Such a prescient, beautiful sentiment.

Sunday, 6 February 2011

The Truth Might be Out There.

It's Not A Palatable One.

"Since the early 1960s, Muslim Brotherhood members and sympathizers have moved to Europe and slowly but steadily established a wide and well-organized network of mosques, charities, and Islamic organizations. Unlike the larger Islamic community, the Muslim Brotherhood's ultimate goal may not be simply "to help Muslims be the best citizens they can be," but rather to extend Islamic law throughout Europe and the United States.
Four decades of teaching and cultivation have paid off. The student refugees who migrated from the Middle East forty years ago and their descendants now lead organizations that represent the local Muslim communities in their engagement with Europe's political elite. Funded by generous contributors from the Persian Gulf, they preside over a centralized network that spans nearly every European country."

If proof were ever needed it is in those words above that our, Labour in particular, ruling elite have got multi-culturalism so terribly wrong. It's a bit late for Pseudo to call it but full marks for the sentiment if not the intention to do anything about it. As this movement waits in the wings to potentially take power in Egypt, the Israeli years of a solid non aggression  pact with their powerful neighbour is threatened and the instability of the region would gain a strength long forgotten. Couple this with their footholds throughout Europe and a Muslim American placement at the top of American Government and it's burquas all round, ladies. Full marks to the Egyptian people in seeking to topple a nepotistic and ghastly elite but as ever, being careful for what you wish for is not a human strong point. However, if a Muslim regime comes into power in Egypt, so be it. Let's then have our own Western revolution to establish our cultural and religious society, even if purely secular. I would embrace that rather than the enforcement of Islamic terror and rule and the barbaric elements that entails. The Crusades were not all bad.


  1. Let's then have our own Western revolution to establish our cultural and religious society, even if purely secular.

    Definitely secular. If you're a Christian, and I suspect from your post you may be, then I'll apologise in advance because you're not going to like hearing this. But the thing is I have at least as much to fear from the reality of freedom hating Christian extremists here as I do the theory of Islamic ones here or anywhere else. They're often nice, smiling people, but they are in a far better position to harm me and to restrict my liberty than the Muslims. Sorry, but that's how I see it when the PM admits she's an atheist and people openly wonder if upsetting the Christian lobby will cost her her job.

    That there's a Christian in each of the Kremlin, White House, Downing Street and Palais de l'Élysée should keep me awake much more often than a few muslims who, relatively speaking, can maybe put their hands on the occasional bomb or bit of poison. Yes, their kind nicked a few planes and crashed them, but it was Christian leaders who reacted by flushing what liberty remained at the turn of the century down the nearest shitter, and it is still Christian leaders refusing to even discuss reversing this. The people who started the ball rolling called themselves Muslims, but those who are responsible for all the loss of liberty since did and still do call themselves Christians.

    That doesn't mean Christianity is our problem or even those that call themselves Christians are truly representative of their faith. I'm not saying that at all and I think that in fact they're probably not. But the bottom line is that the people in the best position to harm us and destroy our liberty are often to be found in church on Sunday.

  2. "the people in the best position to harm us and destroy our liberty are often to be found in church on Sunday."
    A moot point but wrong. The majority of those in Church on a Sunday, in the UK, these days are like those found in the trenches and in battle. Few if any are atheists. Those who are genuinely nice people have no need of a badge or of recognition. However, the creed of Christianity in its real sense is as good as it gets. Few, myself included, could never reach the forgiveness, despite the torture of the cross, achieved by Christ. To deny that historic courage does no one credit.

  3. Firstly, I’d better declare an interest here; I am an atheist.

    That said, I’ve been brought up in, and know my way around, the protestant ethic and have great respect for the Christian tradition of forgiveness and helping one another.

    The difficulty with Islam is that it is not purely a religion, it is a mindset that brooks no opposition. With Christianity there is a broad acceptance of plurality, even though one is supposed to believe that there may only be salvation through Christ. There is a singular rarity of Christians who want to kill non-believers, and this is one of the reasons I feel comfortable in their presence and would feel uncomfortable in the company of Anjam bloody Choudray for example. Well no, I wouldn’t really – only that I would feel tempted to grasp the back of his neck and slam his face into the desk.

    And there I have proved my unsuitability for inclusion in the ranks of Christianity. I am too attached to a bit of the old smiting of hip and thigh...

  4. Nowt wrong with a bit of smiting, Caratacus.

  5. OR, you've refuted something I did not actually say. All elephants are grey but not all that is grey is an elephant. I very carefully did *not* say that the majority of Christians are in a position to harm us and destroy liberty. Clearly they are not - even if that was the wish of the majority of Christians, and I accept that it is not (though again, we're speaking of the majority of Christians, not all of them), the positions of power are vastly too few. I even said so in the two sentences immediately before the one you quoted. What I said in that last one was that those who are in such positions are invariably Christians of one variety or another. My fear would be that one might take it into his head that this or that event was a sign from God to do whatever was in his head to do anyway except for the fact that I suspect this has already happened on many occasions. My fear now is that it won't stop.

    The difficulty with Islam is that it is not purely a religion, it is a mindset that brooks no opposition.

    Caratacus, that's certainly how their fundamentalists see things, but go look at some of the people on Christianity's equivalent scale and tell me they're so different. I'm not talking historical stuff or even Pastor Fred Phelps type wingnuttery here. The Scopes Trial was less a century ago and there are any number of evangelists whose writings and speech (and hypocrisy) is right up there with Anjem Choudary. And some of their followers are also prepared to bomb and murder for their beliefs.

    It's easy to think of the fluffier, friendlier, more tolerant liberal Christianity that we grew up with - CofE, Sunday school and Harvest Festival, Christmas, despite its commercialisation, and Easter, despite even some Christians I know thinking it's much less important than Christmas - and thinking it's all like that. The reality is that it's not. It's just that fundie Muslims get press more easily, partly because their violence often involves blowing themselves up on purpose. That makes them scary since a man who is not only prepared to die but actually intends to is hard to stop, but the suicide aspect is also a huge cultural taboo, especially to those of us from Catholic backgrounds. Other than that if someone is a fundamentalist that should worry us more than the question of them being a fundamentalist what.

  6. AE, I really think we are closer in this argument than perhaps I too quickly argued or refuted.

  7. I think so too, and did before I began that first comment. But I thought it likely if I was right in my guess that you're a Christian that it could be a bit of a hot button. Naturally you would not like to think of yourself as having anything in common with Anjem Choudary, and you haven't! But you won't have with Fred Phelps either, or next to nothing. However, swap Choudary's and Phelp's speeches and signs, change God and Jesus for Allah and Mohammed on one and vice versa on the other, alter a few other details... would either notice the difference? They're radicalised, fundamentalist, call it what you will. They also have little or no real secular power beyond a small number of noisy followers, a few of whom may be willing to commit violent acts.

    Now take Bush, who invaded Iraq because he thought he was doing God's will, which happily coincided with his own desire to get Saddam Hussein for trying to get Bush Snr. Or Blair, whose Christianity was less overt but still open - and now he's gone RC how the bastard isn't still in the confessional while the priests work 3 shifts a day listening to his sins I cannot understand. He ought to be saying Hail Marys until he's about 150! Massive, large scale violence initiated by the pair of them, with some very questionable justification given for it, topped with disgraceful use of state power against their own citizens. Cameramong and O'Barmy are no better, promising so much and delivering the centre of a donut.

  8. AE - points taken. Well made points too.

    I would hazard a guess that if push came to shove, Christians would choose family above God's will as promulgated by a priest, vicar or bishop. The feeling I have is that Muslims would be more likely to obey the will of Allah - as presented by clerics mullahs etc. Perhaps that's just a bit of good old British "Bollocks to that" which has carried us through for years!