Location: London, United Kingdom

Sunday, July 02, 2006

Salami Slices

In Forest Gate the Met Police seem to have acted on some rather suspect intelligence and raided the ‘wrong home’ and the Mounties in Canada have arrested a significant sized gang of muslims who were hell-bent on causing mayhem in their adopted home of Toronto. Part of their plan was to try and murder the Canadian Prime Minister.
In 2002, when a French oil tanker was attacked off the coast of Yemen, the French foreign minister was deploring American "simplisme" on a daily basis. In fact Mr Chirac was the principal obstructionist of the ‘neo-con-Zionist-Halliburton’ plan to rebuild the Middle East to make it more compatible with the American way. If you had to pick the single most unlikely Western nation to have its oil tankers blown up, France would surely have been it.
But they got blown up anyway. Afterwards a spokesman for the ‘islamic army of Aden’ said, "We would have preferred to hit a U.S. frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels."
No problem. They are all infidels. In the scheme of things, launching a plot to behead the Prime Minister of Canada would not seem to be an obvious priority. No doubt they would have preferred to behead the President of the United States. But no problem. We are all infidels.
The multicultural society posits that each of its citizens can hold a complementary portfolio of identities: one can simultaneously be British and Jamaican and gay and Anglican and all these identities can exist within your corporeal form in perfect harmony. But, for most Western muslims, islam is their primary identity, and for a significant number thereof, it's a primary identity that exists in opposition to all others. That's merely stating the obvious. But, of course, to state the obvious is unacceptable these days, so our leaders prefer to state the absurd. The definition of a nanosecond used to be the gap between a London traffic light changing to green and the first hoot of the driver behind you. Today, the definition of a nanosecond is the gap between a Western terrorist incident and the press release of a muslim lobby group warning of an impending outbreak of islamophobia. After the London tube bombings, one of the papers actually claimed in a headline:
"British Muslims fear repercussions over tomorrow's train bombing."
The same thing happened in Toronto (the jewel in the multi-culti crown). The newspapers’ reaction to a stone being thrown through a mosque window was that it was clearly a bigger threat to the social fabric than a bombing three times the size of the Oklahoma City explosion. "Minority-rights doctrine," writes Melanie Phillips in her new book Londonistan, "has produced a moral inversion, in which those doing wrong are excused if they belong to a 'victim' group, while those at the receiving end of their behaviour are blamed simply because they belong to the 'oppressive' majority." If you want to appreciate the forces at play among Western muslims in societies enervated by multiculturalism there are no shortages of examples in London itself. The truth is that there is no way you can exaggerate the importance of really comprehending and then publicly challenging this moral, intellectual and philosophical inversion, which makes the aggressor the victim and vice versa.
I am amazed that we still find ourselves living in this bizarre situation and I wonder for how long even our decayed establishments can keep up the act. After the London bombings, the first reaction of Brian Paddick, the deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, was to declare that "islam and terrorism don't go together." After the Toronto arrests, the CSIS assistant director of operations, Luc Portelance, announced that "it is important to know that this operation in no way reflects negatively on any specific community, or ethnocultural group in Canada” (frankly the UK’s liberal elite still have some way to go the beat the Canadians for multi-culti-trash-speak) but who are you going to believe? The Mounties’ ‘diversity outreach press officer’ or your good ol’ fashioned lyin' eyes? In the old days, these chaps would have been looking for the modus operandi, patterns of behaviour. But now every little incident on the planet is apparently strictly specific unto itself: all jihad is local.
A classic example of this claptrap could be found on Radio 4 (hardcore excusists for both islamic nutters and Israel - go figure) the other day. Some rent-a-liberal claimed "You know, in Islam, if you kill one person, you kill everybody. It's a very peaceful religion. They're as shocked as Britons are (about the rise in “extremist muslim tendencies”) - that’s some serious qwality islamoschmoozing….Now let me get this straight, I thought that these people WERE Britons. The only I word we have to think about long and hard is NOT Immigration but Integration.
The Radio 4 ‘expert’ then went on to say that “we don’t really expect” these sort of home-grown hatred merchants “because of our public services and because of our diversity". Where the heck did he get that from? Insofar as there's any relation at all between jihadists and "good social services," the latter seem to attract the former -- at least in the sense that Richard Reid, the shoe-bomber, the tube bombing gangs in both Madrid and London were all products of the European gravy train system called welfare.
If you seriously think that these chaps were so upset about insufficient social services that they wanted to a) blow up 500+ people in Bali, London & Madrid and b) attempt to behead the Canadian PM Stephen Harper to highlight the fact that waiting times for the beheaded at Jimmy’s in Leeds are now up to 18 months, and they don't always reattach the right head. It's easy to joke that a chap who can be bothered blowing up a trainload of innocent commuters must be insane, but if you were a jihadist, sitting in a cave back in Afghanistan listening to the pathetic islamoapologists on Radio 4, wouldn't you conclude that they're the ones who are mad? The islamic Army of Aden PR guy seems by comparison to have a relatively clear-sighted grasp of reality.
Melanie Phillips makes the point well: "With few exceptions, politicians, Whitehall officials, senior police and intelligence officers and academic experts have failed to grasp that the problem to be confronted is not just the assembly of bombs and poison factories but what is going on inside people's heads that drives them to such acts." These are not pashtoun yak herders straight off the boat blowing up trains and buses. They're young men, most of whom were born and all of whom were bred in the UK. They had been offered a multi-culti paradise but instead found the jihad. Of course they did. If you believe in nothing, you will fall for anything. If we try to fight this problem as if they were isolated outbreaks -- a suicide attack here, a beheading there -- we will never win. You have to take on the ideology and the networks that sustain it and throttle it. One of the problems that we have today is that we don’t have a homogenous belief system to supplant it with. We used to have it, but no longer.
As I have said before, that's how nations die. Not by war or conquest, but by a thousand trivial concessions, until one day you wake up and you don't need to sign a formal instrument of surrender because you did it bit by bit over 50 years.


Post a Comment

<< Home