« California budget circus gets even more bizarre |
Blog Home Page
| IMF cuts US growth forecast; warns west they are 'playing with fire' on debt »
June 17, 2011
Cowardly British Cops Cover Up Muslim Crime
Much like a caterpillar, the West has grown more self-destructive with age. And the moth it has become cannot resist being drawn toward the flame of liberalism. This results in continual forays into the heat of cultural indifference, and a recent example is the British police's refusal to pursue Muslim criminals for fear of being labeled bigots. The Telegraph reports on the story, writing that it has "uncovered more than a dozen...cases in [the London Borough of] Tower Hamlets where both Muslims and non-Muslims have been threatened or beaten for behaviour deemed to breach fundamentalist 'Islamic norms.'"
As an example, a Muslim man named Mohammed Monzur Rahman was found smoking during Ramadan and beaten so severely that he required hospitalization. The police said that they "couldn't track anyone down and there were no witnesses," said local anti-extremism campaigner Ansar Ahmed Ullah, despite the fact that there are CCTV cameras on the street on which the incident took place.
Providing more examples of this Muslim criminality, R. Cort Kirkwood of The New American writes:
To expand upon the veil movement, here is what The Telegraph reports:
Of course, though, these are just, as Barack Obama might say, "typical white people," so it's not hard for the politically correct set to ignore them. But the atypical ones are a different matter. That is to say, Muslims are also targeting British homosexuals, which should present the powers-that-be with a dilemma: Do they side with the homosexuals in the name of eliminating "hate crimes" or with Muslims in the name of affirmative action applied to accountability?
Thus far, though, the sword of Allah has trumped the gay blade. Writes The Telegraph:
There is an interesting irony here, too. Some homosexuals say that they're now afraid to complain about Muslim oppression too vociferously for fear of being labeled bigots. Talk about being hoisted on your own politically correct petards.
The two articles cited provide more detail than I have here, but that is secondary. The more important point is this: As I have often pointed out, the government doesn't create the people.
The people create the government.
Especially in a democracy, the government will ultimately come to reflect the people, and this is why a nation must take care as to what cultural elements it introduces into its midst. Will they disrupt the "cultural ecosystem" or won't they?
It's as with an actual ecosystem. Many non-indigenous life forms, such as soybeans and the horse, have caused no discernable problems in our nation and actually enrich our lives. But pythons in the Everglades and the brown tree snake in Guam are a different matter; the latter has decimated the island's bird populations and the former could threaten native species in Florida.
This has nothing to do with disliking snakes, by the way. I personally find them fascinating creatures and, as with all wildlife (that won't kill me), enjoy seeing them in nature. But the fact is that they belong in places to which they're indigenous; in those to which they're not, they likely will cause disruption. Oh, an equilibrium will again be achieved, but often only after many cherished native species are destroyed. And, ironically, if this means that the invasive species' prey will be eliminated, it will ultimately be destroyed also.
Of course, though, you can't blame the invasive species for this, as it is just behaving in accordance with its nature. You have to blame the idiots who introduced it.
So it is with a cultural ecosystem. Expecting people of radically different cultures to dispense with what has been bred into them and "assimilate" into your culture is like expecting a devoted communist to shed the red simply because he hits the shores of a Natural Economy nation. Or, you could say, it's like expecting a Muslim to shelve Sharia passions simply because he enters the shell that is now Christendom.
Many people will dismiss this, saying that the immigrants of America's past did assimilate. But these critics overlook two points. First, virtually all those who arrived in the US prior to 1965 hailed from other parts of Christendom; they were not from radically different cultures. Even so, it's incorrect to think that their assimilation was smooth and uneventful.
Moreover, when those immigrants arrived, there was not the disease of multiculturalism -- which destroys indigenous cultural species -- telling them to hold fast to their ways and equate assimilation with oppression. It infects us today, however, and when you combine it with culturally imperialist newcomers, you have a recipe for disaster.
So the people shape the cultural ecosystem and this, in turn, shapes the political one. And if Muslims can leverage such power in Britain despite being only a small minority, what will happen when they're 25 percent of the population?
It isn't geography that makes a nation what it is; Britain and America had the same geography 2000 years ago, but they weren't yet Western civilization. And if you replace their current populations with enough Muslims or Mexicans, you no longer have the West. You have Iran West or Mexico Norte.
The West is putting itself out of business. It is a moth that started the fires of liberalism that are consuming it. And the irony is that once its immolation is complete, the invasive inheritors of its habitat will snuff out that flame for good.
Thomas Lifson adds:
I must note that immigrants from East Asia, most definitely not part of traditional Christendom (possibly excluding the Philippines and recent years in South Korea, which is now half Christian -- the most successful evnagelization in modern times), have assimilated and thrived in America on a par with any immigrant groups one could name. I believe that the ideology of jihad, along with the poisonous self-abnegation of multiculturaalism, is the root cause of current difficulties in assimilation and protection of indigenous culture.
FOLLOW US ON