2007 November 04 Sunday
Political Fight Over Plan For London Mega-Mosque
This is nature's way of telling you that you have a problem with immigration.
But the fight raging over an abandoned lot in Londonís East End is of an altogether grander scale. A large and secretive Islamic sect proposed building what would have been the largest mosque in Europe, smack at the gateway to the 2012 Olympic Games, and within sight of Londonís financial district.
A fundamentalist Muslim group is behind the mosque and Western law enforcement officials say the group is a recruiting ground for terrorists.
In Newham, the borough where the mosque would stand, Alan Craig, the leader of the Christian Peoples Alliance Party in the East End, started a one-man campaign against the mosque a year ago that has grown and gained national prominence.
He began by emphasizing the size of the mosque. But now he focuses on its sponsor, Tablighi Jamaat, a worldwide evangelical Islamic group based in Pakistan with millions of followers that professes to encourage Muslims to be more loyal to their faith.
American and European law enforcement officials say Tablighi Jamaatís simple message masks a fertile recruiting ground for terrorists. Two of the suicide bombers who attacked the London transit system in July 2005 had attended Tablighi Jamaat gatherings, British security officials said.
Consider the erroneous assumption behind the use of the term "mask" in the sentence I bolded above. A simple Muslim fundamentalist message does
not mask the nature of a Muslim organization. The only masking going on is in the minds of those Westerners who refuse to see Islam for what it is: an aggressive dominating religion that was founded by a warrior ruler. Islam is radically different than Christianity which was founded by a guy who never led soldiers into battle and who did not seek to overthrow existing secular authority ("Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's").
Alan Craig argues that Tablighi Jamaatís officially stated renunciation of violence to spread Islam is a matter of pragmatics and not of principle. Since they so closely try to live as Muhammad lived and since Mohammad used violence and warfare to spread Islam they see the spread of Islam at the point of a spear, the barrel of a gun, or via improvised explosive devices as morally acceptable as long as violent tactics can work. Check out Alan Craig's video on this at YouTube.
Alan Craig's YouTube home page.
There's a solution for this problem:
While I'm at it, I like
Brussels Journal and think Europeans shouldn't have to face a growing list of no-go zones and battles by Turks and Moroccans. Read more on Turkish nationalism in Brussels. I think it is very wrong for the European Union to outlaw speech against the Islamization of Europe. I agree with Diane West that those who see Nazis everywhere are fighting the last war and ignoring real threats in the process.
One problem with the European Union outlawing of speech against Islamization of Europe, is that just as it masks the coming problem which will end up in a bloody confrontation, it also masks that there is a growing silent majority which will probably become the vocal majority, and this minority is firmly on the extreme right wing side. This group will be rather brutal, and some of these Brits are openly saying that they believe that Nazism was a good system in Germany.
One of the 12 war criminals at the Nuremberg trials (Alfred Rosenberg) who was the leading Nazi philosopher, whose book was being read only second to Hitler's Mein Kampf, said before his execution, "that the thing that went wrong with Nazism, was that it started too early, and that had Nazism started 50 years later after there is a lot more non-white immigration to England and France, etc, then it would have been successful since those countries would have joined the Nazis." Of course, in this case, it is the Muslims, not the non-whites that the Nazis were voraciously against, but in the end, it is possible that the racist element will also wake up when the anti-Muslim movement becomes popular.
I would like to know if it will be possible to protect the Hindu Indians, and the Buddhist and Christian Asian immigrants in Europe when the real war starts within a couple of decades. For instance, the overwhelming majority of the Indian Hindu immigrants in the U.S. that I have met in American universities, were wonderful people, and they quickly assimilated into the American culture without any difficulty.
Hi parapundit and futurepundit readers - I'm a long-time reader/commenter, and I'm writing to remind all Ron Paul supporters that tomorrow is November 5th - the long-planned date for an avalanche of campaign contributions. As many know, Ron Paul is a 10 term congressman from Texas, who has been consistently in favor of greatly increased border security. As a medical doctor and flight surgeon during Vietnam, has has the intelligence and skills to run this country effectively. And, as someone who has raised 5 children during his 50 year marriage, he is living his life as a model of Christian ideals. 20,000 people have pledged to contribute $100, which would garner media attention in addition to a lot of money!
Finally, besides sharing his initials Randall Parker has informally endorsed Ron Paul because of his strong anti-immigration record; and I quote:
I'd be happy to vote for Ron Paul too.....
Posted by: Randall Parker on June 15, 2007 06:58 PM
A month ago, Randall re-emphasized his support for Ron, but without much optimism that Ron Paul has a chance:
The Iraq war is a pointless waste. We have no national interests to defend there. Paul wants out and he is opposed to illegal immigration. So for paleocons and the non-open borders libertarians (and there are plenty such people) Paul's candidacy is attractive.
Paul raised almost as much as John Edwards.
True, $5 million pales in comparison to the $27 million Hillary Clinton raised this past quarter or the $100 million she and Barack Obama are each expected to raise this year. But Paul's haul isn't far behind the far-more-established John Edwards' $7 million for the third quarter.
And get this: Ron Paul's $5 million is about five times what former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee raised last quarter, despite all his enhanced publicity springing from a second-place finish in the Ames straw poll.
I'm skeptical of Paul's ability to win in a general election because as near as I can tell it sure looks like the welfare state is popular with the majority of the voters. Otherwise conservative Republican farmers support their farm subsidy pork. Lots of retired Republicans support Social Security and Medicare. Real limited government libertarianism is supported by a pretty small minority of the electorate.
Update: What is with Rudy Giuliani? He regularly interrupts public appearances to take phone calls from his latest wife. Can someone so nutting win the Presidency? Of course, George W. Bush won. But back in 2000 he tried to act sensible. Rudy can't be bothered. We seem to be looking at a President Hillary future.
By Randall Parker 2007 October 03 10:18 PM Entry Permalink | Comments ( 26 ) | TrackBack ( 0 )
Let's give Randall something to restore his HOPE FOR AMERICA!!!
an aggressive dominating religion that was founded by a warrior ruler. Islam is radically different than Christianity which was founded by a guy who never led soldiers into battle and who did not seek to overthrow existing secular authority ("Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's").
And who never practiced polygamy, slavery, or, as it would be considered in today's world, child sexual abuse. The West really got lucky in choosing Jesus over some of these more unsavory and aggressive Mideasterners.
"The West really got lucky in choosing Jesus over some of these more unsavory and aggressive Mideasterners."
But let us not forget that Jesus was "Mideastern" also. It was the Nazi philosopher Alfred Rosenberg who wrote in his book "Race and Race History" that clearly, since Jesus was such a noble person, he was obviously an Aryan, and not Jewish... And Rosenberg wrote: "can you imagine Jesus with curly hair and darker skin? obviously such a noble person was not a Jew but instead he was an Aryan". And the Nazis further theorized that since Jesus was from Nazareth, which is 100 miles NORTH of Jerusalem, this makes him "from the North", and more likely to be an Aryan instead of the "south" which was the rest of Israel, as further proof that Jesus was not a Mideastern but an Aryan.
But seriously, let us pay attention to the details and make sure that when this conflict gets out of hand and becomes very bloody in Europe, it should not become a race war between north and south, as some silent minority is secretly hoping behind the scenes, "when the moment arrives."
When the Crusaders passed from Anatolia to reach Jerusalem, on their way they looted and destroyed Greek villages in Anatolia, because they could not understand that these people were in fact Christians.
But let us not forget that Jesus was "Mideastern" also.
Yeah, that's what I meant: better that Mideasterner than some of the others.
If the situation in Europe worsens, Europe's conservative intellectuals may end of facing a battle on two fronts. One to continue the fight against the head-in-the-sand liberals, another to counter the growth of white nationalism. Let's hope, that in worst-case scenario, they don't suffer the fate of the German conservative intellectuals that got butchered by the Nazis in the night of the long knives.
The fact is that anyone familiar with that part of East London (the London boroughs of Newham, Redbridge, Hackney and Tower Hamlets) can tell you that the actual majority of the population existing there today are muslims mainly of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin.In toto, their numbers in these boroughs alone must exceed one million.
Strictly from this point of view, and the general principle of freedom of religious worship the so-called 'mega-mosque' is entirely justifiable and any attempts to block it would be contentious under UN agreements.
The real question should be "Why are over one million Pakistanis living in East London alone?".
What is so bad about the growth of white nationalism? Seems like Europe (and the US) could use a bit more of it.
"What is so bad about the growth of white nationalism? Seems like Europe (and the US) could use a bit more of it."
This depends on what we mean by "white nationalism." The human brain works in such a way that when collective behavior is involved, it is very easy to transmute "white nationalism" into a strict religion, similar to Islam. Who is white and who is non-white is to be defined, and after it is defined, the rights of those European citizens who are suspected of not being white, also have to be determined.
When Mussolini came to power, the famous Italian mathematician Vito Volterra lost his tenure and his professorship was taken away. His best student came to his office, and told him that this government decision was well done, because an Italian race existed, and that Jews did not belong to that race.
But more interestingly during the Vichy regime when France was under Nazi occupation, routine medical examinations were required from those citizens who were suspected of having Jewish blood, and an anatomical examination was meticulously recorded as a recommendation for further investigation if someone is denying having a Jewish relative, but has Middle Eastern features. And many people who were suspected of having a Jewish relative, were required to obtain a "certificate of non-Jewishness" from the town where they were born, documenting several generations of ancestry.
Once again white nationalism is taken to mean goose-stepping SS officers rounding up Jews and checking to see who is an Aryan while firing the ovens for the nest round of victims. What bullshit. Sorry Wolf-Dog, but that isn't white nationalism. Invading your fellow European neighbors isn't white nationalism either. White nationalism is what America was in 1950 and what Europe was just before WW1. Not multi-culti, PC nations with savage minorities running wild, lunatic followers of a desert cult murdering and bombing and idiot liberals and leftists enabling the madness and predising over the mess telling us what a bunch of racists and fascists we are for wanting to live in a normal, peaceful land with people that look like us while they speed back to Chappaqua or the upper East Side. Waving the bloody shirt of Naziism or Fascism or Racism isn't going to cut it anymore. I have heard that so much it has lost any meaning.
"Who is white and who is non-white is to be defined, and after it is defined, the rights of those European citizens who are suspected of not being white, also have to be determined."
The left already does this.It's the left that enforces the old "one drop rule",after all,and demands that people be seen as members of identity groups defined by race sex and gender and that they be rewarded or punished accordingly.
"White Nationalism" doesn't need to be defined,it's being defined by it's enemies as we speak.
And the more the left attacks whites in general and white males in particular to forge unity,the more it will become attractive to people who now avoid it out of fear and distate.All it takes are enough upscale people to gentrify it,yuppie white male engineers and MBA types and their wives and mothers.
Of course,it won't be called that.
David Duke used to be all over CNN a few years ago,they thought they were doing the Goldstien thing,you know,the "one minute hate".
But Duke got a nose job and his hair highlighted,put on a buisness suit to present a different,upscale image from the illiterate,toothless,sheet wearing hillbilly redneck they thought he was.
When CNN realized they simply give Duke a platform,and that he was rather well spoken and personable,well,you don't see him CNN anymore,do you?
Duke's problem is that he really was a sheet wearing redneck and has been reverting to type.
In order to be somebody, you must define honestly what you mean by White Nationalism. For the terminology is quite revealing: Why is it necessary to use the term "White Nationalism", when you can instead use the term "WESTERN SECULAR IDEALISM"? The term "White Nationalism" inevitably implies that those third generation born and bred Americans whose ancestors were not from one of the White European countries, cannot be promoted in any big business or government organization even if they are as American as apple pie. If you mean "Western Secular Democratic Idealism and Culture", then I agree 100 %, otherwise, the term White Nationalism, implies that the Asian Americans (born here) cannot be promoted even if they got the Nobel prize (one of them did a few years ago.) While I agree that Western Democracy and Secularism has its roots in European Culture, does this mean that those whose ancestors were not physically born in Europe, cannot be assimilated into the Western Culture? A lot of White Nationalists simply claim that the latter is the case.
America has its roots as a European culture. Traditionally, we have always had a few non-whites here like asians, etc...(not counting the blacks but I am getting to that) and I am fine with that. But lately we are being overrun by non-whites who have no interest in assimilation(and I would be oppossed to influx even if they were). Having a few Chinese or Indians around is fine, especially if they can contribute to our society and are Westernized. But this massive influx is madness. These people are not conforming to America, they are conforming America to them and our elites are helping. As I said, take a look at America in 1950 or Europe before WW2 that is white nationalism to me. As for the blacks, the "experiment" has failed. Seperation is now the only solution.
Nobody: As I said, take a look at America in 1950 or Europe before WW2 that is white nationalism to me. As for the blacks, the "experiment" has failed. Seperation is now the only solution.
OK, in the America of the 1950s, segregation was legal: It was a written law that Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus, and in most businesses and government organizations, there were strict limitations. Even after WW II, believe it or not, at Berkeley, California, there was a written covenant, which explicitly made it illegal for the residents of Berkeley hills to sell their houses to non-whites such as Asians, and it took many long years to make that law invalid. Additionally, it was a written rule that in many top American universities, if the ancestry of the applicant was not European (especially if it was not North European), a perfect A student could be rejected according to the quotas. The quota system in top universities simply meant that the biological ancestry of the student made the oriental or southern European applicant non-European, even if the applicant spoke better English than the "white" Americans, even if the applicant knew more about American history than the white applicants. Let me also emphasize that just before World War II, the American Nobel laureate Richard Feynman was rejected by Columbia University due to the Jewish quota.
And since you mentioned Europe before WW II, the truth is that only 0.75 % of the German population of 67 million, were Jewish, (and the German Jews were known among the Jews of other countries for being first white German and only second Jewish) but this race issue in Germany was intentionally exaggerated by the White Nationalists to gain power, and also to divert attention from the real issues. The truth was that only in Poland there was a truly large Jewish population as a percentage of the Polish people. Before WW II, there was no significant Black or Arab minority in France and England, and certainly not in Germany. Before WW II, the non-whites that the White Nationalists were talking about, were mostly in European colonies in Africa and Asia. The World War II did not start because of the danger of racial invasion of Europe by non-whites, as the White Nationalists wanted everyone to believe, it was because the growing German economy (successfully revived and accelerated by Nazis) needed more territory in Africa and Asia (controlled by the England and France), and also some Russian territory for raw materials and agriculture. Race had absolutely nothing to do with the cause of World War II, it was an accessory to the White Nationalists who used it to gain power.
The reason there is a massive influx of non-whites in America, the fact that more than 50 % of the engineers of Cisco Systems are Asians, is the same as there are so many blacks in the United States: Jimmy Carter's ancestors in the south, needed cheap labor, and hence purchased the black slaves from abroad (it was not just the British who brought them here.) Similarly, the lack of white engineers who are willing to work at the lower salaries, makes it necessary to bring the Indian and Asian immigrant technicians. The reason the Mexican illegal immigrants are tolerated is because they have the important function of doing the manual labor in low paying jobs. So these "undesirable" immigrants are here due to the direct consequences of the white European way of life.
But returning to the main issue, if you want to resurrect the America of the 1950s, this will be a difficult task, since it will require a phenomenal manhunt for nearly 75 % million people who do not get classified as North European. The minute you want to segregate the already assimilated millions third generation Asian Americans who were born and educated here, it means that you have a very negative agenda.
But the fact is that only the (formerly) predominately White nations of Europe and North America have bought into the idea that 'ethnicity' can be separated from nationality, only the most perfunctory reading of history tells us that most of the bloodiest conflicts have been fought on a racial animus.
It is interesting to note that China, Japan and the other Asian nations who *will* dominate economically, are very guarded in not tolerate mass alien immigration and 'know who they are'.
"But the fact is that only the (formerly) predominately White nations of Europe and North America have bought into the idea that 'ethnicity' can be separated from nationality, only the most perfunctory reading of history tells us that most of the bloodiest conflicts have been fought on a racial animus.
It is interesting to note that China, Japan and the other Asian nations who *will* dominate economically, are very guarded in not tolerate mass alien immigration and 'know who they are'."
This is a good point... Democratic Secular Idealism works only when it is globally supported. It does not work when others intentionally use a double standard to take advantage of it while they are against it in their own territory... This would certainly lead to a lot of political tension against the other countries you mentioned.
First, in defence of my Prophet, I would like to state, that he was fifty three years old when he fought his first battle. War mongers begin early and retire in their fifties or sixties, not begin fighting at that age. He had no choice but to fight back against the Arab establishment of his time,or perish. He was saying fourteen hundred years ago, that the african "slave" was equal to the Arab tribal chief, and our Prophet was the grandson of the top tribe of Arabia, and thus a prince of Arabia. His own uncle was foaming at his mouth to see a "nephew of his" stating that there was no difference between one human being and another, whether black or white, whether high born or low born, except in what they do!! Initially the Arab establishment tried to convince him to not speak about such things, by trying to bribe him with money, with women and other means, to the point of offering him to become their king!! He replied if you put the Sun and the Moon in my control, I will still not stop speaking the truth that all mankind is equal, except in what they DO!!!
When the gloves came off, our Prophet was forced to fight back -- find out the truth if you really care. He fought back after many Muslims were burnt alive, many were massacred and most had to leave town out of Mecca and take refuge in Medina. In the desert, having refugees in large numbers was a death sentence by starvation and lack of water to both the refugees and those who gave them refuge. In desperation and after facing growing persecution and murder did he fight back. Those who do not fight back the tyrants deserve the tyrants. His followers were not fighting men. Most were poor and slaves, many were women. He had to encourage them to fight. That is what you see in the Quran, which is sometimes miscontrued, and other times misused by aggressive and expansion oriented politicians and kings of the past. FIND OUT!!
When the Prophet of Islam fought back and succesfully subdued his abusers, what did he do? Was there a blood bath against them? NO!! He forgave them all and asked them to be understanding that truth shall prevail over falsehood. He had the former African slave "Bilaal", climb on top of the Kaba, the holiest structure for the Arabs to call to pray and announce that the Lord Almighty was ONE! Thus beginning the greatest revolution of all times that teaches that we are all brothers and sisters in humanity. Even the animal World and the trees and the planet is the artwork of the Almighty. Thus a true Muslim would never abuse the rights given to each individual by the Almighty. When we say Allahu Akbar or The Lord Almighty is the Greatest, we are also stating that he has allowed many nations, many races and many faiths to survive on his faith. NO Muslim can be greater than the Almighty.
The extremists among the Muslims are in fact encouraged and paid and developed by our enemies. Our extremists have been supported in money, weapons and politics so that our religion is discredited, so that the Dome of the Rock is taken back by the Jewish folks, when their holy of holies laid desolate for six centuries after the Romans destroyed the place and none of the Jewish people nor the Christians did anything to restore it. Then and only then the Almighty sent our Prophet who in a mere ten years turned the tide of history and made the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem inaccessible to the dogs of the city, who could for six centuries freely walk at the most holy place on Earth. How can people not realize the truth? People are self centered and selfish. Once people would wake up, they will see all nations as their own. All races as their own. All this bickering about race, nationality, rich and poor and socialism vs capitalism will vanish.
I hope some day people will see the reason in TRUE ISLAM (not the false Islam of the extremists, created and nourished to make people hate Islam and Muslims). Until then I hope to work for fairness to all people, justice in society and mercy when justice is established. I hope I make sense.