Regardless of antipathies, one must feel a grudging admiration for liberals and mainstream conservatives alike. To possess an outlook so agile, a mind so malleable that the most mundane queries take on a cosmic profundity. It must present new vistas of wonder daily, like being born anew with the first rays of morning sunlight.
Why do we walk on floors rather than ceilings? On our feet rather than hands? Why do fish do neither?
Why are polar bears underrepresented in deserts, as camels in the arctic?
Why are there more bird than coyote nests in trees?
Why do tortoises spend so much time on the ground?
Hey squirrels…what’s with the nuts?
Too many of Britain’s Muslims are failing to integrate. We need to find out why.
We can’t carry on like this. We just can’t.
Make that your conclusion also, and this piece will be copacetic.
Today the Government has announced its latest measures to tackle what it will describe as the “Isil terror threat”. “Isil” is a code word. It actually means Muslim terror threat.
Last week the nation was confronted with the graphic, grotesque horror of the Rotherham child rape cases. They had, we were told, been perpetuated by “Asian sex gangs”. In this case the code word was “Asian”. They were in fact Muslim sex gangs.
In July we were confronted with the Birmingham “Trojan Horse” school scandal. The weren’t Trojan Horse schools. They were Muslim schools. Or rather, they we secular schools that were turned into Muslim schools.
This morning, Simon Danczuk – who, along with Ann Cryer and Jack Straw, is one of the few Labour MPs to have had the courage to speak out about the rapes in Rotherham – describes the corruption of the British political process via what he calls “imported” cultural differences from Pakistan. Using Pakistan interchangeably with the term “Asian” he describes how the Muslim community effectively intimidates it political representatives. “Pressure was applied, that’s what will have happened to Denis MacShane and he went along with it,” he said, referring to an admission by the former Rotherham MP that he failed to speak out about the cycle of abuse being perpetrated in his constituency. As before, it’s “Asian” that is the code word.
Yes, correct. All Western political communication occurs in code. We’ll see more of it shortly in this quoted article. But perhaps the author is going to stroll right up to a lucid evaluation.
Something is broken. Terribly broken. We are now being confronted on a monthly basis with fresh evidence of our failure – and it is a collective failure – to successfully integrate the British Muslim community within British society.
Or perhaps not. I would have preferred a dispensing of the obligatory qualifiers. Though here they are. The rule is as follows: any discussion (however faint-hearted) of “minority” social pathologies must invariably proceed from a concession of white culpability. It is cast in marble. So those dozens of white girls raped by Pakistanis–that’s YOUR failure white Brits. And he’s absolutely correct. Though hardly in the manner intended.
Furthermore, an “integrated” demographic amalgamation results in none of the original elements, but rather an entirely new mixture. Whenever I hear hosannas for integration, I hear taps for those subject to it.
Each time one of these fresh abuses comes to light we undergo the same ritual. A report will be issued, and a sombre statement read out in the House of Commons. We will be stunned by what is revealed, and say to ourselves “How can this have happened? Here? In Britain? In 2014?”
Here in 2014 Britain? What does this mean? Do Muslims not rape in even years? It’s difficult to even speculate on the premise of such rhetorical queries. All I can gather would be a childlike disappointment that the nature of man doesn’t age with the calendar. Though the author is about to reveal his anti-bigotry bonafides.
Then two armies will mobilise. The ranks of one of those armies will be filled primarily with hardcore racists and professional Islamophobes. Their bile will spew forth, overtly and subliminally, as they summon up images of Britain’s green and pleasant land being turned into the West’s first Islamic caliphate.
They will quickly be met in battle by representatives of the Muslim community, Muslim commentators and some of their colleagues in the liberal commentariat. They will point to their opponents, conjure their own apocalyptic images of a white, anti-Muslim backlash, and push the original abuses to the side.
Who can identify the false equivalence? Though first let’s note the descriptions this author has deployed as defensive bollards around his perimeter.
Warring Party A:
spew (always spew)
Warring Party B:
Don’t seem to see any hardcore, spewed phobic bile anywhere. Yes, it appears our author is safely tucked away.
Now consider the identified prelude to these skirmish lines: muslim aggression perpetrated against the indigenous white population. And so those who have committed no crimes whatsoever, and emerge peacefully in defense are characterized as the ‘ists, the ‘obes, and the far fars. While those who excuse, condone, conceal, and often enough commit the atrocities are merely…liberal.
And what of the rest of us? This is what we do. We look down upon these two warring armies, tearing each other to pieces, and we say to ourselves “I’m not getting mixed up in that.” So we turn away.
One group raping girls, the other group angry about it. One group colonizing your ancient land, the other opposing that colonization. Why would the author support one side over the other? Instead it’s…
I’m not getting mixed up in that.
One sees this contrived aloofness across the political spectrum. Whites above a certain IQ threshold find it terribly gauche to take their own side. A posture they tend to hold to very bitter ends. And it is not only liberals. I note the affectation being well ensconced within the Sailerian HBD sphere.
Isn’t it fascinating that different peoples are different?
Yes, it’s quite interesting. Now what say we commence defending ourselves?
What are you, a Stormfront poster?
I find the pretension tedious, particularly when used to denigrate less rhetorically supple peers. But it is effective in preserving carefully nurtured self images. HBD is, at core, a means for 2+SD whites to engage in oblique self-advocacy. This being an explicit privilege of all other peoples. Whatever moves the ball down the field, I suppose.
Back to the article.
I have no idea what the best model would be. A public inquiry. A Royal Commission. It doesn’t really matter. But we need a proper, comprehensive, formal examination of our failure to effectively integrate the British Muslim community.
Here’s a question. What would be an easier and more humane task for all parties involved–as I am fully above the fray of choosing sides myself:
1) Recreating Babel from a Noah’s Ark of Earth’s tribes. And then trying to extinguish the inevitable friction with tears and more immigration until the exsanguinating cycle of dominance and dislocation completes.
2) Leave Englishmen to their ancient 89 thousand sq mile island. And let Africans (for one) make do on their tiny windswept 11.7 million sq mile continent.
Number one is the obvious choice we know. But as night follows day, Britain’s Muslims are failing to integrate.
We need to find out why.