Political Correctness is the Incubator of Islamism

Amil Imani

Time and again we are told by the politically correct "experts" not to worry about Islam posing a threat to our way of life. We are repeatedly lectured that only a very small minority of Muslims are troublemakers who are giving the peaceful masses of Muslims a bad name. We are also informed that the terrorists, who happened to be Muslims, are the disaffected and the young. And not to worry, since as the fire of youth turns to ashes of old age the rebellious will mellow, as they always have.

With heavy assurances like this, coming from so many know-it-all authoritative figures, we can sleep soundly without the aid of sleeping pills. After all, people reason that these pundits are "experts" whose job is to know and tell it like it is. Those who voice contrary views must be a bunch of racist, alarmist hate mongers. Who is right?

Wouldn't it be more prudent to let the facts settle the matter, rather than blindly accepting either position? Of course it would, except for one huge problem. In the face of threats, people tend to go to the mind's medicine cabinet and take a few denial and rationalization pills, in the same way that it is the aspirin bottle they turn to when a headache strikes. Why not? We are the Easy Species. We love effortless, quick and simple solutions. And that's not invariably bad. It has given us all kinds of labor and time saving devices.

Yet, the Islam problem is very real and deadly. Neither the pronouncements of the experts, nor the tranquilizing pills of the mind can make it go away. It is here and it shows every sign of imposing itself on us. Let us look at some of the facts:

* Not every Muslim wears an explosive vest ready to detonate in the midst of a crowd of innocent civilians, yet there are more volunteers for the mission than there are explosive vests. The Islamic Republic of Iran, for instance, hasn't even officially joined this form of jihad. Yet, by its own admission, it has over 10,000 volunteers trained ready to be deployed, and thousands more queuing to join in. This time around, the jihadists heading for Allah's heaven might come fitted with nice little suitcases of dirty bombs instead of the bulky explosive vests. Recall that it took only 19 of these killers to launch the aerial mass murder of 9/11 that killed 3,000 people, shattered our open trusting way of life, and cost us billions of dollars.

* The jihadists are not confined to a minority of disaffected Muslim youth. How young are Bin Laden, his deputy doctor of death Al Zawahiri, mullah Omar of the Taliban, Khamenei and Ahmadinejad of Iran, just to name a few? How disaffected are they? Muhammad Ata, leader of the 19 airborne thugs and the decapitator of Wall Street Journal reporter Pearl were somewhat younger, yet well-healed and Western educated.

* Just coin some terms such as the "Melting Pot," or "Multiculturalism" and you have the problem solved? Roll out the red carpet for the immigrant Muslims, treat them as you would your own citizens, give them stipends, medical care, and free education and they will integrate seamlessly into the society? No such thing at all. The idea of Melting Pot may work with people who come from different lands to make the new country their home. The Islamists, on the other hand, come with the belief that they already own the place and want to make it part of the Ummeh. Some forty percent of second and third generation Muslim Britons reject British democracy, express their allegiance to Islam and want to live under Sharia. So much for the Melting Pot comfort pill.

* The new Islamist arrivals take advantage of the provisions of the most benign system known to humanity, democracy, to implode it from within. Muslims, by sheer numbers, will soon be in a position to vote out democracy in many countries. They are already doing that in bits and pieces. They are imposing many of their values, in a number of societies, even while they are in the minority. Politicians, hungry for votes and devoted to the practice of political correctness bend backward to accede to Islamists' demands.

* As for Multiculturalism, it is even more of a delusion than the Melting Pot myth. It is a second generation Comfort Pill. Since the Melting Pot proved to be worse than a placebo, the politically correct gave us the new pill. A glance at Europe shows how Multiculturalism in fact has served as the incubator of Islamism in no time at all. Europe's Multiculturalism is rapidly birthing a Uniculturalism, if the Islamists' medieval way of life can be dignified as a culture.

* Respect for diversity, separation of religion and state, freedom of belief and expression, are pillars of democracy, yet anathema to Islam. In no Islamic land do you find an ecumenical organization. It is only in non-Islamic countries that the shameless duplicitous Muslim, be he an imam, a mullah, or a regular run-of-the- mill faithful of Allah, meekly participates in ecumenical feel-good gatherings.

* To Muslims, no other religion is deemed worthy of recognition, much less accommodation. There is not a single church or synagogue or a Buddhist temple in all of Saudi Arabia. They are barred. The Islamic Republic of Iran's raft of genocidal pogroms includes the heinous practice of bulldozing even the cemeteries of its Baha'i religious minority. The Islamic tyranny of the mullahs imprisons Christian Iranians for celebrating Christmas. Egypt denies its own citizens identity cards for refusing to lie and fake their religious belief or disbelief. The ID cards are required for education, securing work, receiving medical care and just about every right of citizenship. Without it, a citizen is literally subjected to slow death.

* In Islam only Muslim men, and, to a lesser extent, Muslim women, are entitled to certain rights. All non-Muslims, including the so-called people of the book, namely Christians and Jews, are at best second-class subject, subjects who must pay the back-breaking Jezyyeh, poll tax, for their "sin" of not converting to Islam. So, as Islam makes its inroads in new lands, as its membership swells through explosive birth and conversion, secular democracies will be inevitably replaced by Islamism with its stone-age Sharia laws. The best offer that Islam will make is to spare the non-Muslim's life if he puts on the heavy yoke of Jezyyeh (Jizyah) for the rest of his living days.

* Not to worry about the horrific things that are happening on the other side of the world? If Muslims act heinously toward non-Muslims, it is just the way things are in those countries and it is hardly any of our business? This is the same attitude that set Islamization of Europe on a seemingly irreversible track. One European country after another is rapidly buckling under the weight of Islamism.

* Most importantly, not to worry about Islamization of our country? After all, Muslims are about 6-7 million minority in a population of nearly 300 million, you reason? That even a smaller number of these Muslims are hothead radicals, while the majority is just like everyone else? But small minorities can overwhelm the majority by use of coercion and deadly force. Islamists are notorious for their dedication to the use of force for achieving their aims. The Taliban were a very small minority in Afghanistan, the Islamists were a tiny faction in the 1979 Islamic Revolution of Iran. Both overwhelmed the masses and imposed their reign of terror. The terrorist Hamas is also a "minority" in number, yet it rules the Palestinian Territory. Hizbollah of Lebanon is a minority, yet it has taken the country to the verge of destruction.

* Islamists are Islam's locomotive that takes the wrecking-ball Islamic train on its demolition course. Islam and democracy are incompatible. As democracies practice their magnificent accommodating belief, they knowingly or unknowingly lay the track for the advancing wrecking train of Islam. We, in the United States of America must resist Islamism while it is still gathering momentum, unless we wish to end up in the same fix as the Europeans.

* We, in the United States, further need to embark on a comprehensive legal, educational, and social campaign to eradicate the deadly plague of Islam. By effective action, we even save those peaceful Muslims from their own affliction. I am not hatemongering. I would love to see all Muslims become ex-Muslims and full-fledged members of a diverse tolerant democratic society. It is a statement of fact about what Islam is. Islam is a highly communicable pandemic violent disease that demands urgent and serious containment.

Europe is already badly infected with Islamism. It is the coal-miners' canary. It is telling us that the next stop is America. We must act and act now. We must not sacrifice our cherished way of life and the lives of our children at the altar of political correctness: the incubator of Islamofascism.

SOURCE





HLI blasts political attacks on pro-lifers in Kansas and New York City

"True freedoms are being eroded, and false freedoms exalted"

Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro-Carambula, interim president of Human Life International (HLI) today responded to recent reports of fellow pro-lifers suffering attacks from governmental agencies.

"It is a grave injustice that defenders of the dignity of human life increasingly find themselves under attack from those who wield the power of the state," said Monsignor Barreiro. "Whether these attacks are directed at a person or at organizations, the aim is clear: to stop any speech or activity which in any way challenges the anti-life orthodoxy that has infected our governing institutions."

Referring to an ethics trial against former Kansas attorney general Phill Kline, the first part of which concluded yesterday, Monsignor Barreiro said: "Mr. Kline had less than one day to defend himself after enduring over seven days of testimony against him. No one can call this a just trial, it is rather an offense to justice, clearly perpetrated by those in power who want to see Mr. Kline punished for having the integrity to do his job and try to protect the women and children of Kansas."

Referring to a recent decision by the New York City Council to restrict the language available to anti-abortion pregnancy centers within the city, Monsignor Barreiro said: "Can you imagine any other service being told by its opponents what language they are allowed to use to promote themselves? And yet Planned Parenthood is still allowed to call itself a `women's healthcare provider' while they destroy unborn human life through abortions and prescribe carcinogenic medication to unsuspecting women."

"America is running out of time to stand up against what Blessed Pope John Paul II called the `thinly disguised totalitarianism' of a state that has given up on true human values. May Our Lord have mercy on us and deliver us from such assaults, so that we can serve and defend His weakest ones during this time when true freedoms are being eroded, and false freedoms exalted."

SOURCE





No one deserves a veneer of goodness because of their race

I wrote a piece last week about an argument I’d had with the man on the end of the phone at Virgin Media. I couldn’t understand a word he said, and asked him where he was based. ‘The Philippines.’

I objected to the fact that his English wasn’t good enough to hold down a job that involved talking on the phone to someone in England. I received many emails accusing me of being at best insensitive, at worst racist.

But I believe it’s wrong to give someone a veneer of goodness, just because of their colour.

This month sees yet another Red Nose Day, when we are all expected to dig deep to help children at home and overseas. Fair enough: you can decide whether or not you want to give. It has just been announced that the country that has received the most aid from Britain is Ethiopia. No taxpayer has a say over where his or her money goes in this respect, and I’m compelled to say that I object to my money being sent to Ethiopia – and I object as strongly as someone who marched against the Iraq war.

When I went to Ethiopia, I was shocked at the cruelty towards animals. It wasn’t sporadic or isolated, it was the norm. Every taxi in one of the towns I visited was drawn by a horse that was thin, thirsty and overworked. The taxi drivers used the deep, maggot-infested wounds on these animals’ sides as ‘accelerators’. I almost got into a stand-up fight in a grain market when I argued with men who refused to unload sacks from the backs of exhausted mules, or to offer shade and water.

The representative (white, posh) from the charity I had travelled with was appalled by my behaviour. She called the men ‘proud’, but also said these people hadn’t yet learned that animals need basic things like water and rest. This is patronising, isn’t it?

A similar incident occurred on a recent trip to Peru. I was in a very poor mining village, finding out about a fair trade initiative. People who work in fair trade, and anything organic or vaguely worthy, are always respectful of the people they are trying to help. The word ‘proud’ was wheeled out again. But when I pointed out all the stray, diseased dogs in the village, it was as though these well-meaning people were blind.

‘We need to help the people first,’ was the response. ‘And anyway, there are cases of animal cruelty in Britain, where there is no excuse.’

But the crucial difference is this: I am not being asked to give money to or buy at a premium from a white thug with a terrified Staffie in Barking.

The white thug needs to be locked up, and John Galliano may be. But if the riots demanding democracy in the Middle East have taught us anything, it’s this. Don’t believe the stereotype. Don’t believe all Muslim men in long shirts who shout in the street are nutters who want to enslave their wives. Don’t believe all Africans are good. Don’t allow fair trade and organic to just be about people. It has to be more holistic than that.

I’m sick of being polite. I won’t make allowances for anyone who is cruel, and I couldn’t give a damn about the colour of their skin.

SOURCE





Homosexual marriage stance could ruin Australian PM

THERE are two key questions around the issue of gay marriage. One is the pretty straight-forward question of whether you support it or not, and the polls suggest it is line ball.

The other question is whether you support the idea of politicians keeping their promises. I haven't seen the polling on that but I would presume that no research firm has bothered to do any, as you would expect about 100 per cent of people to answer 'yes, politicians should obviously keep their promises, what a silly question to ask'.

Having gone to the last election saying there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads, Julia Gillard will now be introducing one on July 1 next year.

It's a serious breach of voter confidence and one which has done her serious political damage. As many have argued, when John Howard changed his mind on the GST, which he promised to never ever introduce, he at least had the decency to return to the polls in 1998 to let the voters re-elect or turf him on a clearly-stated platform of tax reform.

Gillard's promise not to introduce a carbon tax was almost as unequivocal as Howard's on the goods and services tax, yet she failed to give the voters a chance to accept or reject her change of heart. It may yet be the issue which costs her power at the next election.

At a time when the Prime Minister is struggling to maintain her credibility over the carbon tax backflip, it is truly bizarre that there are some within the Labor Party who are now trying to bludgeon her into a similar backflip over the question of gay marriage.

Despite her lengthy membership of Labor's Left Faction, which has long regarded gay marriage as a cause worth fighting for, Gillard has taken a clear and frequently-stated stance against same-sex unions. She spent much of the election campaign saying it is her view and the party's view that marriage is between a man and woman.

At the instigation of the Greens, and with the active support of several members of the Labor Left, Labor Caucus has now signed off on legislation which would prevent the Commonwealth from interfering if gay marriage were legalised in the territories.

The political issues are twofold. Hot on the heels of her nasty little fib over the carbon tax, it puts Julia Gillard at risk of looking like a liar all over again as a result of her oft-stated insistence that only heterosexual couples be allowed to marry.

More ominously, it emphasises the growing public view that this Labor Government is bright green on the inside, that Julia Gillard has one hand on the steering wheel and is sharing it with everyone from Bob Brown, Adam Bandt and Christine Milne to country independents Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor.

You could also throw in the question of priorities -- is this really such an important issue for the Government to busy itself with? Surely working out how a carbon tax can operate without belting household budgets is a more pressing task?

Julia Gillard went to the trouble this week of outlining the major policy differences between Labor and the Greens. The fact that she went to these lengths was a clear sign that she is worried that voters think it is not her but the likes of Bob Brown calling the shots.

Julia Gillard has very few arguments at her disposal to explain her U-turn on carbon.

If Labor's Left wants to force the Prime Minister to break another of her promises, it should do so in the knowledge that it is writing the script for the Coalition's negative advertisements for the next election campaign, depicting a government which has not one but several leaders and cannot be taken on its word.

None of those observations by the way have anything to do with the concept of gay marriage. I suspect many voters don't really care about the issue. It would be another broken promise, which would make the Greens look even more like the Government of the day, on an issue which many voters rank well down on the list of importance.

SOURCE

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

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

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