Saturday, March 21, 2009

The (Not So) Veiled Threat

Zenster was struck by the phenomena exhibited in Stage Two of what the Baron, in a recent post, termed “Sheikhdown” behavior - i.e., what Muslims do when they reach a certain percentage in the populace of their host country.

In what the Baron calls “the lax and permissive societies of the West”, this is a surprisingly low number. It takes only about 1% to 3% of the population to be Muslim for their previously low profile, unassuming behavior to metamorphose.

At that point, things heat up:

When the moment is auspicious, Muslim leaders start the Sheikhdown by informing their hosts that because of their neglect and ill-treatment of Muslims, they risk arousing the violent enmity of their guests. The imams express their regret over this unfortunate situation, but, don’t you see, they have no control over it - the pious servants of Allah become enraged by all these insults against their religion and their prophet, and once their blood is up there’s simply no stopping them.

“I mean, what can we do? We deplore violence as much as anyone else, but the situation is beyond our control.”

To which Zenster offers the following reply:


How often have we heard some ostensibly reasonable Muslim leader pontificate, “I cannot guarantee what will happen if [insert here an inconsequential but inflammatory act], is allowed to pass”? The spokesman in question then proceeds to ominously predict the untold thousands of angry Muslims who will be compelled by virtue of their Islamic faith to unleash mayhem and carnage upon some target or other should this outrage be allowed to proceed.
- - - - - - - - -
This scenario took place in Britain recently when it became public that there would be a possible screening at Westminster of the film “Fitna” by Dutch politician, Geert Wilders. In response to this insult, British peer Lord Nazir Ahmed of Rotherham threatened to have 10,000 angry Muslims demonstrating in front of the Houses of Parliament.

Ahmed’s actions are but a template for many other instances of Islamic extortion throughout the West. Yet in the dhim halls of power, allowing this blatant blackmail to go unquestioned is deemed preferable to a direct challenge to public safety and to law and order.

But that is not the worst of it: this by-now stereotypical craven response to even the threat of Islamic violence serves to breed even more of it, and each time with less cause for rage. Our cowardly cave-in sensitizes the parasites so that the next encounter will have even less provocation.

Thus, soldiers return from Afghanistan and march in Luton; Muslim provocateurs come out from under the baseboards to hiss and threaten these men. And who do the police protect? Certainly not the soldiers.

Why is it that no one is curious as to exactly how Lord Ahmed is so sure that these 10,000 angry Muslims will materialize on command? Does not his threat imply some foreknowledge or involvement with these incendiary factions? Predicting angry crowds whilst simultaneously declaring them to be beyond control is transparent thuggery. It is extortion.

There are several preventive measures authorities might put in place in the future:

  • Wouldn’t it seem sensible to take into custody someone who indulged in such incitement and interrogate them at length regarding whatever connections they might have to radicals and adherents of violence?
  • Wouldn’t it also seem prudent to have several battalions of military personnel in riot gear, ready for the predicted violence?
  • Should such a demonstration devolve into even a hint of illegal activity, shouldn’t all present be detained and questioned? Shouldn’t the perpetrators and planners be arrested and arraigned? Yes, the first time such a change in behavior on the part of authority would create even more outrage. It’s a fact that when you begin enforcing laws that have been ignored, it makes the perpetrators even angrier - at first. But once past that first hurdle (and perhaps a second follow-up to show that law enforcement is serious), the Muslim community would then be on notice: further attempts at intimidation would not be tolerated. Period.

In Lord Ahmed’s case, he should have been taken into custody for fomenting civil disorder. Intensive interrogation to disclose any links to subversive or violent Muslim elements should have been followed up and exposed.

Even a single positive result should have been used as grounds for placing him on trial and beginning the arduous process of discrediting him politically while destroying his power base.

If the law were being followed in Britain, identifying all who planned to participate in transforming public assemblies into violent mayhem would result in the detention, identification and future surveillance of those responsible. Thus, anti-terrorism agencies could begin untangling the web of Islamic radicalism.

These should be standard responses wherever and whenever intimidation tactics occur - or are even proposed. Lord Ahmed’s pronouncement was an incitement to riot and a naked attempt to subvert Britain’s rule of law. If each European country refused to be brought to heel with these bullying tactics, there would be a rapid decline in the process of Islamization.

Instead, what we face is a rapid dhimmification of Europe led by a myriad of Lord Ahmeds, aided and abetted by the complicity of their corrupt and cowardly peers.

In a sane country this would not be permitted to stand.

14 comments:

Zenster said...

This author would first like to gratefully acknowledge the editorial contributions of Dymphna. No meaning or content was lost and the entire article became more readable through her efforts.

I would also like to add: Where is there any vocal Muslim faction that both decries and derides such flagrant extortion? Which imams are declaring this sort of obvious thuggery an insult to law-abiding Muslims?

And therein lies the crux of this matter. "Law-abiding Muslims" may as well be an oxymoron, at least in terms of constitutional law. There seems to be little or no concern that British rule of law is being subverted. Evidently, it is not in the least shameful for them that Muslims are resorting to such transparent blackmail and extortion.

“I mean, what can we do? We deplore violence as much as anyone else, but the situation is beyond our control.”

This oft-repeated Muslim litany of woe is wearing more than a little thin. Nowhere is there any strong Muslim voice condemning or deploring these tacit threats of unrest, not to mention the constant violence itself. Instead, we see imam after imam shrugging off any responsibility for their flock's unruly behavior. Clearly, the vast majority of Islamic clerics and British Muslims are quite comfortable with the forceful imposition of shari'a law upon believer and infidel alike.

Nor are there any calming or conciliatory voices emanating from Britain's Islamic community. Lord Ahmed is not vigorously opposed nor even exposed by other Muslims for his abject abuse of the legal system that originally seated him in Parliament.

This is yet one more vivid example of Islam weaponizing the legal and constitutional traditions of Western civilization in pursuit of its total destruction. The only thing more offensive than this blatant thuggery is the way that quailing British politicians roll over at the least hint of continued Muslim agitation.

It is as if British leadership is attempting to put padding and blunt corners on all the regular features of our Western landscape just because Muslims are skinless people living in a sandpaper world.

There comes a point when further accommodation of such obviously exaggerated and regularly offended sensitivities—not only becomes appeasement, but—transcends the true offender’s actual criminality. It is akin to bleeding heart judges that constantly release incorrigible sexual predators or serial murderers back into society. Facilitating such egregious behavior eventually exceeds the wrongdoing of the criminals themselves.

This is the nadir of cowardice that Britain’s leadership has attained. May they find no mercy when all of them are finally called to account for their treasonous conduct.

islam o' phobe said...

I had a discussion on the internet recently with a die-hard advocate of free trade who informed me rather loftily that Britain and America could do nothing that might offend the Saudi Royal Family because it might would jeopardise trade agreements of one sort or another.

Lots of blogs (not this one) make it sound like anyone who has any objection to capitalism of any kind is a socialist. Yet the reality is that many globalists are ready and willing to sacrifice all of European and American civillisation as long as they can make a tiny profit off of some shoddy Arab trade agreement.

Czechmade said...

"Law-abiding Muslims"

One of the sources of the total/fatal miscomprehension on our side:

There should be always a different epithet present in our mind or writing "Two laws abiding muslims".

The other is always the law of allah, which defines the "muslim" and will always prevail.

las said...

Dymphna:

The beginning of your article is of course referring to the critical mass of any ethnic group that is required to make a difference in any given society. For the Muslims, critical mass is a very low figure indeed. America for example has .7 percent Muslims and 1.3 percent Jews. Canada's population is made up of 2.2 percent Muslims nationally. Toronto’s population is 5 percent; the highest of any North American city. This begs the question regarding critical mass. Why is the United States, with a lower percentage of Muslims nationally, under greater social and legal pressures from Muslims within its borders than America’s neighbour to the north, which has more than double the percentage of Muslims? That’s an interesting question to explore for another time.

I would, however, like to comment on something I observed with the visit of Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko to Canada in May 2008.

Yushchenko pegged the descendants of Ukranians today in Canada at approximately one million. But statistics for 2006 put Muslims at 783,000. It could, therefore, be argued that Ukranians outnumber Muslims. Yet when did we last see a news item about Ukranians in Canada and the social upheaval they are unleashing upon Canadian society? Bat Ye'or and Robert Spencer, among others, are spot on when they contend that the greater the critical mass of Muslims within a country the more conflict internally. This conflict is manifested externally as well with that country's neighbours.

Canada's border issue with the United States is a policy reflection of this new paradigm. The rejigging of Canadian and American cross border policy, vis-à-vis security and trade, line ups at the border and wait times as well as passport concerns, is a reflection of the conflict that Islam imposes. In other words Islam is now a factor in American and Canadian cross border policy if only from the most obtuse angle. Conflict is unavoidable, we can't escape it. And the pressures brought to bear within any host society occur at the lowest of thresholds. That is why a Muslim population in the host American culture, comprising only .7 percent of the whole, can unhinge social cohesion.

This is not like the immigration issue of old when my paternal grandparents emigrated as loyalists to the northern shores of Lake Ontario or when my maternal grandparents arrived from Poland at the turn of the twentieth century. We are witnessing a totally new dynamic… a cultural pathology that engulfs the whole of society in a myriad of ways both small and great.

In Canada, at least, we are probably five to ten years behind Europe on this, but it will get worse should our immigration trends continue. America, on the other hand has an equally, but different, vexing problem. Should Muslim immigration trends remain flat in the United States, the bullet that is dodged through immigration most certainly will be taken through the culture wars. In other words, the leftist post-modern ethic espoused by the Democrats and the concomitant social reengineering underway by the compliant Obama hordes will ensure that Sharia will arrive sooner rather than later.

Anyway… just a few thoughts

LAS - Ottawa

heroyalwhyness said...

Lord Ahmed was also convicted recently for killing a man because he was distracted while texting behind the wheel. It defies all logic that British officials did not take action - as recommended by Zenster - while Ahmed was facing sentencing for another crime. Instead, we read recently:
Court of Appeal frees Lord Ahmed from dangerous driving sentence

Zenster said...

las: The rejigging of Canadian and American cross border policy, vis-à-vis security and trade, line ups at the border and wait times as well as passport concerns, is a reflection of the conflict that Islam imposes. In other words Islam is now a factor in American and Canadian cross border policy if only from the most obtuse angle. Conflict is unavoidable, we can't escape it. And the pressures brought to bear within any host society occur at the lowest of thresholds. That is why a Muslim population in the host American culture, comprising only .7 percent of the whole, can unhinge social cohesion.

This is yet one more facet of how Islam abrades all other host cultures. Cross-border inspections and identity checks are a drag on trade and tourism respectively. The post-911 security apparatus that Islam has thrust upon the Western world is costing untold BILLIONS OF DOLLARS per year.

How is it that we should be obliged to undergo such an enormous financial drain all for the sake of allowing Muslims to benefit from high speed air travel technology that they had no hand in creating? Moreover, when it is almost exclusively Muslims who put that transportation system at risk, why should they be given access to it at all?

The strident objections of so many "moderate" Muslims must be confronted with yet another of the incipient hazards of having Islam's practitioners in our midst. It is called "Sudden Jihad Syndrome".

Despite the best efforts of the FBI and various law enforcement agencies, there is a strong pattern of supposedly well-adjusted Muslims—a category that belongs with “law-abiding Muslims”—that, seemingly at random, plunge airliners into oceans, jeeps into crowded sidewalks and gun down people at shopping malls for no good reason save being Muslim.

Why should any society endure the presence of hair-trigger killers in its midst? When compounded by the ancillary aspects of FGM (Female Genital Mutilation), child marriages, murders masquerading as so-called “honor killings”, polygamous marriages and the almost signature drain of Muslim families upon every host nation’s social services network, Islam’s presence among Western cultures is nothing short of a parasitic entity.

Considering the minuscule number of Nobel laureates that emerge from Islamic cultures and the near-microscopic industrial output of the MME (Muslim Middle East), what compelling reason is there to have such a counter-productive millstone around the necks of Western civilization?

Finally, there is one last and rather significant comparison to consider. While the current global jihad being waged by Islam on every one of its bloody borders may seem tolerable by modern military standards, never forget that if Muslim majority nations possessed Western nuclear arsenals and we did not, I would not be writing this and none of you would be alive to be reading this right now.

Jihad is an inextricable component of Muslim life and Islamic culture. It cannot be isolated or excised without rendering Islam alien unto its own self. How then, should Western nations continue to tolerate a largely unproductive immigrant population that is dedicated to violent subversion of all host cultures? Deportation, reverse-immigration, re-congregation or whatever other fancy name you want to use remains one of the only humane answers to this tremendous conundrum. Postponing this unpleasant decision merely ups the eventual butcher’s bill and it is rapid escalating from the now millions to possible billions of lives lost in putting an end to Islamic predation.

las said...

Zenster:

Thanks for your comment. Of course everything you predict will be the outcome of the logical trajectory of Muslim appeasement should the process continue unchecked.

But it is also true, that the Islamization currently underway could not - just could not, no way, no how, ever - occur on the watch of a well adjusted people. This supine social pathology of our self destructive culture of failure allows every jot and tittle of Muslim outrage to be vented and appeased. Every day this thinking presents itself with new and stark examples that, taken in isolation, would be judged by the well adjusted as simply kooky. But when inundation occurs daily like a flood, one begins to despair.

For example. Allen Gregg, a “respected” Canadian pollster and political pundit, regularly seen on TVO and CBC, hosts TVO’s “Allen Greg In Conversation.” Gregg interviews authors about their new work; authors, usually and predictably on the left… such as Karen Armstrong. His latest chat was with Ronald Wright a professor from Western Canada who wrote a historical screed called, wait for it!... “What is America?”

Wright employs all of the usual Chompskyite platitudes: America as oppressor, America as militarist imperialist power, a country overpowered by right-wing neo-cons bent on savaging the world and subjecting humanity to a fundamentalist Christian vision of a theocratic state; an America with all the ills of purpose and practice dreamed up long before the US became a nation… go figure!

It’s amazing these academes feel no compunction at interpreting history through the lens of the pizza they ordered the evening before. In other words, their latest fad obsession with the dreaded “neo-con” agenda colours their interpretation of history… history from 400 years ago at that! They have not the slightest clue that History is a foreign land with strange customs that often defy analysis by late comers (I’m paraphrasing from someone wiser than myself here). Of course, Wright further believes that such neo-cons and American characters from history only ever read one thing… yup, you guessed it… the Bible.

All that, to say this! The crisis in thinking of the post modern-liberal is directly and solely responsible for the acceptance of evil over good, wrong over right, and social psychosis and even psycopathy over sanity.

In contrast to this, I recommend Evan Sayet's talk at the Heritage Foundation recently. (click here) Evan Sayet
He highlights our cultural relativism and media control by the prevailing post-modern liberal ethic. For Sayet, the seeds of the West's vulnerability to Islam began with the intellectual collapse in academia and the attendant flawed thinking which accelerated into popular culture since the 1960's. It has culminated in the civilizational suicide that "is" post-modern liberalism. Call it what you will... the left, the Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, Socialism, even unthinking conservatives in the Republican, or Canadian Conservative party, it all amounts to the upside down acceptance of evil as good and good as evil.

Sayet has biting wit, humour, and a buzzsaw voice, but his message is deadly serious. Things that may have been rolling around in the back of your mind will suddenly have anchor and you will find yourself saying, "oh yeah... I always thought that was true, but I couldn't put my finger on it".

Anyway, sorry Gates for my long diversion. If the link doesn't work cut and paste it from here:

http://evansayet.com/home.htm#video

One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left said...

Zenster wrote:
"...Islam's presence among Western cultures is nothing short of a parasitic entity."

Indeed! I would argue that Western Civilization is based on symbiotic or commensal relationships among the Western nations. On the other hand ISLAM IS PARASITIC. It was specifically designed to be that way, 1,400 years ago, by the megalomaniacal, psychopathic pedophile "prophet" Mahomet.
Tragically for all mankind, it has in fact proven to be quite a successful parasite, at least as deadly as Malaria, in terms of lives lost and debility to the societies it infects, and just as hard to eradicate.


"...we see imam after imam shrugging off any responsibility for their flock's unruly behavior."

Of course, you are using the word "flock" by analogy to Cristian denominations. Better that that sentence should read "...we see imam after imam shrugging off any responsibilty for the unruly behavior of their THUG ARMY."

Czechmade said...

Mo was pedophile-cuckold - successfully cheated by Aisha.

She apparently did not take allahs omniscience as seriously as muslims do. Probably one more apostate of islam.

Robin Shadowes said...

I completely agree with Zenster. Lord Ahmed, Choudary and all other muslim lunatic fanatics should be in the slammer, period! Islam is like cancer and the cure is not dhimmitude, more dhimmitude and even plenty more of dhimmitude. The west is in serious need of chemo-therapy or it will succumb to this illness. These fullblooded psychopaths are hellbent on bringing us down and kill us all so that all of the will be dar-al-islam. The coming war with islam will probably be the bloodiest of them all in recorded history and a sheer nightmare to even think of. Nonetheless, it has to be done or there will be no future at all. Only hell on earth.

Robin Shadowes said...

all of the the world will be dar-al-islam. Sorry for my typing mistake.

Zenster said...

las : the Islamization currently underway could not - just could not, no way, no how, ever - occur on the watch of a well adjusted people.

I could not agree with you more. Unfortunately, rational thought is too frequently disparaged in this age when "feelings" and "self-esteem" somehow are supposed to guide us through the pitfalls of life.

For an excellent understanding of how Western rationalism has been eroded so severely, there is no better explanation than that given by ex-KGB agent, Yuri Bezmanov regarding the demoralization of America.

One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left: On the other hand ISLAM IS PARASITIC. It was specifically designed to be that way, 1,400 years ago, by the megalomaniacal, psychopathic pedophile "prophet" Mahomet.

As I noted above, little better evidence of this fact exists than how the MME (Muslim Middle East) remains a total wasteland of industrial, scientific and intellectual progress and has been in that state for the better part of a millennia.

Even the most dynamic forms of Islamism still entrench this profound stagnation. Witness Iran's Ahmadinejad and his policy of khodkafa'I or Iranian self-sufficiency. (From the linked article.)

Convinced that Islam is destined for a "clash of civilizations" against the "Infidel"--led by the U.S., of course--President Ahmadinejad is determined to preserve what he regards as the Islamic Republic's "independence." One of his favorite themes is the claim that, forced to choose between freedom and independence, good Muslims would prefer the latter.

Khodkafa'i has had catastrophic results on many sectors of the Iranian industry. Unable to reduce, let alone stop, imports of mass consumer goods (including almost half of the nation's food) controlled by powerful mullahs and Revolutionary Guard commanders, President Ahmadinejad has tightened import rules for a range of raw materials and spare parts needed by factories across the nation. The policy has already all but killed the once-buoyant textile industry, destroying tens of thousands of jobs. It has also affected hundreds of small and medium-size businesses that, in some cases, have been unable to pay their employees for months.
[emphasis added]

Better to be slaves in their Islamic paradise than brave the challenges of surviving in an honest competition of ideas and free markets.

I encourage anyone who has not done so to please read the entire foregoing article. Though a bit dated and brief, it is still a vivid snapshot of how obtuse Muslim thinking perpetually derails any possible progress or modernization in the MME.

Robin Shadowes: The west is in serious need of chemo-therapy or it will succumb to this illness.

Those who continue to oppose this much needed chemo-therapy will permit the sort of metastization that can only be cured by radiation treatments.

The coming war with islam will probably be the bloodiest of them all in recorded history and a sheer nightmare to even think of.

As always, please remember that:

ISLAM WOULDN'T HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY.

laine said...

So much with which to agree.

Muslims bring more trouble than the productive ones among them are worth economically and morally. (In a dispassionate discussion not derailed by malicious accusations of racism, Jamaican immigration would be deemed the same. There are law-abiding lovely would-be immigrants from 200 or so countries. Why pick ones who are invariably accompanied by a drug, gang, gun and fatherless culture that is destroying their home country and accounts for crime disproportionate to their numbers in every last country that takes them in?)

Muslim immigration is just as problematic for different reasons. Apparently American Muslims relative to the British and Swedish ones etc. are well educated and relatively well off i.e. not parasites on the state they are trying to subvert. This is cold comfort when one considers the number of jihadis "educated" in western universities, medical doctors included. In addition, too few of them separate themselves from and denounce the jihadis while identifying as Americans. In fact, devout Muslims never identify with the host culture, do not serve in their adopted country's armed forces and could not be trusted if they did because of the "sudden jihadi syndrome" Zenster outlined. They do not have even divided loyalties. They are loyal first and foremost to the umma, their fellow Muslims, even the ones trying to kill their fellow Americans. A Pew poll showed almost a third of young adult Muslims in the US saying that suicide bombing [against civilians] was justified. Those are only the ones who admitted it in a public poll! Imagine what the real number might be!)

The second insight in the thread that bears repeating in other venues until everyone gets it is the sickness that allows colonization by a killing parasite. It is a case of sado-masochism. Islam is sadistic in its creation and treatment of converts and the West's PC Left are masochists who invite denigration and even an existential threat toward their own culture.

Modern liberalism is a mental disorder and has found its perfect yang.

As far as the small numbers needed to spoil life for the vast majority, Mark Steyn recently pointed out in another context, that when you mix even a few drops of crap with ice-cream, the end product resembles the former more than the latter.

I would also like to point out that everyone else is allowed to have their ice cream pure and unsullied by unlike immigration. Only western Euro-Christian cultures are not given this right. How's that for unequal rights?

Zenster said...

laine: It is a case of sado-masochism. Islam is sadistic in its creation and treatment of converts and the West's PC Left are masochists who invite denigration and even an existential threat toward their own culture.

It is difficult to summon up a better example of this masochism than the article submitted by heroyalwhyness. Muslim gangster, Lord Ahmed served all of SIXTEEN days of his TWELVE WEEK jail sentence for the unlawful killing of Martyn Gombar. Similar convictions in Britain have resulted in jailings of TWENTY MONTHS and THREE YEARS.

Ahmed's mouthpiece had the temerity to argue that:

... the peer had effectively already served his sentence, and the point of bringing the appeal was in relation to his ability to carry out his work for the community in the future.

If a sentence of imprisonment remained, then that work would be “irreparably and permanently damaged”, Mr Baker had argued.


Seeing as how Ahmed's "work for the community" seems to consist of threatening Britain's government with large-scale riots and the killing of some hapless Briton, maybe it would be better for all if his ability to perform any further so-called "community work" truly was “irreparably and permanently damaged”.

Instead this maggot is free to continue his subversion of British law.

A final clarification is that any Muslim in the West who has the unmitigated gall to predict, threaten or otherwise allude to possible public unrest by whatever Islamic groups should be immediately detained and have his clock cleaned thoroughly. The process should involve the maximum possible length of detention with charges filed of "incitement to violence", which are only dropped if no significant and actionable grounds for them can be uncovered.

This is a micro-scale model of what needs to be happening on a world-wide basis. Globally, whenever some Muslim cockroach begins chanting "Death to America!" in front of a large crowd, the next thing that happens should involve a case of high velocity .50 caliber swift onset terminal lead poisoning.

It's long past tea for Islam to learn that it must tread very softly should it wish to continue any earthly manifestation.