Thursday, June 08, 2006

Islamic vigilantes in Britain

Again, the question to ask is "Why?":
LONDON (AFP) - The police were under pressure to clear up the confusion over last week's massive anti-terror raid or risk seeing angry Muslims "take the law into their own hands," a Muslim community leader has warned.

The Muslim Council of Britain's new leader Muhammed Abdul Bari said "trust could break down" if the police failed to explain why they launched last Friday's raid, which has turned up nothing of a reported chemical weapons plot.
It's reminiscient of the Islamic riots in France last year. Islamic underclass enclaves existing in the West are powder kegs. Any action perceived to be targeting the community can potentially morph into chaos:

The Metropolitan Police's assistant commissioner Andy Hayman said police had "no choice" but to launch the raid as they worried about public safety after receiving specific intelligence of a terrorist plot.

But Hayman, who declined to comment on reports by security sources that they were looking for chemical or biological weapons, admitted that "we have not found what we went in there to look for."

Contemporary Islam isn't compatible with liberal society. Substantial Muslim communities like those in London and Paris are cloistered off from larger society. They are no-go zones for law enforcement. But homegrown thugs have hit (or have tried to hit) numerous countries in the West, and these unassimilated, secluded communities are an obvious source of future attackers. Inevitably, Western law enforcement has to penetrate them from time to time, stoking tension between the communities and their hosts, perpetuating seperatist attitudes ("I'm a Muslim living in France. I'm not French, I don't like French degeneracy, politics, culture, etc"), and increasing the likelihood that prospectless Muslims will act out against the host society.

It's a vicious circle, and it's unnecessary. There's around a ten to fifteen point IQ gap between most Muslim countries and those of European Christendom. They are lowering the quality of the workforce. Unskilled laborers (with double-digit unemployment rates, especially among the young) do not increase global competitiveness. Why bring in people hostile to your way of life who hover at the bottom of the economic ladder? The only answer I can come up with is the risible assertion that diversity is somehow existentially good despite all its disastrous consequences.

Affinity for multiculturalism is disdain for Occidental values, as the Seattle public school system explicitly demonstrates:
Cultural Racism:
Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other”, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers.
Hispanic immigration to the US and Islamic immigration to Europe both suffer heavily from cultural racism by this definition. I, like most Westerners, put a premium on most of these aspects of 'cultural racism', but I don't want to hurt people of other cultures that stress different values than I do. The optimal solution, then, is to stop bringing in groups that are inevitably going to suffer from racism unless Western culture expunges itself of everything that makes it what it is. That way we can live and let live, without directing hurtfulness at the 'non-whites' of the world. And we can enjoy true diversity instead of losing it in a heap of multicultural goop where every place, striving to "look like the world", looks the same as every other place. Why consciously create demographies that are bound to lead to more of what happened in London?

Europeans are asking similar questions:
Immigration anxiety has been fueling a fierce political debate in the United States, but attitudes about immigrants in this country are considerably more positive than in several European countries, AP-Ipsos polling found.

People in Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain are much more inclined
than those in the U.S. to think immigrants are likely to get involved in criminal activity. ...

In France, Britain, and Spain, more of the public believes immigrants have a negative influence than believes their influence is positive. I suspect the proportions would be even greater if the question pinpointed some particular immigrant groups (eg North African Muslims in Spain, Turks in Germany). I agree with them and am encouraged by steps several European countries are taking to quell the influx of Muslim immigration. We should move in the same direction.

(Terrorism)

3 comments:

faq said...

If Anglo culture is so oppressive why does the left want to subject as many poor people as possible to it? Schadenfreude? More victims in need of handouts (and politicians to deliver them?) A lion should be kept in a cage away from all the wildebeest. Putting them in his cage isn't in their best interest.

crush41 said...

faq,

You hit on a glaring but important contradiction in the mantra of the open-border left. The US is run by awful white bigots and systematic discrimination is imbued in every aspect of our oppressive culture, yet all the immigrants want is a chance to enjoy the incredible freedom, equality, and opportunity uniquely offered by America. Don't expect a coherent answer.

Anonymous said...

But according to them, Western nations are only rich because they plundered the resources of the 'third world.' Funny how Switzerland & Finland are so prosperous, though.