Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Congress Assimilates, Immigrants Don't

Whilst the American people continue to sit idly by, their country is being fundamentally altered around them. No nation can survive once its borders dissolve; no culture can assimilate an ending stream of aliens who have no intention of adopting the culture of the country they are invading. More evidence of this comes from the US Congress, which conducts an ever increasing amount of business in Spanish.
It has not yet replaced English, but increasingly, Spanish is becoming a requirement to work in the halls and make laws on the floor of the US Congress.

With a few prominent senators daring to address their colleagues in Spanish, others taking Spanish lessons, and many more legislators adding Spanish speakers to their communications teams, the language spoken by the largest minority group in the United States has a solid foothold in the halls of power here.

Spanish has become so important that the Republican leader in the Senate, Bill Frist, who has presidential aspirations, began studying Spanish and dared to record in Spanish a political statement on the contentious Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), in his unmistakable Tennessee accent.

"Many politicians are studying Spanish. It is a phenomenom that reflects the demographic, cultural and political reality of the country," said Michael Shifter of Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based research institute.

"The trend of speaking Spanish will increase over the next few years," not only inside Congress but also in public, Shifter said.

Shifter jokes that "Soon no one will speak English in Congress."
Gee, isn't that funny? Nice to see that America's legislators have no regard whatsoever for American territorial or cultural integrity.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Guardian Disgrace

Can there be any doubt as to the leftist bias in the British media when The Guardian newspaper is exposed for having an Islamic extremist posing as a reporter ... and then refuses to fire him?
Did Britain's leftist newspaper The Guardian know that its trainee reporter is an active member of the radical terrorist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir and, if so, when did they know it?

Hizb ut-Tahrir, which seeks to reimpose the Caliphate by the sword or, in today's world, the bomb, is a radical Islamic splinter group banned in most countries but legal in Tony Blair's Britain.
British blogger Scott Burgess became suspicious when he read an article by "trainee journalist" Dilpazier Aslam in which the writer referred to today's youthful Muslim malcontents in Britain, including suicide bombers, as "sassy". Aslam suggested that no one should have been shocked by the suicide bombings on the London Transport system, because "shocked would be to suggest that the bombings happened through no responsibility of [Londoners'] own."


Burgess wrote about the curiously sassy Dilpazier in his blog, The Daily Ablution, and did some fast follow-up work. He discovered that the Guardian "apprentice" did, in fact, have previous journalistic experience. Aslam has had incendiary pieces published in Hizb ut-Tahrir's own blood-thirsty magazine with articles in which he specifically called for the overthrow of the state and the forceful imposition of the Kilafah (the Caliphate) -- especially with reference to Israel. Burgess quotes from one of his articles: "Muslims grant their loyalty and allegiance to their deen and the Ummah, not to a football team or nation state." Not even to a team! That's harsh!

The question Burgess, an American living in Britain, wanted cleared up was, when it hired Aslam as a trainee, did The Guardian know it was hiring a radical young man who had a history of promoting terrorism? Burgess guesses the answer is yes, on the theory that the best way for a young journalist to prove that he can write is to show the editors previously published work, and Aslam does not seem at first glance to be a young man who would miss a trick.

Burgess wrote a letter to The Guardian's comment editor, asking for an explanation that was met, of course, by a wall of silence.
The Guardian's leadership was clearly annoyed to be questioned by a mere member of the public, which they regard as an unwashed, ignorant tribe of reactionaries in the first place. Fortunately, one of The Guardian's competitors thought the possibility important enough to press for answers.
However, surprisingly, fellow "liberal" paper, The Independent, (paid link omitted) home of loony anti-war greenies, haters of George Bush and carbon emissions jihadis, not only picked up the ball and ran with it, but succeeded in getting a response out of The Guardian, which wrote the weasel words that they had been thinking their journalistic staff was "too male and pale".
So let's see, Guardian editors were so desperate to get a non-white person writing for their newspaper - as opposed to the most qualified candidate possible - that they apparently didn't bother checking his background ... or deliberately ignored what they found when they did. The idea that The Guardian's staff is "too male and pale," is, incidentally, both a racist and gender-biased statement in itself. It reveals yet another example of the self-hatred so prevalent among Britons, who have been told for the past 50 years that the English race and its culture are vile, evil and imperialist and that only non-white, non-British people and cultures have any value. Those toxic ideas, which have been mirrored to a lesser extent in the US, have so poisoned the British worldview, and decimated Briton's intellectual defences, that the country now lies vulnerable to the Islamic timebomb currently detonating within its borders. Ideas have consequences, and self-hatred leads to self-destruction.

That self-destruction is on full display at The Guardian, whose editorial leadership apparently doesn't care what Islamist extremism is doing to Britain, or actively hopes that it will wipe away the last vestige of native British culture.

Hizb ut-Tahrir peddles such radical Islam that they don't even have time for Saddam's best friend and silver-tongued apologist for Islam George Galloway. When he was campaigning, during a recent by-election in London's heavily Islamic constituency of Bethnal Green & Bow, a crowd of Islamic thugs pushed their way into an apartment he was calling on and, refusing to allow him to leave, issued a freelance fatwah. Galloway, who knows these people better than do most Brits, was clearly frightened. In his own words: "Hizb ut-Tahrir suddenly filled the room and blocked the door.

"I tried speaking calmly. They then said I was parading as a false prophet and served a sentence of death on me. They were claiming I was representing myself as a false diety and for this apostasy I would be sentenced to the gallows."

Readers of Aslam's think pieces had no reason to know that they were tainted with the poisonous drip of radical Islam. Worse, though, was his reporting of events, rather than opinions, as though a dispassionate observer instead of a heavily involved activist.

Does anyone think that The Guardian would have hired a right-wing Briton and allowed him to report the news? Or that they wouldn't have fired such a person the moment they discovered his background?

And what sort of reportage did this lead to?

A 15 year old Islamic schoolgirl in Luton decided the Islamic uniform the school had -- foolishly, in my opinion -- designed for Muslim girls wasn't Islamic enough to satisfy her burning religious fervor. She lobbied for permission to wear the full Muslim monty. The school said no. She was encouraged to fight her case all the way up to the court of appeal, along the way giving the papers some suspiciously sophisticated quotes for a little adolescent attention-seeker. Where was she getting the wherewithal and the encouragement to pursue this essentially vexatious case? Uh, none other than Hizb ut-Tahrir. She finally triumphed, with the help of famed "human rights" lawyer Cherie Blair, and sassy Dilpazier wrote of her ecstasy ("I could scream with happiness!") in The Guardian, supposedly as a dispassionate reporter, without mentioning that he was a member of the radical organization, which had promoted the case.

The Guardian stands as a prime example of the results of multiculturalist thinking (read: self-hatred of Western culture and its people), and the extent to which the extreme left has allied itself with radical Islam. To be sure, it's a strange alliance, since the Islamist hate everything the Western left stands for and would kill immediately most of the people the left defends (liberated women, the non-religious, homosexuals), but the Islamists and the left are drawn together by an overwhelming hatred of Western Civilization. The Islamist will do anything to destroy it, and the Left will do anything - and sell out anyone - to help them.

Monday, July 25, 2005

The Beast in Front of Us

The wave of Islamist terrorism, no longer confined to the Middle East in which it germinated, but now striking in Europe, where Western universalism and multiculturalist thinking has allowed the growth of large Muslim colonies, raises profound questions for Western policy makers. On TechStationCentral, Paul J. Cella ponders these questions and the hard, but logical, answers the West must confront.

"We don't need to fight. We are taking over!" ["Abdullah," a Muslim watch-mender and evangelist] said. "We are here to bring civilization to the West. England does not belong to the English people, it belongs to God."

The first difficult question is: Is this the authentic voice of Islam? And it is a question that no non-Muslim can presume to properly answer. If I answered, "Emphatically yes, this is the authentic voice of Islam: and it is also the voice of our enemy," men would rise in righteous anger at my presumption. But when our leaders -- non-Muslims to a man -- pronounce in solemn tones, just as confidently, "No; Islam is a religion of peace," there are no charges of presumption.

What we can say confidently, while yet avoiding the presumption, is that those who believe that "civilization" should be "brought" to us by the gruesome massacre of London commuters, or Spanish commuters, or New York office-workers, believe this because, over and above it, they believe the claims of Islam. In short, we non-Muslims (while we are still free to speak our minds) can appropriately say that our enemies strike against us in the name of Islam; they find their inspiration, their motivation, their justification, in the precepts of this great religion which has stood as the adversary of our once-unified civilization for many a long century. It may be that they have perverted the teachings of this religion; it may be that they have misunderstood some of its ambiguous teachings; but it may also be that they are faithfully applying those teachings. Again a non-Muslim is in no position to judge of this.
Recent polls in Britain indicate that at least six percent of British Muslims feel that the recent London bombings were "fully justified" and at least twenty four percent feel some level of sympathy with the bombers. If these results reflect the actual views of British Muslims, then more than 100,000 Muslims living in Britain support terrorist attacks on the nation in which they live and roughly 400,000 sympathize with the terrorists. Given that it only takes a handful of fanatics to kill hundreds of people, these results should truly frighten non-Muslim Britons. So much for British multiculturalism, now clearly unmasked as a lie. But these results - which may understate the problem, since many respondents may have muted their real sympathy for the terrorists - shatter one of the pillars of Western thought, the idea that the West can treat everyone the same way. Islamism may force the West to reconsider the universalist basis of its policies. Mr. Cella observes:
If it is demonstrated, as now seems pretty clear, that the perpetrators of the London bombings were British citizens or legal residents, will there be any reflection on what this means for the neoconservative theory that democracy is the cure for Islamic terrorism? If, in other words, the perpetrators of these bombings were citizens or long-time residents of one of the world's most stable and historic democracies, and thus partakers of all liberty and equality that is offered as the panacea for the troubles of the Muslim world, what does it say for the plausibility of said theory that London's first suicide bombers were reared up in the very cradle of Western liberal democracy?

Just maybe, it says that there is something unique about Islam that confounds our facile universalism, something unique and ancient about Islam that renders nugatory the easy platitudes so dear to us, something unique and ineradicable that reveals (yet again) that there are deeper things to stir the hearts of men than material prosperity and free elections.

But here is the really pulverizing question -- pulverizing not least because it is so muddled by the difficulty of the foregoing two. But being muddled, it is no less important. By now, every free nation in the world still possessed of its senses knows it must face this self-interrogation: Are we or are we not going permit (or perhaps continue to permit) the emergence, within our midst, of totalitarian Islam? Again I deliberately leave open the question of whether "totalitarian Islam" really means "Islam in the modern world" or merely "a perversion of Islam in the modern world." But to repeat: The people of the free nations of the world, the citizens of the West (or her descendents if in fact the West is no more), are now confronted with sufficient evidence that the efforts to call totalitarian Islam into existence in every free nation are well underway; that such efforts will be materially supported from the home bases of totalitarian Islam, and may be spiritually supported by the very nature of Islam as such*; and that those efforts can, at least to some degree, be encouraged or discouraged by the actions of our own governments.

The instinct of most of us is not even to face the question, to decline the self-interrogation altogether, and get on with our barbeques and reality shows; but face it we must, because ultimately the threat it signifies is neither fleeting nor mild, but rather persistent and existential.

The answer we should give is this. We -- whatever other free nations choose to do or not do -- are going to put certain considerable obstacles in the way of totalitarian Islam; we at least are not going to encourage its development on our shores; we at least are going to say, in the manner republics "say" things publicly, such that it is clear to the leaders of this movement, its sympathizers and facilitators, both here and abroad, to the world at large, and most importantly to ourselves, that we will not tolerate totalitarian Islam. Rather, we will place very substantial burdens and abridgements, of varying social, political and legal character, upon those holding the beliefs associated with totalitarian Islam. We will make the price for sympathy with it very high indeed. We will not extend to it our beloved constitutional and civil rights; we will not, to the extent possible, let its sympathizers and facilitators, much less its foot soldiers and officers, into our country, and we will deport with dispatch those already here; we will exclude its representatives from service in our government, status in our society, safety under our laws; we will, in short, prohibit totalitarian Islam, in thought, word and deed.
This may require the West to prohibit Islamist preaching and recruitment, even doing so violates freedom of speech. It certainly requires stopping Muslim immigration to the Western world. It will also require Western leaders to drop the political correctness which has hampered Western efforts to deal with Islamist violence. If the West is to meet the challenge of spreading Islamism, quick, direct and forceful action will be required. Certainly, the first stage of the battle must be to purge Western nations of Islamist cells, excising the contamination from our shores and isolating it in its native soils, where it can only inflict its carnage on the Muslim people themselves, leaving it their responsibility to deal with.