If Thy Cojones Cause Thee to Sin...

If thy Cojones Cause Thee to Sin...

Why is it so essential for us to keep Muslim immigrants out of Western countries, even if it means--as I think it realistically will--also excluding others by drastically reducing the sheer numbers of newcomers to our countries? I have already pointed to a number of attributes of Islamic faith and culture that make them dangerous to us. Let me rehearse these briefly, and add a few new observations:

* Unlike any other world religion, Islam has a positive doctrine of conquest as a religious duty. (Those closest analogue I can find is the religious pretext Spanish conquistadors used to attack Aztecs and Incas--proferring their leaders a Bible, then when they refused to venerate it, attacking them. But this was an innovation of 16th century land-pirates, which was not grounded in Catholic doctrine. The Crusades, for all their attendant injustices, were not justified in Church circles by any doctrine of conversion via conquest, but rather as wars of liberation for conquered, occupied Christian lands, and defense of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land.)
* Migration is one of the key strategies in this strategy of conquest.
* Islam demands the political subjugation of all other monotheists, and the extermination or forced conquest of all others.
* Muslim scriptures and tradition sanction the deceitful embrace of religious tolerance when Muslims are weak (as they were in Mecca, hence the suras that conveniently were "revealed" in that context), which must be replaced by fierce intolerance as they grow stronger (as they were in Medina, hence the suras that handily came down from heaven then). Typically, the only difference between "moderate" and "extremist" Muslims can be traced to the context in which they are living. Those who live in Western lands are religiously enjoined to speak like early Meccans, while those in positions of power are not just permitted but obliged to act like regnant Medinians. What's shocking to our sensibilities in the West is the spectacle of "radical" imams in places like London jumping prematurely from Meccan to Medinian rhetoric. Let us hope they continue to overplay their hand.
* The Muslim subjugation of women, and the Western death-cult of feminism, combine to give Muslim immigrants a huge reproductive advantage over the natives of almost any country which they inhabit. Even conservative Catholics who reject contraception are unlikely to match the Muslim birth rate, for the simple reason that Christianity views women (like men) as ends in themselves, not means to the reproduction of sons. For evidence of this difference, think of the stark divide between Christian visions of heaven (where sex is of no significance) and Muslim paradise, which is distinctly a billionaire boys' club.
* Given the radical message of intolerance intrinsic to the Qur'an, which legitimate religious authorities around the world endorse, and the power of terrorism as a tool of "asymmetrical warfare," faithful Muslims in any country will always be just a few Friday sermons away from generating that 1% (or .05%) it takes to cause mayhem among the rest of us. Think, by comparison, of the infinitesimal fragment of pro-life Christians (hundreds of thousands of them marched on Washington yesterday) who endorse, much less use, violence to stop what they consider the mass murder of the unborn--only to be unanimously condemned by every Christian leader of any repute.

All of this is straightforwardly, sadly, true. But the Muslims aren't the only problem. There are weaknesses in our own societies that make us uniquely vulnerable at this historical moment to the dangers of mass immigration on the part of culturally self-confident minorities. (Can you think of a group which better fits that definition than Muslims?) Granting that Islamic intolerance tends to function like a deadly virus, there are situations where our own immune system is compromised, and we are less able to deal with and suppress its toxic effects.


Modern liberalism, in both its secular and Christian variety, is the civilizational equivalent of AIDS--a force that suppresses our collective will to defend ourselves through guilt, false compassion, and a weirdly self-congratulatory self-loathing that recalls the sexual frenzy of late Medieval flagellants. A perfect, and perfectly depressing example of liberalism-as-retrovirus can be seen in the recent remarks of a Catholic prelate in a country whose social fabric is being torn apart by the organized aggressions of Muslim immigrants, Great Britain. Before commenting, let me quote from the statement of Bishop Patrick Lynch, the Chair of the Office for Migration Policy of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, made on January 15 to mark the World Day of Migrants:

In his address for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees today His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI takes as his theme "One human family". He reminds us that because of globalization and migration we are becoming increasingly inter-connected and more conscious than ever that all of us belong to one human family. An important aspect of the mission of the Church in the world today is, therefore, to be a sign and instrument of union with God and of the unity of the whole human race.

Once again Pope Benedict emphasizes the central principles of Catholic Social Teaching with regard to migration - the right to migrate, the right of the State to regulate migration and the responsibility of the State to respect the dignity of every human person and therefore of every migrant. This time, however, he adds that "migrant communities have a duty to integrate into the host country, respecting its laws and national identity. The challenge is to combine the welcome due to every human being, especially when in need with a reckoning of what is necessary for both the local inhabitants and the new arrivals to live a dignified and peaceful life". [So the pope, at least, sees reason. Not Bishop Lynch.] This message is particularly relevant for the Church here in England and Wales and for our society at this present time.

Integration does not mean assimilation when one loses one's cultural, social and religious identity and is absorbed into the host culture. Integration is a process--often extending over two generations--that begins when the host community reaches out to welcome and help immigrant communities to connect with, belong to and participate in all the networks that form society today. If people don't feel welcome they can't fully belong and if they don't feel they belong it is difficult to participate and integrate.

Given the intense separatism, political radicalism, and propensity for violence of so many Muslims in Britain, could a churchman make a more recklessly masochistic statement than that one? The pope echoes the Catholic Catechism in laying down as a condition for admission that migrants "integrate" themselves and "respect" the "laws and national identity" of their host countries, preserving for both "a dignified and peaceful life." If migrants don't fulfill that responsibility, they lose the right to enter or remain. Thus explained, the pope's is quite a reasonable position. It allows for, among other things, the deportation of illegal immigrants--who by definition have not respected the laws of their new country.

Desperately uncomfortable with the teachings of a Church that holds migrants as well as natives to ordinary human standards of ethics, Lynch rushes forth to emit a lavender fog of evasion--placing the entire onus on the host society of making "integration" happen, by making people "feel welcome." That, my friends, is precisely how you don't influence a newcomer to alter his habits and mores to match those of a new situation--by affirming him exactly as he is. When a new arrival in a subculture or a club appears and seeks acceptance, the only motivation he has to adapt himself to his new, prefered society is precisely the fear that he will be excluded if he doesn't. Aggressive "welcoming" is the surest way to ensure that people stay exactly the same. That's not a problem for Lynch, however, since he explicitly rejects "assimilation when one loses one's cultural, social and religious identity and is absorbed into the host culture." To seek such a goal for immigrants smacks too much of cultural imperialism for a good, post-colonial Brit like Bishop Lynch.

But the more alien a newcomer's ways are to the basic mores and moral norms of his host society, the more essential it is that he "assimilate." If he does not, and if he is quickly joined by millions more who likewise refuse to assimilate, what his group is engaged in is not immigration but colonization, and conquest. How can this be reconciled (as the pope insists) with preserving the "laws and national identity" of the host society? Clearly, it can't. If Bishop Lynch really respected Church authority and teaching, he would stop obscuring its teaching in the fog of multiculturalist rhetoric. But to do that, he would have to be a Christian first, and a liberal second. And that never happens. The second term of the equation always multiplies the first by zero.
Posted by Roland Shirk on January 24, 2011 10:58 PM | 5 Comments
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us | Buzz up!
Categories:

* immigration

« Previous Entry | Home Page |
5 Comments
Author Profile Page Buraq | January 24, 2011 11:53 PM | Reply

'What's shocking to our sensibilities in the West is the spectacle of "radical" imams in places like London jumping prematurely from Meccan to Medinian rhetoric. Let us hope they continue to overplay their hand.'

Islam always overplays its hand because there is competition among Muslims to be 'more-Muslim-than-thou'. So, they rate their Islamic credentials by saying and doing things that trump whatever the last outrageous thing was to be said or done.
But taken to an extreme, you end up with a dystopian Islamic society where people are murdered for not being Islamic enough. Purity is in the eye of the beholder, and when the beholder is a swivel-eyed psycho with a headful of quranic hatred and prejudices, you'd better watch out!
Author Profile Page sonofwalker | January 25, 2011 12:05 AM | Reply

Some of us know first-hand the out-come of an intellectual elite who know the answer and can in a grand flourish present to the star-struck peasantry and proletarians a panacea that will, if only we stick to the Five Year Plan, eventually usher in the eschathon and then forever after the New Man will be in peace and the world will live as one.I'm way too lazy and impatient for such things and am looking for Harry Potter so I can borrow his magic wand and make all good things come true. But, damn, then I come to my senses and realise that it's approaching ten years since 9-11 and very little good has come from this wishful thinking on our parts. If we wish all the harder will we see paradise in another ten years? I'm given to conclude that if we do see it, it won't be on this Earthly Plane. I think another ten years of this fruitless search for a panacea is going to leave us all wishing we were dead, if we live at all.

No one man, not even our glorious collective intelligentsia can provide THE ANSWER to the problems of jihad and Left dhimmi fascism, and those who attempt it are not doing us any great favours. We need instead, at the risk of self-contradiction, a mass of input from millions of independent citizens putting in their own ideas themselves in independent communities locally in place, and redundantly and the same again. No one person has the ultimate answers, not even Spencer, to whom I turn many times daily for answers to specific questions. Any legitimate solution to our collective, Modernity-wide problems with jihad and Left dhimmi fascism requires, if we are to remain democracies, the input of the demos, i.e. of all kinds of private individuals who comprise nations and cultures. We do not need a leader, no Churchill, (by which I assume most people mean Mussolini,) we need representatives, men and women who emerge organically from that traditional American breeding ground of community, the Club of Mutual Interest. Sarah Palins abound, to the dismay of those who hate "Fly-over Country," in the American heartland. Every community has its bright lights, found in clubs and groups such as the Harper Valley P.T.A.. for example. But to look for the man who is "a sort of god" to solve our problems, to seek The One, to throw ourselves at the avatar, all this is to submerge ourselves in the fasces, which is to say, to become genuine fascists, knowing this or not.

Grand schemes are a harm to us all. We don't need any such things. We need masses of ordinary men and women like Bill the president of the Stamp Collectors Club, the guy who's been at it for decades and is really good at it and everyone who knows him likes him and trust him because he's likeable and has proven over the decades that he's honest and capable. We need ordinary people with exceptional skills in their personal lives, (me excluded, unfortunately, donations gladly accepted,) not wankers who have prima donna accolades from the intelligentsia. The best person among us representing us. That is what Democracy is. The best person, not the fool with the most sheepish skin framed on a storefront Community Organisation office cubicle. Democracy is our neighbour who has some good ideas of his own and can stand up to the mayor and get things done when the mayor is not too happy about doing it. The man with the plan to solve all of our problems in one swell foop is not the man we need, and not the man we should want. Leaving the affairs of the polis, i.e. the City, is to be, classically, a literal "idiot."When the demos do not involve themselves in the affairs of the polis, when the people don't involve themselves in the affairs of the city, then one ends up with that old Greek problem shared by the world, of the strongman of the city, the Tyrant and the oligarchy.

No one in power today, the day we need relief, is going to bar Muslims from legal immigration to the Modern world. But my neighbour Hank might well be obnoxious to the guy down the street to the point the guy gets out of Dodge because it's just not worth living in a city full of organised people who piss on his lawn every evening. Yes, this is "community organising." It used to be called community living. It used to be called democracy and obeying the laws of the land. If people surrender their rights to speak, they will find others speaking for them, and not saying what we might like to hear on our behalf. Who ya gonna call?

Don't tell me. If you won't organise yourself and your community members to run your own polis, i.e. if you won't become your own polis-ticians, then we will live in slavery, having become helots in our own homes, slaves serving our own people as our masters. If you can save the world, first show us that you can save your own neighbourhood from harm. Then maybe work your way up to the school board. We don't actually need five year plans and utopian schemes to save the whales and lower the oceans. We need ordinary folks doing some effective local work to clean up our nations, one block at a time.
Author Profile Page sonofwalker | January 25, 2011 12:14 AM | Reply

All those tyops ain't my fault, man. If I had an arts grant I could hire, like, a proofreader, you know. So, I blame society. If that's not working for you, please personally excuse my haste in posting.
Author Profile Page sean | January 25, 2011 1:46 AM | Reply

The social fabric of Britain is indeed being torn apart by the organized aggressions of Muslims.

"...no matter what the multiculturalists tell us, Islam cannot bring 'cultural enrichment' to the West - it can only bring cultural impoverishment.

To say that Jihadist immigrants are worthless is to overvalue them. In fact they have a negative cultural worth, because their attempts to Islamify the West are an attempt to reduce the rich culture of a superior civilisation to a backward, depleted, restricted and primitive subset.

Although some foreign cultures are 'enriching' and bring new artforms etc, Islam is culturally impoverishing. All it can do is take away our liberty and restrict our freedom of expression.

Islam is medieval. We've been there, done that, rejected all that theocratic crap, then progressed through the Renaissance and Enlightenment and left Islam in the dust.

Vibrant Cultural Enrichment™
The justification for mass immigration given by NuLabour is that immigrants bring 'Vibrant Cultural Enrichment™ ' to our otherwise drab English lives.

Now to a certain extent this is true. Wherever the Chinese settle you get Chinatowns, which become tourist attractions. In contrast, wherever the Jihadists settle you have ghettoes which become no-go areas. Obviously, some groups are more vibrant than others.

So what have the Muslims contributed to our cultural enrichment?
Zero? - no, the number 0 was a Hindu invention.

In fact they have contributed less than zero, they have a negative effect on all aspects of society.

Islam is a moribund culture that has produced nothing of any significance to the rest of the world for the past five hundred years, with the one exception of the new cinematic genre of 'Jihad-Snuff' videos, showing now at a mosque near you.

Islamists have a deleterious effect on education, with attempts to rewrite history so that the Muslims are given credit for inventing everything, and aggressive demands to ban music, visual arts and drama from the syllabus.

They have disrupted our once civilised society. They have made air travel into even more of a nightmare than it was. They have flooded the country with heroin.

Kuffar teenagers in enriched areas are scared to go out in case boys get attacked by gangs of 'Street Jihadists' and girls by gang rapists. Even young children are vulnerable to Islamic paedophile gangs.

They have destroyed trust. We can no longer trust doctors if they are Muslims. We can no longer trust police if they are Muslims.

They have destroyed free speech. We can no longer discuss religion without being arrested. They have given our control-freak government the perfect excuse to increase their surveillance into everybody's lives.

Unlike the far eastern cultures, which have contributed martial arts, visual arts, meditative techniques and so on, Islam has contributed nothing. They are so backwards they cannot create anything new. Their toxic combination of ignorance with aggressive arrogance can only destroy cherished aspects of our traditional culture.

Everything they touch turns to Shi'ite." http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/multiculturalism-does-islam-bring.html
Author Profile Page Alfred Sanchez | January 25, 2011 1:51 AM | Reply

OT

another terrorist attack here in the philippines

‘Big bomb’ kills 4, injures 14 bus passengers on Edsa

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/metro/view/20110125-316506/Big-bomb-kills-4-injures-14-bus-passengers-on-Edsa
Leave a Comment

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.
Sign in to comment.