PAUL AUSTIN MURPHY ON POLITICS

PAUL AUSTIN MURPHY ON POLITICS


The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here


This blog used to be called EDL Extra. I was a supporter (neither a member nor a leader) of the EDL until 2012. This blog has retained the old web address.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Friday, 14 January 2011

Leftists/Left-Liberals Say: There is No lslamification of the UK



Of course Muslims start with the small things. Then they will argue for the bigger things. They would and will not demand full sharia, compulsory jihad service or a mosque for every thousand Muslims at first. But this is not Muslim moderation. It is Muslim common sense. Why ask for the big things when you know they will be rejected? Why demand large-scale changes when such demands may work against the spread of Islam in the longer term?

So instead Muslims demand various small things knowing that many small separate concessions and accommodations will soon add up to a single big set (when given enough time).

One day I woke up to view the multicultural world and saw a sharia-governed world instead. Multicultural society had become an Islamic society.

This man did not see this coming because all he saw, from day to day, were the small accommodations or concessions to Muslims. Things like single-sex swimming baths, halal meat, more mosques, Muslim organisations and community leaders gaining more power and influence, non-Muslim women being forced to wear the hijab in Muslim areas or in Islamic buildings, 'hate crimes' = blasphemy against Islam, etc. Bugger this! Here’s a longer list of accommodations and concessions. (Skip past if it gets a bit boring.):

*) Sell land at discount prices for building mosques or other Islamic institutions (Dudley!!).
*) Ban Hindus and Jews from a jury hearing a criminal case against an Islamist in Great Britain.
*) Allow a prisoner the unheard-of right to avoid strip-searches in New York State.
*) Let students in public (i.e., taxpayer-funded) schools use empty classrooms for prayers in New Jersey.
*) Permit public (U.S.) schools and public airwaves to be used to convert non-Muslims.
*) Recognize polygamous marriages for tax purposes in the United Kingdom.
*) Set aside women-only bathing at a municipal swimming pool in France or use taxpayer funds for Muslim women-only swimming times in Washington State.
*) Arrange for women-only classes at a taxpayer-supported university.
*) Blame women for being the victims of rape by Muslim men in Norway.
*) Develop a special hijab for female Muslim employees of a leading home furnishing company, sporting the corporate logo.
*) Ban the use of piggybanks - the symbol of frugality in their advertising by two major British banks.
*) Establish panels, councils, or advisory boards uniquely for Muslims.
*) Authorize Muslim-only neighbourhoods or events.
*) Apply the "Rushdie rules" accepting Islamist intimidation and silencing critics of Islam.
*) Punish anti-Islamic views through the application of criminal charges, as has occurred to critics of Islam in Australia and Canada.
*) Prohibit families from sending pork or pork by-products or "Any matter containing religious materials contrary to Islamic faith" to U.S. military personnel serving in the Middle East.
*) Require that female American soldiers in Saudi Arabia wear U.S. government-issued abayas.
*) Secure a charter from the New York City Department of Education to open an Arabic-themed public school.
*) Lead Muslim students in prayer at a public San Diego elementary school.
*) Allow women in Ohio, California, and New York to have their drivers license photos taken with hijabs on.
*) Designate the port of Rotterdam as compliant with Sharia law.
*) Construct Islamic toilets at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland.
*) Construct prayer facilities in public bathrooms at the University of Michigans Dearborn campus.
*) Appoint a "special envoy" of the United States government to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).
*) Compel teachers and students to don Muslim garb to mark the end of Ramadan.
*) Forward plans to dig up portions of an historic London cemetery to make space for a "multi-faith" graveyard.
*) Allow cab drivers in Vancouver, B.C. to refuse certified guide dogs for reasons of religious conviction.
*) Admonish doctors and nurses in Scotland to refrain from eating in front of their Muslim patients and colleagues during the month of Ramadan.
*) Propose that people of all faiths refer to God as Allah to "create more dialogue."
*) Match couples through arranged marriages on a public television dating show.
*) Allow Muslim sex offenders in Great Britain to opt out of a prison treatment program because it is "against Islamic teachings to discuss your offence with anyone."

Many accommodations sound a little inconsequential and often plain silly. But each one is one of very many small accommodations or concessions to Muslims. It will also be another symbolic victory. This victory is what matters to Muslims even if the concession itself is not that important. It is the victory that is important. The more Islamic victories the better.

The State and much of the press don’t seem to be worried about these accommodations or concessions. After all, they haven’t worried about all the other accommodations or concessions. And we still aren’t living in a sharia-governed society. So what’s there to worry about?

More importantly, however, the police, etc. want to bring about more ‘community cohesion’. They want us to ‘embrace diversity’. (They also want us to ‘embrace cohesion’ and create ‘community diversity’.) Or at least the big knobs in the police do. The ones at the top. The ones who once admired Tony Blair and the religion of Political Correctness. The ones who don’t want to upset PC MPs and PC councillors. Police leaders like Chris Sims of the West Midlands Police who wrote an article against the English Defence League and told us how nice Unite Against Fascism is. Or the ones who say such things to further their careers or keep themselves in their jobs. They must also be frightened of the Con-Lib alliance keeping an eye on their levels of political correctness.

Is all this, then, a ‘victory for multiculturalism’? I think it is more a victory for Muslims. Full stop. More than that, it is a victory for biculturalism not multiculturalism. For Muslims against the rest. The ethnic minorities who are now actually a part of ‘the rest’ don’t get their way as often as Muslims. Indeed they don’t even demand as much as Muslims. They do not see themselves as a special category which should receive special accommodation from the state and from local councils. It is the Muslim self-created ghetto-isation that is partly responsible for this unquenchable thirst for accommodation and concession. And what is accommodated or conceded is not usually part of the British landscape. The more separate Muslims become, the more they will demand. The more they will both expect and demand. These demands will of course become more aggressive and much more frequent.

When will the bowing to ‘Islamic sensitivities’ come to end? When we live in a sharia-based society? When we submit to an Islamic state?

2 comments:

  1. As much as I would like for it to be fact, it's not true.
    http://www.snopes.com/photos/gruesome/crushboy.asp

    These pictures originated with the Iranian news site PeykeIran, who (along with persons who have witnessed similar scenes in other countries) confirmed that what the photographs actually depict is performers hustling money from onlookers by staging a common street act, one in which a subject seemingly allows himself to be run over by a heavy vehicle and then emerges unscathed. This a common act, variations of which are performed by many magicians and accomplished through a variety of means, with no lasting harm done. That the subject is a small boy who grimaces his way through the stunt is all part of the act, intended to elicit sympathy and extra cash from onlookers. (Despite his contorted facial expressions, the boy is not seriously or permanently injured by the process.

    The versions of these photographs circulated via e-mail generally leave out the last pictures of the original series, which show the same boy after the conclusion of the stunt

    ReplyDelete