CULTURES ARE NOT EQUAL

(link at: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/mb20050808.shtml

Anyone who has been keeping up with British opinion since the July 7 bombings will have noticed that "multiculturalism" is under sharp attack.

Multiculturalism preaches that we should allow and encourage immigrants and their children to maintain and celebrate their own culture apart from the national culture. Society should be not a melting pot but, in the phrase of former New York Mayor David Dinkins, "a gorgeous mosaic." That mosaic, of course, looks less gorgeous as people surveyed the work of the British-born-and-raised bombers.

In the past, Tony Blair has spoken favorably about multiculturalism. But on July 7, he struck a different note. "It is important, however, that the terrorists realize our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause the death and destruction of innocent people and impose their extremism on the world."

Sadly, the muticulturalist policies of Blair's Labor government and its Conservative predecessors gave refuge to preachers of Islamist hate in what some have called "Londonistan."

Even before the bombings that prompted second thoughts, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality said, "We need to assert that there is a core of Britishness," and the home secretary introduced English language tests for citizenship. Now, the Blair government has moved to expel Muslim clerics who preach hatred and terrorism, and the left-wing Guardian fired a writer who was a member of Hizb Ut Tahrir, a radical group that advocates a "clash of civilization" and urges Muslims to kill Jews.

Writers in other tolerant countries have been noticing the blowback from multiculturalism. The Dutch novelist Leon de Winter wrote that as traditional Calvinist discipline frayed and Muslim immigrants rejected Dutch tolerance, "the delicate mechanism of Holland's traditional tolerant society gradually lost its balance."

In The Age of Melbourne, Australia, Pamela Bone wrote, "Perhaps it is time to say, you are welcome, but this is the way it is here." The Age's Tony Parkinson quoted the French writer Jean Francois Revel's Cold War comment, "A civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself." Tolerating intolerance, goodhearted people are beginning to see, does not necessarily produce tolerance in turn.

The conservative Telegraph of London ran a series of articles on extolling Britishness and placed on its website the contributions, positive as well as a few negative, of dozens of citizens. The nonagenarian W.F. Deedes, a journalist since the 1930s, perhaps summed it up best: "The reputation we have in distant lands, I have learned in my travels, is higher than we give ourselves. They admire us for our social stability, our parliamentary and diplomatic experience, for fair play, for tolerance, for a willingness to help lame dogs over stiles, as well as for some of the qualities Shakespeare sang about in his plays."

When I was in Britain for the election in May, I was surprised to hear nothing from Tony Blair (or other politicians) about Britain's positive contributions to the world. Now, they are being heard.

Multiculturalism is based on the lie that all cultures are morally equal. In practice, that soon degenerates to: All cultures are morally equal, except ours, which is worse. But all cultures are not equal in respecting representative government, guaranteed liberties and the rule of law. And those things arose not simultaneously and in all cultures, but in certain specific times and places -- mostly in Britain and America, but also in various parts of Europe.

In America, as in Britain, multiculturalism has become the fashion in large swathes of our society. So the Founding Fathers are presented only as slaveholders, World War II is limited to the internment of Japanese-Americans and the bombing of Hiroshima. Slavery is identified with America, though it has existed in every society and the antislavery movement arose first among English-speaking evangelical Christians.

But most Americans know there is something special about our cultural heritage. While Harvard and Brown are replacing scholars of the founding period with those studying other things, book-buyers are snapping up first-rate histories of the Founders by David McCullough, Joseph Ellis and Ron Chernow.

Mutilculturalist intellectuals do not think our kind of society is worth defending. But millions here and increasing numbers in Britain and other countries know better.

(So there you have it. Stone age carpet kissing, camel fucking barbarian savages are allowed to swamp the hard working white people of the UK and live on benefits keeping 2 dozen wives in Ragheadistan and spout hate against us, yet we dare not speak out against them.)

Yet as I know should a white person jack inb a job its a case of the state saying you can fuck right off if you think we will give you any money to live on. Yes the people, and by that I refer to the white majority have become 2nd class citizens, if citizens at all in their own country. They get nothing and yet Omar "Camel Fucker" Bakri gets a 30K car off the state. Wonder why I am annoyed, go figure..

Coons from Africa come here and carry out child sacrifice and the like, and god help us if we so much as make a joke about them being heathen savages that eat each other(hint for Sir Bob, a/let them eat each other as that will end poverty, b/ take a bath you smelly hippy fuck as thats why your skank of an ex wife fucked off for a decent shag.... Oh and by the way they do eat each other aka the case of child sacrifice...

Most of our politicians are either to lazy and lack the moral balls to call a spade a coon and actually tackle the problem of lesser races getting huge Govt hand outs to promote their ways over ours in the name of "ethnic diversity".

And in the name of "ethnic diversity" read this from the Islamonazi's:
A number of North American-based Muslim organizations, clerics and activists held a recent press conference in Washington to release a "fatwa against Terrorism." The religious edict, unveiled at a critical time following the London bombings, is certainly the subject of significant interest. First, the timing: It comes after the terrorist attacks against Britain, and it also follows three years of unparalleled horrors perpetrated by jihadist organizations worldwide, including suicide bombings and beheadings of civilians. This "fatwa," issued by American citizens and associations, is the first theological document made public by a number of Muslim groups based in the United States. Other fatwas were issued in Britain and more detailed ones were made public in Saudi Arabia. There are endless questions about this announcement, especially in the minds of the American public. Let's analyze the actual text before we attempt to address a few of these inquiries.

A couple of points deserve mention at the outset: One, we haven't seen an Arabic version of the fatwa, at least not when it was announced. Fatwas are generally issued in Arabic. All Muslims around the world should be able to read them and all clerics should be able to comment on them. That is a matter of inquiry. Two, a religious edict is part of the theological domain, hence its discussion should overlap with Koranic references and other religious sources. But since the authors of the fatwa have tackled a subject of a "political nature," they have therefore opened the edict to the public for discussion as well. In other words, once a fatwa is out, and as long as it deals with public affairs and political matters, it can and would be discussed by all Muslims, even if they aren't of the clerical realm, and by non-Muslims as well, since the fatwa also covers their realm. This note of caution is necessary to prevent the exclusion of anyone from the debate, under the stipulation that "discussing" a fatwa is a "religious matter." This would be true if the subject of the fatwa is strictly theological. But once the crossing into politics and policies is done, it opens the door to free public debate.

Several points are in order:
1. The text states that: "The Fiqh Council of North America wishes to reaffirm Islam's absolute condemnation of terrorism and religious extremism." Had the text been in Arabic, the authors would have to use the term "Irhab." The fatwa would have been stronger had they quoted from religious texts a condemnation of "Irhab."

The American text didn't reference the "absolute condemnation" with a "clear text," which would allow al Qaeda and the jihadists to defeat the fatwa. For the terrorists have often used theological references to convince their followers that indeed "al Irhab" was accepted to mean jihad. Thus, it would have been of greater efficiency to provide theological grounds for the specific rejection of Irhab, translated as terrorism.

2. The fatwa states that "Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives." This is another important statement, but it is too general to use in making inroads in the war of ideas against the terrorists. For the question is: Who determines what is an innocent life? How can this statement lead to a specific condemnation of the killing of innocent people in Iraq's Sunni Triangle, Moscow, and Sudan at the hands of jihadists who specifically state in their own fatwas that there are no innocent lives when a jihad is waged? The American fatwa could have been specifically geared to defeat the jihadist ideology.

3. It states that: "There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians' lives and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram -- or forbidden -- and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not 'martyrs.' " Again, it would have been more efficient to respond directly to the jihadists who quote from the Koran and other texts and sources. For example there was no such thing as explosives in the 7th century, yet al Qaeda, its allies and even Sheik Yussuf al-Qardawi on al Jazeera have justified the use of suicide bombing, and called it permissible in certain conditions. Sheik al-Qardawi went as far as linking today's suicide bombing to what he called "inghimass" (to throw oneself against the enemy). According to him, this has been permitted by religious teaching since the early days of Islam. A fatwa issued in the West or in the United States must respond to Sheik al-Qardawi and the jihadists theologically, and not state globally what international law and 52 Muslim countries subscribe to already.

4) The text of the fatwa says: "The Qur'an, Islam's revealed text, states: 'Whoever kills a person [unjustly]... it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.' " (Koran, 5:32). This powerful quote has to supercede all other references al Qaeda uses with regard to the kuffar (infidels) from any source. For the jihadist terrorists would quote the same sentence and simply state that the persons they are killing are "justly" killed. Their ideologues have already responded to this reference by saying that whoever kills outside the injunction of the right jihad is acting as if killing all mankind. The same logic applies to all other quotations in the fatwa: a need for theological response to the jihadists in addition to general quotes.
The fatwa then states that in "light of the teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah we clearly and strongly state" that:
• "All acts of terrorism targeting civilians are haram (forbidden) in Islam." This is a positive and focused statement. And assuming that international law covers that area already, with legislation, declarations and convention since the 19th century, it would have been basic to insert in the fatwa examples of terrorism aimed at killing innocent civilians, such as children at school, in buses, in pizzerias; civilians at the theater, in workplaces, in subways, etc. It is crucial for fatwas to name al Qaeda's terrorism and specify that the organization's fatwas are illegal and illegitimate and that the clerics issuing them are committing crimes under Islamic and international law.

Couple of quickies:
Omar "Goat Fucker" Bakri has gone, cue tomorrows headlines of "Gone Bakri" etc.

Also I see David Blunkett is helping old 2 Jags Prescott our lard arse Deputy PM with whatever it is he is supposed to do, a case of the blind leading the blind methinks.

Here's hoping the secret service in Israel fire a missile and blow the shit out of this carpet kissing sack of bloated subhuman shit.
Posted by Picasa

Liked this cartoon, found it on Barking Moonbats. com
Posted by Picasa

Ok and lastly a bit on one of the untermenchen that blew itself up: www.ichuddersfield.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/tm_objectid=15833478%26method=full%26siteid=50060%26headline=bomber%2dwas%2dhuddersfield%2ddrug%2ddealer-name_page.html/

.