least, he has done the most to keep the Muslims out of the Western countries. I applaud the President's courage and determination in the face of domestic opposition, many deaths and injuries US soldiers suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan and the lukewarm support he received from the Western allies, including from my country, I am ashamed to say. I like to hear how you could go one better than that!
And to Hugh goes the unseen Frederic Bastiat Award!
Excellent that you point this problem out (and have in the past). Just wish more people would seriously think about it. Well, maybe a tightened economy will help them to do so.
Hugh, you are so right. Muslims are not immigrants, they are part of an invasion force.
A refugee from a war-torn country (not Muslim) told me that if welfare ceased here (Australia) he would go straight home.
I gather from this that welfare, the ability to not work for a living, was the only drawcard here, and that the ties of the homeland are stronger than anything apart from this one drawcard. For how many would this be true, I wonder? Welfare will eventually dry up. It will be interesting to see what happens then.
This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,--
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
--Shakespeare, Richard II
Excavations of burial sites have shown that the skeletons of male British peasants from the Middle Ages often have unusual curvatures, and bone heaviness, in forearm structures. This, scientists surmise, is due to long-term practice with the English longbow -- an absolutely fearsome weapon at the time, that could, in some cases, punch an arrow at a stupendous distance right through a fully armored knight. Trying to explain the force of the longbow, one professor once described it as "being able to put an arrow through a Buick from across the parking lot."
And these were, well, peasants. Perhaps it's time for another quote:
“I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit; and upon this charge
Cry "God for Harry! England and Saint George!"”
-- Shakespeare, Henry V
The idea that the host country is even involved, or indeed must be involved, with monitoring "muslims", is telling.
"Islam is a creed which is alien.It is also permanantly and deeply hostile to non-muslims." Well said.May be used as the headline following next major terrorist attack,god forbid.
Importing Muslims is deliberate government policy.
The UK government - apparently in common with most European governments - is committed to implementing the communist EU empire, or EUSSR for short. As luck would have it, Muslims committed to the global ummah have similar totalitarian, anti-nationalist views. Muslims therefore make ideal citizens for helping the EU to realise its EUSSR dream.
In addition, Muslims - and other immigrants, both from within and without Europe - cause divisions within formerly cohesive communities. A divided population consisting of large numbers of people who have no allegiance to the country in which they now live is much easier to conquer and ultimately subdue under the EUSSR cosh.
The EU was originally set up purely for trade purposes. Since then there have been six further treaties, all designed to gradually move Europe closer to its EUSSR destiny. The Irish rejected the latest treaty (Lisbon) in a referendum, just as the French and Dutch did with the EU Constitution a few years ago.
Under the EU's own rules, the fact that Ireland has rejected the Lisbon Treaty should mean that the Treaty is now dead. However, just watch as the Irish are ignored and the EUSSR steamroller rides roughshod over their opinions.
Muslims are fantastic news for the EU's communists. That's why they're welcomed with open arms, treated with kid gloves, given benefits, given free housing, given planning permission for mosques and generally given free rein to continue where they left off in their countries of origin.
A few Muslim terrorist attacks, Muslim honour killings and Muslim violence do not matter one jot to the EU communists.
The EUSSR plan is more important than any number of dead, injured or alienated indigenous Europeans.
Of course, for political reasons and to maintain the veil of democracy the government must be seen to care about such things, which is why we have MI5 etc. supposedly monitoring Muslims plotting our downfall.
Obsession Movie on Fox-Interview
http://www.TheMovieObsession.com/media_FOX_christian_american_turning_to_islam.php
watling: If the ambitions of the EU are the reason for the welcoming of Muslim immigrants, what about Australia, Canada, America? Do you think that the EU and the paralysis it causes via PC have swept the "free" world? Are our governments dealing with this on an ad hoc basis? Has fear taken over from PC as a reason for the gross sycophancy they display?
I found it utterly offensive that Bush cited Muslims' love of family as a reason for official admiration for them. Is this a new idea for us, the idea of loving one's family ? Gosh, never thought of it. Okay, we have our faults, but the Islamic family model is hardly one to emulate, and we have our own rules which are derived from our own Christian religion and which don't include the "downside" of the Islamic "love of family" as in love of several wives, love of selling daughters, and so on.
HF
"..... and how long you think you, or others, should be expected to quietly endure, as you have endured, this situation?"
Are you advocating "race riots" ( indigenous Britons rising up)? For short of major violent disruptions , nothing will ever change ..as is the lesson of history,as you well know. God save the Queen...