It's Not Enough to Repeatedly Say "Stop Muslim Immigration"

Kathy Shaidle is repeatedly posting on her popular blog Five Feet of Fury "Ban Muslim immigration to Canada," or "Stop Muslim immigration to Canada today."

I sent her an email yesterday with this suggestion:

Hi Kathy,

First a belated Merry Christmas and (a timely) Happy New Year!

I am glad that you are consistently mentioning a radical approach to the Muslim issue - stopping Muslim immigration into Canada.

Most people these days will not come up directly with that approach. But your popular blog will surely give people something to think about.

If I can make a suggestion. I think most readers would like some kind of strategic approach to the problem. They might get frustrated at simply saying: stop Muslim immigration. How, when, why etc. might be their questions. It is a blanket statement like: Muslims are destroying our civilization.

I have linked on my blog to a comprehensive strategy which conservative writer Lawrence Auster has established. It not only looks at immigration, but also:

- what to do with Muslims already here. Part of many people's rationale is that Muslims are already here, they are "assimilating" and we cannot do anything about them.

- how to approach jihadi and sharia infiltration

- And even what to do with our "diversity" institutions such as multiculturalism

But, rather than re-write it, it is better that you read the whole thing yourself.

You can find more information on Auster's writings about "What to do about Islam" here.

Plus, one other suggestion, Geert Wilders already has clear policies he has set up for the Netherlands, for which he is getting incredible popular support. Perhaps you could also use examples from his strategies on how to deal with Muslims in the West.

People are eager to know what to do. Most writers and politicians are not giving them the information and background that they want.

Let me know if I can be of help.

Kidist.

Is Protecting Freedom the Ultimate Cause for our War Against Islam

In my previous post on Lars Hedegaard's ordeal in Denmark, I referred to the video of the interview which caused all the commotion. The video is worth watching, as Hedegaard presents a lucid account of Islam, based on his new book The 1400-year war.

But, I neglected to pursue the final part of the interview where the interviewer asks "how should we fight this war?" Hedegaard talks about internal measures, such as shutting down mosques which preach jihad, reducing the power of Imams, and making sure that political and violent messages aren't preached or passed on to Muslims. He doesn't once mention immigration restrictions.

As I wrote in this blog post, Denmark had reduced its immigration levels in 2004 to 20% of its 2001 levels. So, probably, immigration isn't such a big issue as it is in Canada or the US.

But, another issue I've always had with free speech and freedom of expression advocates is that they base much of Western civilization around these concepts, as does Hedegaard, when he says: "Basically our civilization is based on the notion of freedom, personal choice, free speech…"

It is interesting that the most vocal free speech/freedom of expression advocates, including Ezra Levant, reached their public position these days because of their interaction with Islam. Even the Danish Free Press Society calls Islam: "the most dangerous threat at the moment."

Islam, of course, want to silence the press and speech in general because it doesn’t want its intentions uncovered, which is that it is fighting a civilizational war against the West, and not just a war against free speech.

I will be elaborating on this narrowing down of the war against Islam based only on free speech and freedom of the press and expression, which this specialized and active group is fronting, as I come up with more coherent thoughts on the idea. But, my premise is that it is not enough to have free speech (and freedoms in general) as our main cause for which to fight against Islam. The issues are bigger, more complex and more intertwined. Freedom is important, but it isn’t the only factor.

The Danish Free Press Society Should Now Have a Renewed Resolve for the Truth

My only source of information for the outrageous distortions of Lars Hedegaard's interview that I wrote about in my last post was The Copenhagen Post. Since then, I have dug up more information, and the International Free Press Society website also posted an article Hedegaard wrote to discuss (explain is too submissive) his interview.

Hedegaard’s 30-minute interview with the website Snaphanen is here. It is an interesting and lucid commentary by Hedegaard, and is based on the new book that he co-wrote titled The 1400-year War.

The exaggerated comments that were reported on The Copenhagen Post were revised editions of comments made by blogger Lars Pilegaard, which were published at the online 180Grader by its editor-in-chief Ole Birk Olesen. Pilegaard has accused Hedegaard of "revolt, lynching and war" against Muslims and that he has defamed them by calling them rapists and liars (I've addressed these two distorted interpretations of Hedegaard's words in my previous post, and Hedegaard also addresses them in his article).

Hedegaard’s direct quotes printed in The Copenhagen Post are from the Snaphanen interview. One of them, on lying, is slightly incorrect, or incomplete. It should be:

"Whenever it's advisable for a Muslim to hide his true intentions, to lie, to [inaudible] false oaths in his own interest and in the interest of Islam, he is either advised to do so or he's ordered to do so..."

Besides three members of the Danish FPS quitting, an outside personality, the deputy chairman of Arhus integration council Yilmaz Evcil, has filed a complaint against Hedegaard to the police for his "racist comments" during the Snaphanen interview. The IFPS website calls it "charges for 'hate speech.'"

This is a serious development in the small world of counter-jihad leaders who are also fighting for freedom of the press and of speech. Clearly, criticizing Islam has its repercussions, however soundly, moderately and thoughtfully one does so. Even freedom of the press advocates, such as the three advisory board members who quit, are willing to suppress the press (and speech) if they feel that a line has been crossed when discussing Islam and Muslims. The suppression is of course based on anti-discriminatory principles, rather than reporting falsehoods.

If criticizing Muslims (and other foreigners and immigrants) is not acceptable, and gets in the way of reporting and discussing the truth of their situations, then the various FPSs have a lot of work to do. But perhaps it is good that the "bad seed" of the Danish FPS have been weeded out. This incident should give Hedegaard and his remaining team more resolve to fight the truth-squelching Muslims and their allies, and to battle on with the difficult and dangerous job of exposing the truth. And by extension, it should be a lesson to us all.

Viking Spirit at Christmas Time

The Copenhagen Post headlines the following news as an "Uproar in Free Press." It makes the event much more dramatic than it is. What happened was the President of the Danish Free Press Society (and also the International Free Press Society) merely said:

quote:

Whenever it is prudent for a Muslim to hide his true intentions by lying or making a false oath in his own or in Islam’s service, then it is ok to do it

And quote:

When a Muslim man rapes a woman, it is his right to do it

The online news story describes Hedegaard as going on

a veritable tirade against Muslims in an interview with website Snappen, accusing them of raping their own children, lying without conscience and basically having no morals whatsoever.

The direct quotes provided by The Copenhagen Post disprove this exaggerated version. Hedegaard is merely describing Taqiyya, a form of covert warfare carried out by Muslims allowing them to lie to their opponents, and the rape of women simply refers to the cultural norm in Islam where the woman is the property of the man.

Several members have quit Hedegaard's Free Press Society, and one Christian minister threatened to do so unless Hedegaard was dismissed from his post. The organization dismissed her instead.

So, on the Eve before Christmas, a Christian minister is more concerned about protecting a belligerent, aggressive, determined, anti-Christian religion, that promises to destroy Christians (and other non-Muslims), rather than pay heed to the words of one of her countrymen.

I met Lars Hedegaard during my travel in New York. I was with him and other members of the International Free Press Society on a long ride (traffic was very bad BOTH ways) to and from Princeton to participate in Kurt Westergaard's presentation at the University. Mr. Hedegaard is an educated, sophisticated man, who has no illusions about what immigration, and especially Muslims, are doing to his country.

I said to him that something of the feisty Danish Vikings, who settled in early England, must have rubbed off onto the English, who repeated this feistiness ten-fold with their own world domination (in language, science, military).

Of course, the English have long lost that spirit, as has much of Europe. But it is good to see it revived, in Westergaard and now Hedegaard. What the world needs now is more of this Viking spirit.

Merry Christmas!

How Much Influence Did Orientalism Have on Western Art?

Henri Matisse, Purple Robe and Anemones; 1937

Matisse's interior takes on a flat,
extended dimension, where the woman's
fabric, the wallpaper, the carpet and
even the patterned table blend together
to eliminate three-dimensional space.

Ibn Warraq, from The New English Review has an article about the influence of Orientalism on Western art. He does this while reviewing a biography of Mozart: Mozart The Dramatist, by Brigid Brophy.

One small quibble I have with his review (which is of course the theme of the writer who penned the biography): Western artists may have been leaning on Oriental themes to find the subjects for their works (paintings, music, literature), but the structure and composition of the works ended up being very much the creations of these artists.

I have been interested in the attraction towards exoticism that induced painters to study Arab culture, and even travel to and live in Arab lands. One such painter was Matisse. The evolution of his paintings is a complex topic, where he goes from three-dimensional depictions to two-dimensional ones so that his paintings look like layers of flat textile on canvass.

One of his interests, which stemmed from his family's textile business, was Arab interior decoration, where the homes were draped with endless carpets and textiles, hiding three-dimensional space behind a plethora of cloth. Rooms look flat and extensive. And colorful too.

Matisse used these experiences and examples to create his own two-dimensional canvasses. His development from three dimensions to two was part of Western art's questions and queries at the time, and not Eastern art edging in on those ideas. I think it was just fortuitous that Western artists traveled to the Orient and found what they were looking for; at least Matisse did. But even then, he brought it back and incorporated it into his own artistic/philosophical ideas, and never ventured to make Oriental art.

In the end, whether it is Mozart’s Die Zauberflöte or Matisses’s Purple Robe and Anemones the works are decidedly Western. I will also venture to say that any influences that occurred were superficial, like the Oriental table or the kaftan-clothed woman in Matisse's Purple Robe and Anemones. Matisse could have executed his ideas without putting either of these objects in his painting.

Keeping Our Eye on the Ball

The Human Rights Commissions (I have a special link for all my posts on the HRCs at the right hand column of this blog) are associated with the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They were, as were the other institutions, installed to dampen the effects of diversity and the conflicts that multicultural and diverse communities can incur. They predictably arrived right after the amended immigration policies of 1967, which allowed non-white immigrants to enter into Canada without any restrictions.

Recent high-profile cases have involved pastor Boissoin and his letter to his local Alberta paper on homosexuals, and Marc Lemire who was put before the Commissions for comments on the website that he monitors. But the most vocal and belligerent cases have by far been by Muslim groups trying to silence writers and commentators on Muslim issues and news.

I have written here that while the task of dismantling these HRCs should still continue, (and also the repealing of hate speech laws, although I am not sure if that is even possible), we should not ignore these most aggressive of opponents that exposing the wrongs of HRCs has unveiled for us.

One way or another, Muslims are determined to push their culture and religion into Canadian society. If kangaroo HRCs courts won't work, they will go through normal legal procedures; if overt measures are pushed back, they will continue with their ever-covert activates of taking over one square inch at a time.

One of their most effective measures is to use the current systems and institutions to further their cause. The HRCs are one, multiculturalism is another, and diversity is the way in which they can hide behind, and soften, their effects. Immigration is what adds fuel to this fire.

These battles of the last few years on the "freedom front" have actually disclosed clearly and unequivocally a hostile force. As I wrote in my previous post, it is important to straighten out these institutions, but alongside that, we have a difficult and deceptive opponent to contend with in Islam, and we shouldn't lose sight of it.

Tying together the Use of Hate Speech Laws and the HRCs with Muslims and with Immigration

I got a response from Rebekah of The Miss Marprelate Tracts to my last email about the Free Speech and Liberty Symposium in Ottawa in early December.

She writes regarding the accuracy of her liveblog (which I didn't doubt, I just wanted clarification on a few points):

My liveblog, although not a word for word transcript, is substantially accurate on all or most of the main points and solutions offered by speakers. If I didn't mention something it is probably because it was not covered or at least not covered in any substantial way.

And in response to my question about free speech as it relates to Muslim groups, this is what she had to say:

I am, however, reasonably certain that most free speechers would place the chief, and most disturbing, blame for the current situation on the system which enables and submits to radical agendas rather than on those who would themselves seek to advance such a radical agenda. The world will always have people, of varied stripes, who seek to subvert or take advantage of the justice system. It is for the justice system to ensure that they do not succeed. That is why there is a tendency to focus on legal and political challenges to hate speech laws and public education on the issue.

I responded:

You write:

The world will always have people, of varied stripes, who seek to subvert or take advantage of the justice system.

Until now, no group of people has tried so radically to take advantage of existing Canadian laws and systems in order to aggressively advance itself within the country as have done the Muslims.The very public incidents such as the Maclean's HRCs case, and the one against Ezra Levant for publishing the Mohammed cartoons, have allowed us to see what we're up against. Muslims, I believe, are now the biggest threat to freedoms of all kinds (speech, expression, of the press, etc.).

I thought that someone like Bjorn Larsen, who has been involved personally with many counter-jihad groups and individuals, would have brought this insight (or relationship) in his presentation. He did mention Muslims, but didn't tie all this together. I think that hate speech laws, in and of themselves, should be fought against, but what they have exposed in terms of Muslims (and multiculturalism, in general) should also be the focus.

Figuring Out Liberals

The quality discussion one expects from View From the Right continues on the post "The escape from uncertainty: a theory of liberalism." I chimed in just to add a detail to the discussion. But, I fully agree with commentator Kristor that "We must remember that the change [the progress] liberals desire is a change from novelty and uncertainty toward a static ideal."

Yes, and I think the liberal's project really has no constructive end point, as I wrote in this draft of an email which I didn't send to VFR:

The idea of "eliminating uncertainty" at its most common denominator really means the elimination of uncertainty through the (controlled) power of destruction. Only destruction is controllable, doable and certain.

So, liberals never build anything, they simply destroy. But each uncertainty, or as I prefer to call it "unfairness" leads to another unfair situation, which also needs to be destroyed. The final outcome, if taken to its logical conclusion, is simply annihilation.

How Bjorn Larsen Could Have Presented a Multi-Faceted Solution to Problems Facing Free Speech

Larsen focused his speech at the Free Speech and Liberty symposium on hate speech laws. His solution is that we should simply repeal them. In Canada, these laws are enforced through Section 13 of the Human Rights Act and its corresponding Human Rights Commissions, which state:

It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Or through the Criminal Code of Canada which has three sections:

- Section 318 makes it an offence to advocate or promote genocide against an identifiable group;

- Section 319(1) makes it an offense to communicate statements in a public place that will incite hatred against an identifiable group, and thereby lead to a breach of the peace; and

- Section 319(2) makes it an offense to communicate statements, other than in private conversation, which willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.

Read about the differences between the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Act provision here.

In 2003, David Ahenakew, a First Nations politician, was charged by the Saskatchewan Justice Department (not the HRCs) with inciting hatred against Jewish groups when he justified these comments on the holocaust "That's why [Hitler] fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the goddamned world" by saying "How else do you get rid of a disease like that, that's going to take over, that's going to dominate?" He was convicted and fined $1,000, but the charge was later overturned.

The focus may be on the HRCs for now, but there is room in the Criminal Code for belligerent and aggressive groups to use the hate speech laws to continue to silence legitimate discussions. These hate speech laws are very much present, and are not simply gathering dust in some drawer.

Larsen states in this symposium (which focused purely on free speech) that we must repeal them. I have no law background, so I have no idea how possible this is.

The other solution is to reduce, and strategically remove, the group that is now most likely to put these laws into effect, which is the Muslim group. Even in Holland, it is the Muslims that are bringing Wilders to court.

I have maintained throughout Our Changing Landscape that the high levels of minority immigrant groups, who will cry "racism" and "discrimination" at opportune moments, will also continue to be problematic when it comes to the HRCs and the hate speech laws. So the aim should be to reduce immigrations levels in general.

Thus, the problem should be viewed as a combination of aggressive Muslim groups, high levels of non-white immigrants, and toxic hate crime laws. Larsen, with his ample experience with prominent counter-jihad individuals, should have provided a multi-faceted solution to the problem that includes the reduction of Muslim immigration. Currently, free speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press cannot be discussed separately from the Muslim problem specifically, and the immigration problem in general.

No News Might Really Mean No News

No news from Rebekah of The Miss Marprelate Tracts regarding my email to her asking about Bjorn Larsen's presentation at the recent Free Speech and Liberty symposium in Ottawa. I find that making specific recommendations of reducing Muslim immigration to solve the "free speech" problem that has escalated in the Western world often is met with silence or with resistance by bloggers and other writers (including Islam experts - see here my email interview with Robert Spencer).

I attribute this partly to the severity of the solution, and that most Islam experts are liberals at heart when it comes to discriminating against groups of people. Many excuses are presented, including the timing is wrong, and that we need to educate people more about Islam before taking drastic measures that many might disagree with.

I think it is also some kind of addictive need to keep talking about the problem, and hoping it would go away just with the rhetoric.

Anyway, since it looks like Rebekah did such a thorough job presenting the speakers' speeches to us on her blog, there is no need to think that she may have left information out. Which holds that Larsen, despite his time with prominent counter-jihad groups, and his many interactions with Geert Wilders who is one of the main proponents for the reduction of Muslim immigration into the West, did not present that solution in his speech. Dare I say that he might be a "Semi-Usual Suspect?"

Free Speech and Liberty Symposium in Ottawa

The Canadian Centre for Policy Studies recently held a symposium titled "Free Speech and Liberty." Here is the list of speakers, and the topics they presented.

The Human Rights Commissions which come under the Canadian Human Rights Act (instituted in 1977), and the Hate Speech Provisions (sec. 318-320) which were amended into the Criminal Code of Canada in 1970, were a reaction to the multicultural, multi-racial and multi-ethnic Canada that started to form after Lester Pearson removed restrictions on non-white and non-European immigrants entering Canada after the revised Immigration Act of 1967. Some of these institutions have been used against individuals, although sparingly and with minimal public awareness, prior to the Alberta Human Rights Commissions case filed against Ezra Levant for publishing the Mohammed Cartoons, and the cases filed in the B.C. Human Rights Commissions and the Federal Human Rights Commissions against Mark Steyn and MacLeans magazine for a reprint of an excerpt from Steyn's book America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It titled "The Future Belongs to Islam."

Prior to these two cases, most of the HRC complainants were homosexuals, or those protesting what appeared to be white nationalist (possibly anti-Semite) individuals. But, the public was abruptly introduced to these institutions with the vocal and aggressive Muslims, who had no qualms against taking on media giants in the name of defending their culture and religion.

My point here is that free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press in our current debate are strongly intertwined with this multicultural landscape, and more specifically with the Muslim population. In fact, Muslims' incessant curtailment on speech is becoming common practice all over Europe, which has a longer history of Muslim immigration. In Canada, and in the United States, we are only beginning to see the tip of the iceberg.

I was curious to see if anyone in the Symposium mentioned the clearly strong influence Muslims have in the domain of "free speech and liberty." Blogger Rebekah, who hosts the blog The Miss Marprelate Tracts, did a great job of transcribing what she heard at the Symposium onto her blog. According to her account, only one person focused, his speech on the Muslim angle. That was Bjorn Larsen, now the President of the International Free Speech Society - Canada.

It is well and good to talk about the Muslim influence in restricting speech and liberty, but the final, and constant, question should be: "What do speakers who bring this up in their discussions suggest the solutions should be?"

I emailed Rebekah this question. I hope she answers, and will post her response when I get it:

Dear Rebekah,

Thanks for your great transcript of the symposium "Free Speech and Liberty." It was really helpful to get the viewpoints of the various speakers, and how they approach free speech and liberty.

One of the things I blog about here at Our Changing Landscape is how Muslims are now the prime influence in restraining, even restricting, free speech, freedom of expression, and consequently liberty in Canada. I discuss in various posts that one way to put a stop to this is to reduce, and even to stop, the number of Muslim immigrants into Canada as part of a multi-faceted solution.

I notice that Bjorn Larsen, now the President of the International Free Press Society – Canada, was the only one who explicitly brought up the Muslim influence in the restrictions on free speech. In your summary of his speech, you didn’t mention if he offered any solutions to this problem. Do you remember if he did say what to do about the presence of Muslims and their recurring and aggressive attempts to curtail free speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press?

Thanks for you time and effort.

All the best,

Kidist Paulos Asrat

Respected Muslim Family Man Now in a Canadian Jail

Respected Muslim family man now in a Canadian jail

Here is an exemplary family man, community organizer, leader in his professional group, and a "modern" Muslim, who has been jailed for threatening to kill his daughter.

His whole family (minus the daughter, who has been hiding for two years now), who say that he was simply a strict father and nothing more, apparently see nothing wrong with him pressuring his daughter into an arranged marriage. Of course, threatening to kill her could simply mean that he lost his temper when his daughter disobeyed him. His fellow-workers think he's an exemplary colleague, and he even has been offered to keep his job while in jail.

Such is the fate of the "good Muslim family men" in the West. Why don't we give these people a break and simply say:

By coming into our countries, your children will change, you will have a hard time keeping your family together, and anything that you try to do to retain your culture and your religion could be misconstrued as criminal. So, just stay home, in your Islamic countries, where you will live much more peaceful lives and where you can maintain your beliefs and your families intact.

This is surely the least we can do to alleviate all this hardship and heartache.

"Abolishing The West: Immigrants Reject Assimilation"

This is the title of Sam Francis's article written in 2002. I have provided the whole article here below. I've highlighted some points I think are worth emphasising. You can substitute "Canada" or "America" for "Britain."

Here is one quote though that is apt for the current Canadian scene.

[T]he Home Office has been suggesting that maybe the "minorities speed the process of integration by adopting British 'norms of acceptability,'" and proposing that newcomers take an oath of allegiance, study British history and culture and embrace "our laws, our values, our institutions." The suggestions promptly received the British (excuse me, the African-Caribbean) equivalent of a Bronx cheer.

Jason Kenney has recently revised the citizenship test to include those very ideas, and received the Canadian equivalent of the "Bronx cheer" from the Multi-Culti Intelligentsia.

-------------------

Abolishing The West: Immigrants Reject Assimilation

By Sam Francis

How much longer will the white majority nations of Europe, North America and Australia keep pretending they're "assimilating" non-white Third World peoples into the warm and toasty melting pot imagined by multicultural mythology?

Probably not very much longer at all, as a matter of fact. If Sept. 11 wasn't enough to disabuse some people of their delusions about immigration, the immigrants themselves will do so.

The New York Times reports that in Great Britain, where both Tory and Labor governments have long pushed multiculturalism, welcomed mass immigration from the remnants of the British empire and outlawed virtually any act, word or thought that even looks like "racism," the immigrants themselves are fed up with trying to become British. [Britain's Nonwhites Feel Un-British, Report Says, NYT April 4, 2002]

"The only times I call myself British are when I go to get a passport and when someone asks me where my accent comes from," snorts a native-born Englishwoman, Jenni I'Anson, who happens to be of Jamaican parentage.

"Otherwise I would never class myself as British. There is no sense of belonging here. I would only say that I am African-Caribbean."

Her nephew is a bit more explicit about what he is.

"British to me means white, and I don't get treated like a white person, so I don't think of myself as British."

The Times report dredges up several quotations like these from several Britons (no insult intended) who are either immigrants themselves or descended from non-white immigrants. Last summer's race riots in northern England perhaps hinted to many that the multiculturalist propaganda was all hogwash, but even without riots, terrorism and blatant anti-white and anti-Western sentiments, the evidence is pretty clear that Britain's Third World population is not behaving the way universalist ideology insists it should.

In response to the northern riots, the Home Office has been suggesting that maybe the "minorities speed the process of integration by adopting British 'norms of acceptability,'" and proposing that newcomers take an oath of allegiance, study British history and culture and embrace "our laws, our values, our institutions." The suggestions promptly received the British (excuse me, the African-Caribbean) equivalent of a Bronx cheer.

If there's any place in England where "assimilation" would seem to be able to work, it's Sheffield, the country's fourth largest city, and it's on Sheffield that the Times report focuses. The city "would seem to be a place where that project would enjoy more success than elsewhere in Britain. Race relations have been less combative here than in cities like London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Bradford and Leeds with histories of rioting. The local government has been more attentive and the police more communicative." But assimilation, integration, call it what you please, is not what the immigrants (excuse me again, the British) want. "Of course [assimilation is] the wrong thing to be asking of us," declares one Pakistani immigrant who arrived as a child and is now 46.

"What a lot of so-called English want us to want is leafy Oxfordshire. But what we want is a job, a decent place to live, safety, a chance to educate our children. We want to preserve our separate identities. And remember, we must still also maintain the economic link with our original homes. Forty years later, I am still sending money back."

What this gentleman is saying is that neither he nor other non-Western immigrants have the least intention of even trying to adopt the manners and values of the country to which they invited themselves, and that they feel insulted if the "so-called English" suggest they should.

What they expect is that the British people and the civilization they created should provide them with whatever they please — the wealth, security, freedom, education and comfort that is the creation of the white West — but that they do nothing whatsoever to sustain the civilization.

Of course, there is a school of thought that maintains that non-Western peoples are simply not capable of sustaining — or assimilating to — the civilization of the West, that "East is East and West is West," as Kipling put it, and never the twain shall meet. The responses of non-Western immigrants into Britain say nothing to contradict that view.

How long a country like Britain, which now has a population only 7.1 percent non-white but is projected to have a non-white majority by the end of the 21st century, can expect to maintain the fruits of the civilization that even the immigrants demand as their right is not clear.

But whether the immigrants cannot, will not or simply do not assimilate to the civilization of the country in which they chose to live, the fate of extinction that faces British civilization is no different from that which faces all other Western nations that continue to harbor the mythology of mass immigration.

Who are the Real Muslim Anti-Semites?

I really don't mean to focus on Ezra Levan't various attempts at deciphering the Muslim community which put his life on hold for three years when he published the Mohammed cartoons. But I don't think he understands the community. His articles mostly decry individual Muslims who attacked him. But, he has never put them together in the collective whole of Islam. It is not individual Muslims, radical Muslims, moderate Muslims, peaceful Muslims etc. ad nauseam, that are the problem, it is Islam as a religion which mandates the behaviors of all these groups and individuals.

Levant writes about Syed Soharwardy, a rabid anti-Semitic Muslim - who brought him to the Alberta Human Rights Commission for publishing the Mohammed cartoons - almost as though he is the exception to the rule. But, according to the Koran, all Jews are enemies of Islam. However odiously Soharwardy may rant against Jews, and however hate-filled is his website, he is not doing anything radically different from what the Koran mandates.

If Levant is eager to educate his Calgary Jewish Community Council about the anti-Semitism of this one man, he should be more explicit and tell them that the whole Islamic community is required to believe the worst regarding the Jews, if these Muslims are true followers of Mohammed and the Koran’s writings.

Time to Find Solutions to the Islam Problem

In a recent entry at the View from the Right, Lawrence Auster writes about a New York City presentation by outspoken Islam critic Wafa Sultan. He asked her "what Western countries should do to stop and reverse the Islamization of the West," and her answer was to treat them the same way America treated Germany and Japan.

You can read the discussion that ensued from that entry, including my comment which states that if vocal and prominent counter-jihad individuals and groups are pressed to include their views and suggestions on solutions to these problems, they might direct their energies towards these more fruitful endeavors, rather than endlessly regurgitate the horrors that Islam is doing to Western societies. Without working out the solutions, there is no point to the continuous stream of writings we have on Islam.

Coercions into Victim Status

Photo from Toronto Star article: "Near half
in Greater Toronto Area (GTA) minorities"

The favorite cop-out for all minorities, blacks, Asians, Muslims,etc., is to play the victim card. Any person that doesn't belong to the still-majority white culture, whether conservative or liberal, libertarian or neo-conservative, will at some point pull out this card. I once told someone that I have never been tempted to pull out this card, even a triple-trump one as a female, minority, immigrant (I'm sure there are more I could reel off). I don't really know why this is. It could just be a freak of nature, although I don't think so. My theory on that is long, and for another time. Partly, I think it is to do with my interest in art, and true, honest art requires excellence and discrimination. My love of art is too pure to make horrible compromises.

Recently, I have been thinking about how minority cultures are built. For example, how do blacks (both here in Canada and in the U.S.) segregate themselves as a victimized group? How do black families live collectively like that? What kinds of subtle pressures and constant nudgings convince whole groups to agree with and accept a victim status? How do people reconcile the outright lies and other more shifty paradigms with their real social conditions? Is the truth so hard to bear?

Partly, of course, it is the deep-seated fear of being shunned and ostracized. Strong group leaders, with a lot of love and compassion in mind, fascistically coerce their members to "be like them, or else." There is a lot to lose with the "or else."

But, that is the weakness of those coerced. Accepting a lie is as bad as lying. Every single individual has the opportunity to rise up to the truth. It doesn’t require an undue amount of intelligence or subtlety. It really boils down to humility before greater forces. Humility before God.