Polite Kid

The picture on the left shows a follower of the Religion of Peace, holding his holy book, which, according to Tony Blair, is 'progressive', 'reforming', 'practical' . How can we have been so wrong, Tony, as to believe otherwise?
According to Blair:
To me, the most remarkable thing about the Koran is how progressive it is. I write with great humility as a member of another faith. As an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, much as reformers attempted to do with the Christian church centuries later. The Koran is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and far ahead of its time in attitudes toward marriage, women, and governance.'
Does this even require comment?
Not a couple of weeks ago, Blair made a speech in which he appeared to be repudiating multiculturalism, and denounced 'extremism' and 'fundamentalism', in an ambiguous turn of phrase, which could be interpreted as a warning to the 'extremists' (so-called) of the BNP, or the 'Islamists', those apocryphal bad guys who have 'hijacked' the religion of peace.
So much for Blair's supposed Damascene conversion away from multiculturalism. Well, maybe he's not really a multiculti anymore, but a full-blown Dhimmi. Only the unwary and the naive, I think, really bought the speech of a couple of weeks ago.
The other thing that has me shaking my head is that Blair is reputedly a Christian. I know that as a Christian, I am supposedly not to judge someone's spiritual state, but I have serious doubts as to whether a real believing Christian could believe the things he purports to believe. Christian belief does not leave room for submitting to Islam.
I can hardly believe that there are still 'conservatives' who think Blair is the modern-day Churchill, and our great ally. They tend to forget he is a leftist, his participation in the Iraq adventure notwithstanding. I suppose the fact that he is a leftist, through and through, explains it all.
And lest we get too complacent and think that only the Brits are succumbing to the dhimmi impulse, consider this story, in which
The American Transportation Security Administration has instructed airport security guards to be sensitive to more than 15,000 Muslims traveling to Saudi Arabia for the Hajj Muslim holiday.''
It seems that they guards have been subjected to 'sensitivity' courses teaching them that 'suspicious' Moslem passengers may simply be praying. What, like the Flying Imams?
And speaking of the 'Hajj' or the Mohammedan pilgrimage to Mecca, many Americans were blissfully unaware of what it was not so long ago; of course the multicultists think we were too insular and provincial and ethnocentric back then, and we have to be 'educated' about things like the Hajj, Jihad, suicide bombing, and all those enriching spiritual practices. So we get articles like this in our media.
Apparently our government means business about being 'sensitive' to Mohammedans, as this story indicates:
Strip-Searched Muslim Woman Gets Apology
-- from the Homeland Security Department.
And not to be outdone in 'sensitivity' by DHS and the Transportation 'Security' Administration, the Pentagon and our Armed Forces are doing their bit:
As US troops battle Islamic extremists abroad, the Pentagon and the armed forces are reaching out to Muslims at home.
An underlying goal is to interest more Muslims in the military, which needs officers and troops who can speak Arabic and other relevant languages and understand the culture of places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The effort is also part of a larger outreach. Pentagon officials say they are striving for mutual understanding with Muslims at home and abroad and to win their support for US war aims. Among the efforts to attract and retain Muslim cadets:
� West Point and the other service academies have opened Muslim prayer rooms, as have military installations.
� Imams serve full- and part-time as chaplains at the academies and some bases.
� Top non-Muslim officers and Pentagon officials have taken to celebrating religious events with Muslims overseas and here in the US.
"There is a message here, and that is that Muslims and the Islamic religion are totally compatible with Western values," says Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England in an interview.
All of this is very encouraging -- if you're a Mohammedan or a stone leftist who hates the West, and wants to see Christendom destroyed, by gradual means or by force.
It seems as if Tony Blair is not the only dhimmi in the West.

Labels: Dhimmitude, Islam, Moslems

...backlash feared by Muslim community.''
The 'backlash fear' stories will come next; trust me.
I thought things had been a little too quiet lately on the terror front.
By now we have all heard about the latest thwarted bomb plot in London. I noticed that on this afternoon's reports on the cable news channels, they were carefully avoiding any mention of Moslems and the Religion of Peace.
Police avert car bomb carnage
...Scotland Yard, Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur urged people to be "alert and vigilant" and to
report any suspicions to the police.
Disruption would be kept to a minimum, he said, although the police were reviewing the safety of a number of big public events set to take place in the capital over the weekend.
"I want to reassure Londoners that we are doing everything possible to make them safe," he added.''
Tariq Ghaffur? So now the Scotland Yard assistant commissioner is himself a Moslem?
Meanwhile, in our country, the President spoke at a rededication ceremony at the Islamic Center of Washington, which was celebrating its 50th anniversary. In his remarks, he included the usual twaddle about militants not representing true Islam.
In this account of the event, we learn that Bush will appoint a special envoy to the Moslem world:
President George W. Bush announced Wednesday he will establish an envoy to a coalition of Muslim countries, with hopes of bolstering ties to the Islamic world and improving the image of the United States.
[...]
"Our special envoy will listen to and learn from representatives from Muslim states, and will share with them America's views and values," Bush said in a ceremony honoring the 50th anniversary of the Islamic Center, a mosque and cultural center in Washington.
"This is an opportunity for Americans to demonstrate to Muslim communities our interest in respectful dialogue and continued friendship," Bush said.
[...]
Those attending Wednesday's ceremony, including Bush, took off their shoes as they entered. Bush listened as a verse from the Quran was read.
"We live in a time when there are questions about America and her intentions. For those who seek a true understanding of our country, they need to look no farther than here," Bush said.
"This Muslim center sits quietly down the road from a synagogue, a Lutheran church, a Catholic parish, a Greek Orthodox chapel, a Buddhist temple - each with faithful followers who practice their deeply held beliefs and live side by side in peace," he said.
Bush singled out Iran and Syria and accused them of religious and political repression.
"Millions seek a path to the future where they can say what they think, travel where they wish and worship as they choose," he said. "They plead in silence for their liberty and they hope someone, somewhere will answer.
"So today in this place of free worship, in a heart of a free nation, we say to those who yearn for freedom from Damascus to Tehran: you are not bound forever by your misery. Plead in silence no longer. The free world hears you. You're not alone. America offers you its hand in friendship. We work for the day when we can welcome you into the family of free nations."
This story is yet one more bit of evidence that the President is not the fundamentalist 'right-wing Christian' he is represented as; his actions (such as observing Moslem rituals such as taking off his shoes and listening to the Koran reading) would not be acceptable to a Bible-believing Christian. And no, being 'president of all the people' does not mean taking part in Mohammedan rituals and ceremonials. If it does, then no believing Christian can be President.
But the most troubling thing to me is not the President's fellowshipping with those of a false religion, and a religion which teaches violence and world domination, but his willful attempt to disarm us as a nation. And yes, despite our use of military force to bring 'liberty' to Iraq, we are disarmed in that we are compelled by our diversity-crazed elites to live side-by-side with hostile peoples, and we are conditioned to believe that it's only a small minority who pose a threat.
Fostering that kind of detachment from reality amounts to disarming us.
The President speaks in saccharine, smarmy platitudes about all faiths, Christian, Buddhist, Moslem, living 'side by side in peace', but if you want to see the reality of this forced coziness among disparate peoples and 'belief systems', take a look at what is happening in London. That is the reality; not the kumbaya liberal nonsense the President is peddling. And as long as we are forced to accept a murderous cult into our midst, there will be the hard reality of terror plots and bombs. And next time, the attacks may be carried out, and not fortuitously thwarted beforehand. Our luck cannot hold out forever, not as long as we keep on rolling the dice and living dangerously with diversity.

Labels: Islam, Jihad, Moslems, Muslims, Political Correctness, Terrorism

Following my post of the other day about inbreeding and the way the anti-White left uses that fear against us, there's this about Moslem inbreeding in Britain.
'Bradford is very inbred. There is a huge amount of cousins marrying each other there.�
Studies have shown that 55 per cent of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins � and in Bradford, this rises to 75 per cent.''
And when, predictably, the angry Moslems denounced this, saying it 'demonises Muslims', Professor Jones -- equally predictably -- feels compelled to mention that inbreeding also occurs in the UK:
In his talk, Prof Jones said inbreeding was not confined to Muslims, and historically had occurred in every part of society, including the royal family.
He said: 'We are all more incestuous than we realise. In Northern Ireland lots of people share the same surname, which suggests a high level of inbreeding.
'There�s a lot of surname diversity in London but if you look at the Outer Hebrides there are rather fewer surnames in relation to the number of people.�
Well, the good professor should know that pointing to an exceptional area like the Outer Hebrides does not mean that the British are just as prone to inbreeding as Pakistani Moslems. Shame on him for implying that.
And as for his notion that the same surname indicates inbreeding -- is he that clueless? People named 'Smith' descended from people who were smiths by trade. Were they all related? Many people have surnames based on where their ancestors lived; are they all kin? And since some of these surnames have been around for many centuries, the relationship may go back dozens of generations. It's silly to suggest that a common surname indicates a close enough relationship to classify it as inbred.
And I know that a lot of people, even in the UK, like to bash the royals, and royalty in general, for various reasons. But the inbreeding that did occur among royals was not as 'incestuous'. Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip are second and third cousins several times removed, being connected by descent from Queen Victoria -- four generations back.
No doubt there have been royal marriages between closer cousins but those marriages seem far less common today. Again, shame on Jones for implying that the royals are 'incestuously' inbred.
Why is it now some kind of unwritten law that when criticizing a 'protected' group in some way, or when some ''insensitive'' third party criticizes them, White people must say that we are just as guilty? That is getting very old, and somebody has to speak up about it. Just tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.

Labels: Genetics, Inbreeding, Moslems, Political Correctness

The spirits of your fathers
Shall start from every wave�
For the deck it was their field of fame,
And Ocean was their grave:
Where Blake and mighty Nelson fell
Your manly hearts shall glow,
As ye sweep through the deep,
While the stormy winds do blow!
While the battle rages loud and long
And the stormy winds do blow.
-Ye Mariners of England - Thomas Campbell
I have been reading a lot of commentary on the British Navy hostages, and as always I am as much interested in the strange responses among many 'conservatives', on the web forums and blogs, as in the event itself.
A lot of questions occur to me in connection with the whole incident: were the British in Iranian waters, as their captors claim, or in Iraqi waters? Was this a 'provocation' meant to escalate the situation between Iran and the Coalition, as some are claiming?
I always start from the premise that whatever our Moslem foes have to say is false or deceptive; that cynical assessment is based on reality. Given that the Moslem ideology/religion encourages lying to the Infidel, how are we to accept at face value anything they say, especially when it is in their interests to lie?
And why were the British so ill-prepared for this encounter with the Iranians? Was this not a contingency that was considered? Apparently their rules of engagement did not allow for them to resist in any way, but it is also true that they were outnumbered and outgunned, apparently.
Still, given the leftist, appeasing tendencies of the Blair government (and no, my friends, he is not the modern Churchill; he is a leftist and a dedicated multiculturalist globalist) it is not surprising that the rules of engagement would not allow the British to fight back. Now, I have heard a lot of sneering comments from the usual neocon hawks about what 'wusses' the British are, since they did not resist capture, but let's think back to a few months ago when our National Guardsmen at the border retreated from armed drug smugglers and paramilitary thugs. Not to condemn our National Guard here; it seems their rules of engagement did not allow for self-defense, so we are really not in a position to jeer at the British here; we are the proverbial dwellers in a glass house. And remember, our country is being invaded by thousands of unknown people, many of them dangerous and armed, every day. We are not exactly Fortress America. So this wussiness is not something that afflicts only our British cousins. Again, though, I blame the elites, not the troops; they merely follow orders. All of us in the West are afflicted with appeasing, weakling leaders, who are more concerned with not giving offense than in protecting the citizenry.
The other controversial aspect of the story is the presence of the female 'seaman', and her being paraded before the cameras wearing a headscarf (I believe it is called a 'hijab' but I don't know all the terminology of the Moslem customs, nor do I want to know. None of us should have to know a hijab from jilbab from a niqab.)
I found the whole headcovering fetish to be insulting; why is it that whenever they capture a Western woman, they have to shroud her in their barbaric headcoverings? Surely that is an indignity, subjecting them to the benighted, backward customs of their stunted culture. And what if we removed the headcoverings from their women here in the West? They would consider it an outrage, and an infringement on their 'freedoms', while they can impose their medieval ways on our people, unchallenged.
And here comes the next aspect of the story: the presence of this woman in a combat situation. I am still amazed by the ferocity with which many 'conservatives' defend the presence of women in combat. Conservatives these days are amazingly quick to seize on recent liberal innovations and to defend them. Conservatives are getting very good at conserving liberalism these days. So if you criticize the presence of women in these situations, you will get savaged by people who claim you are sexist, or you are diminishing the bravery of the women who volunteer for military service. I don't deny that women are capable of bravery and strength; there are plenty of stories, true ones at that, of brave women in the colonial and pioneer days in our country, women who defended their homes and families when it was necessary to do so. But that is different from women being sent to the front lines, into harm's way, knowing that they may be subject to capture, and to rape and torture. And many are like this British 'seaman', a mother of a young child. In some instances, married couples with children both go to war, and the children are farmed out to relatives for the duration. I don't see how a real conservative can favor that arrangement. It goes against long-established standards of Western history. Even some of the more warlike peoples in Western history did not send women into combat, notwithstanding those apocryphal or semi-apocryphal stories of 'Amazon women' who lived in separatist female societies and outfought men. This is all a feminist fairy tale. I think those stories are in the same realm with those Chinese martial arts movies featuring female martial arts masters who could whup all the men. Maybe such women existed somewhere, but in all my study of Asian history I never came across any accounts of such female warriors.
I have heard people say that it's 'sexist' to imply that going to war should be an exclusively male pursuit. How dare we value boys less than girls by decreeing that they have to fight for their country, while females are coddled and excused? Sexism!
How do you argue against such twisted reasoning? It shouldn't even be necessary to explain why war has traditionally been a male pursuit, and women have tended to the home and hearth. While allowing for the rare exceptions of women who are exemplary soldiers (remember those stories of women during the Civil War who dressed as men and fought alongside the men, unbeknownst to everybody? Or the women who cut their hair and went to sea, and became pirates?) These oddities are supposedly meant to prove that women are just as tough as men, just as warlike, and just as brave. Oddly, however, the feminists always point out that women are far less violent than men, more pacific, and less likely to be territorial. Still, in the next breath, they will say that women are the equals of men, and only 'societal conditioning' and sex-role expectations make women weaker than men. So now we have the ridiculous situation of female police officers who are not big and strong enough for the job guarding large male prisoners and arrestees. (In the case of Brian Nichols, a fifty-something grandma was hardly able to hamper his escape and his subsequent murder of a couple of people.) And we have female schoolbus drivers unable to control rowdy, violent students who are in their charge, and innocent children are hurt as a result. Women are just not the equals of men in situations requiring force, physical size and strength and aggressiveness.
And unfortunately most of the women who have been captured by the Moslem enemy have been sexually abused; in the first Gulf War, the first female pilot to be captured apparently was, but this was hushed up at the time. Apparently, Jessica Lynch, the much-lauded soldier who was held in captivity while injured was also abused in this fashion. But the defenders of women in combat will say that men can be raped or abused also, and why should we protect women more? Don't we care about our sons in combat? Let's not coddle women and put only the men at risk.
Again, this is just liberal talk; no matter which way you twist and turn, you can't deny history; women have traditionally not been warriors. Women are not as fitted emotionally or physically for warfare, and there is no denying that women are vulnerable in ways that men might be less so. The presence of women tends also to weaken male bonding and trust, with sexual rivalries and jealousies playing out, and there are other complicating factors: sexual tensions, sexual harassment, pregnancies. All of this distracts from the mission. The sexual aspect should not be introduced into an already highly-charged setting. And we have all heard how the standards in the military have been PC-ized and dumbed down so as to compensate for and to downplay the obvious disparities between men and women. This harms us overall.
From a cultural perspective, do we really believe that putting women in combat situations against the Moslems in particular is a good thing? The Mohammedans surely respect us less for sending our women up against them. Yet, perversely, lots of conservatives are in favor of it for exactly that reason: if it angers or insults the Mohammedans to have females fighting them, then good; let's keep on doing it. That seems like an especially weak reason for putting women in combat. Do we use them just to tick off the Moslems? How childish.
Another twisted bit of reasoning by these 'conservatives' is that if we remove women from combat, we are just as bad as the Moslems, because they keep their women at home and in a subordinate position. So, we have to flaunt our female soldiers just to prove how much more enlightened we are than they are. Well, yes, we are more advanced than they are; I'll say it. But if we are, it's not because of idiotic leftist egalitarianism like putting women and girls in combat.
I sincerely hope these hostages are released quickly, and that they come to no harm, especially the woman. Now is that sexist to say so? I hope that the UK government takes any steps necessary to ensure that their people come home safely, but at the same time, the British should maintain their tradition of strength and honor, and not allow themselves to be humiliated and degraded by the Iranians or anyone else. The Moslems are testing us repeatedly, and with each capitulation and accommodation, their contempt for us increases. Only standing up to them will stop their depredations; appeasement just emboldens them.

Labels: Feminism, Iran, Moslems, Political Correctness, Western Culture

Dutch politician doubts Muslim ministers' loyalty
AMSTERDAM: The leader of a Dutch anti-immigration party will call for a vote of no-confidence in two Muslim government ministers next week, citing their dual nationality as the issue, a newspaper reported today.
Geert Wilders said in an interview with the Dutch daily NRC Handelsblad the appointment of Moroccan-born Ahmed Aboutaleb and Turkish-born Nebahat Albayrak as junior ministers was wrong because both could have loyalties towards countries other than the Netherlands.
[...]
In Saturday's interview, Wilders said: "I do not want to live in a country where some day six or seven members of cabinet could be Muslim," adding that Islamic laws were "barbaric", referring to four people who were beheaded in Saudi-Arabia this week.
"I want to encourage Muslims to leave the Netherlands voluntarily. The demographic development should become such, that the chance is small that we again have two Muslims in the cabinet." About 1 million Muslims live in the Netherlands out of a population of 16 million. ''
This article is a rarity in that it does not use terms like 'far-right' or 'extremist' in describing Wilders's party, the Party for Freedom (PVV) . But whatever they say, or don't say, Wilders is a brave man for speaking out as he has; I hope he sets an example to be followed by others. We don't have anyone remotely comparable to him in our political scene; even Virgil Goode, who has taken a lot of flak for his criticism of Islam, was slated recently to attend some kind of Moslem service in the name of 'outreach' or dialogue. But Wilders' call for Moslems to leave voluntarily was a brave act; I don't know that anybody will take him up on it; but it's a start.
And here is an unexpected op-ed piece from Investors Business Daily, which I recently linked to; they are showing uncommon common sense in this piece (H/T Lawrence Auster, View from the Right):
Profile Of A Terrorist
Global Jihad: A new Gallup poll finds that richer, better-educated Muslims are more likely to be radicalized. This explodes the myth of the poor, dumb terrorist.
Since 9/11, the politically correct elite have mau-maued Americans into thinking the terrorists have hijacked a peaceful religion out of ignorance and poverty. Or that they've been brainwashed by Osama bin Laden.
But Gallup found the opposite to hold true: The most radical among Muslims � those who support jihad � earn more and stay in school longer. These are the smart ones, not the rubes.
[...]Gallup merely backs with statistics what we already knew. Contrary to liberal dogma, education makes Muslims only more extreme, not more moderate. Education doesn't stop terrorism.
Inviting more Muslims to our shores in the hopes they'll embrace our culture and adopt our values also seems misguided.
Yet this is the logic behind the White House's deal to grant 21,000 student visas to young Saudi men over the next four years. It's been sold as a cultural exchange program.
But do we really want to educate thousands of Saudis on our campuses if education helps only to radicalize Muslims?
Gallup's survey of Muslims, the largest conducted, puts to rest theories that radicals attack us because they're poor and alienated from society. Or because they're dim and easily misled.
Radical Muslims have an education and an economic future, yet they still hate. They're literate enough to interpret their holy books, yet they still embrace jihad against infidels.
Perhaps the only sane course in this war is to separate the West from Islam.''
[emphasis mine]
Truly it is the only sane course, and the mark of how insane our world has become is that there are so few voices calling for the obvious course, which is, of course, separation.
This op-ed represents a kind of breakthrough, and coming from an unexpected source. I suppose I would expect a business-oriented media source to be more like the Wall Street Journal, with its cosmopolitan, libertarian, no-allegiance-but-to-the-almighty-dollar, Open Borders crusade. So, kudos to the IBD and their op-ed staff. I hope a few more intrepid voices who are not cowed by PC will speak up in the mainstream media. I truly hope this is the first of many voices speaking out for separationism. Spread the word.

Labels: Islam, Moslems, Political Correctness, Religion Of Peace