Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

One step at a time.

On October 31st, a band of rabid Islamic fundamentalists are going trick-or-submissioning over at Mrs Queen's place.

A lot of moderate Muslims have had enough of this and have planned a counter-demonstration based on the premise of 'Why don't you lot just shut up and leave us alone?' So will it be something similar to the UAF's 'bash them until they agree with us' approach? You know, the approach that doesn't work because it just make the 'anti-fascists' look like a day trip of Bedlam inmates where someone forgot to pack the sedatives?

No. These guys are doing it the right way.

Fundamentalists of all types are bullies. They seek to get their way by intimidation. The UAF, the Green Coal Killers, all such people are determined to get their own way using threats and violence. You can't blame them for trying. This government caves in as soon as anyone raises their voice.

The method these moderate Muslims intend to use is, I think, the best one. They are going to laugh at the deadly serious thugs who push us all around and make fun of them in response to their threats. Take a look at the placards they've prepared.

The bullies won't be silenced in one day. They might well respond with violence and if they do, it's going to send the politically correct authorities into a terminal tailspin because both sides are the same minority. That alone will be worth seeing.

It'll take more than this to silence the nutters completely but it is a start. The most terrifying thing to a bully is ridicule. Fighting they can deal with unless they lose, in which case they bleat 'Victim' at once. Ridicule is a far more effective weapon.

As a first step, it's a good one.
wordpress blog stats


( 18 comments — Leave a comment )
26th Oct, 2009 00:26 (UTC)
One step at a time
Please inform what prevents a moderate Muslim dhimmi becoming a grown up radical one, once they understand their allegence more fully.
26th Oct, 2009 01:19 (UTC)
Re: One step at a time
I don't understand this concept of true allegiance to any religion because I don't follow any of them.

As far as I can see, you might as well ask why all Christians are not fully behind the Westboro Baptist Church because the Bible does fully support their stance on homosexuality if you want to read it that way. Christians should also be stoning adulterers and putting heathens to death if they follow their Bibles and Jews should be doing the same. They don't. They used to burn heretics, not so long ago, but they don't now.

Muslims don't have to either. Only the radical nutters want that absolute literal interpretation. As the video shows, not all Muslims want to live that way.

These Muslims are at the start of their own Reformation and they should be supported, not derided.

The only way a change in Islam will ever come about is if it comes from within. Here it is. Should we scoff in the name of Righteous-directed hate as we do to smokers and drinkers and fat people and drivers and climate heretics?

I will not have my hate deflected to the wrong targets and diluted. The Righteous did all this, through Labour, and that is where I will direct my contempt. All of it.

These Muslims want to live in a secular country with free speech. I want that too. Why would I attack or disparage them?

26th Oct, 2009 02:09 (UTC)
Re: One step at a time
Christianity is usually defined as the following of the 'Christ', commonly assumed to be Jesus. His requirements for a disciple are laid out in very stark, clear and unequivocal terms in the New Testament. The New Testament NOWHERE calls for the execution of sinners, be they adulterers, heathens or anything else you may care to name.

Trying to paint Christians in the same light as muslims, namely extremist bigots with a religious agenda that includes a total intolerance of dissent in any form, with this dissent punishable by death, is quite simply preposterous. It displays a complete ignorance of the subject and I challenge you to prove that events that happened in 17th century are representative of the views of modern Christians. This challenge comes on the day that literally hundreds of people were despatched to 'glory' by the actions of islamic suicide bombers in Baghdad.

Let the reader beware: muslims, islamists, religious zealots, whatever you want to call them, do not want peace and happiness, they want dominance and submission. Resist or die, it's that simple.
26th Oct, 2009 03:16 (UTC)
Re: One step at a time

I am not a Christian. I do not preach 'Kill all the Muslims'. I say 'let's see if they sort this matter out themselves, without outside intervention and without anyone having to die'.

Which attitude works within the doctrine of the New Testament? Which I have read, have three copies of here, and learned all the books of both old and new testaments in order, under my grandmother's stern tutelage prior to what I felt was a forced confirmation into a faith I have never held.

Oh, I wasn't threatened with death by honour killing if I refused the faith but being ostracised in a small town isn't conducive to a good life. It's not just Muslims who can pressurise their kids into faith. I went to Sunday school every week and thought it a total waste of time. I only went to Communion for the sip of free wine and because of the hell I'd face at home if I didn't.

You challenge me to prove that events of the 17th century are representative of the views of modern Christians, when I have already said 'they don't do that any more'. Of course the Christians don't have witchfinders any more. They changed. Are Muslims immutable?

The catholic IRA killed a lot of people. So did the protestant equivalents. The Crusaders did too, and the Inquisition lost count. The Witchfinders only kept records because they were paid per head (and the Christians voiced objections to Matthew Hopkins' vicious ways long before he stopped. The Witchfinder mentality was never uniform throughout the Church). Christianity mellowed over time but it didn't just happen, it needed reform from within.

Christians today range from those who would still love to burn heretics at the stake to those whose most vicious response would be to put too much sugar in your tea. They are not 'Christians'. They are people. They are not 'Muslims'. They are people. With the whole range of attitudes prevalent within any population. Some are nutcase fundamentalists. Most are not. Like modern Christians, religion for most is just a community thing.

Those killed by the Baghdad bombs were... muslims. Are you saying they were happy to be incinerated because it would annoy the khuffar? The bombers were lunatic Muslim fundamentalists. Their victims were Muslims who were not lunatic fundamentalists. How does that prove that all Muslims are dangerous?

Religious zealots are always dangerous. Of any religion. Currently we hear most about Islamic zealots but what about the other religions? What about Buddhists, that religion everyone thinks of as the one that won't even step on an ant, attacking Christians in Sri Lanka?


All zealots are dangerous. Religious and political.

Resist or die... as a non-Christian I feel no need to 'turn the other cheek'. But unless I see a threat I do not attack.

Fundamentalist Islam is a threat. Of that there can be no doubt. Antjam Chowder is a psycho to rival Norman Bates but he is not all muslims. As the video shows, some muslims are starting to say 'Not in my name' and that is to be encouraged.

You claim Christianity as your shield. I say, as a heretic, give the moderates a chance. What does Christianity say?
26th Oct, 2009 06:22 (UTC)
Re: One step at a time
An example of liberal denial Iron-lung. Because you smoke you are not willing to see your own displaced reality let alone the displaced reality of a person submitting to Islam. It is this Jim Jones cult you are willing to make room for as long as they are 'moderates' just as you are 'moderate' with your own self-harm.
Hypnotically programmed as you are, these sleepers too will arise and indulge in intoxication when together and their numbers are high enough.
But when they are pissed, it will be too late.
26th Oct, 2009 18:44 (UTC)
Re: One step at a time
Smoking makes me an appeaser? What planet did you fly in from?

Try this.

Becasue I smoke, I know that the continued harrassment and bullying of smokers has made me more determined to remain a smoker and has in fact increased the smoking rate in the country. You will probably find it easy to equate a smoker with an extremist so consider this.

The more you attack ordinary people (mild or non-smokers/moderate Muslims) the more they will react by saying 'Bollocks' and do the opposite of what you want (becoming heavier smokers/fundamental Islamists).

Do you see it yet? The more you push people, the more they push back. You exacerbate the problem by applying 'solutions' that encompass everyone, not just the actual criminals.

Haven't you been watching the Labour party's methods? Some people get drunk and violent, so all drinkers must pay, and so on. That is the same technique you propose here.

If you propose to apply catch-all rules, decry dissenters as 'hypnotically programmed' and seek to get your way with insults, there is no way I'd ever support your party.

You wouldn't be Labour, by any chance?
26th Oct, 2009 16:26 (UTC)
Re: One step at a time
I not going to be so rude as to abuse the host on his own site, so I'll restrict my comments accordingly. With this in mind the following is observed.

1. The fact that you even know the name of Matthew Hopkins is evidence that his name is often trotted out in an attempt to prove that Christianity is a violent, medieval cult. You know the name of a man from 350 years ago, because he was the infamous exception to the rule, yet you do not know the names of the two men responsible for the carnage in Iraq yesterday, precisely because they are not exceptions, they are 10-a-penny. BTW Hopkins was responsible for the deaths of less than 20 people, most 'repented', proving their repentance with a cash payment to Hopkins.

2. The 'troubles' in Ulster were over land (most wars are) and systems of Government, conveniently divided down religious lines. The IRA didn't bomb Thatcher because she believes the 39 Articles of Anglican faith. This is another commonly used ploy to paint Christians as murderous and tribal. If it was the case that is was Cat-licks v Proddies, why have we not seen this war break out in England, where the last census showed more Cat-licks than any other denomination of Christianity?

3. You do not see a threat. Take a walk down the High St in Sparkhill after dark and if you don't get battered, let alone threatened, I'll be amazed.

4. You ask what Christianity says about this situation. You seem to equate Christianity with being 'nice' or liberal, with a desire to see your enemy prosper at the expense of your own family, community or even nation. It does not teach these things; Christ taught us to love our enemies, He did not teach that we ought not have enemies, that we should appease them at all costs, acquiesce to their every demand, not matter how outrageous. It is not loving to allow or encourage a person to behave in a criminal fashion. Christianity teaches that 'thou shalt have no other Gods before me'.

5. You say I claim Christianity as a shield. I did no such thing.

6. You say 'give the moderates a chance'. So did Chamberlain.
26th Oct, 2009 18:11 (UTC)
Re: One step at a time
Okay, here's the bottom line.

I will not accept Islamic or any other religious rule in this country and if the day comes when I have to go out and pulverise someone to achieve that, I'll do it.

I've been in fights. I haven't always won. I've had seven shades of shit kicked out of me more than once, and some of those doing the kicking were skinheads. Dedicated head-kickers. I'm not talking schoolyard black eyes, I'm talking out of action for weeks afterwards. It's unpleasant and not something I'll be keen to repeat.

So while I am perfectly capable of putting up an actual fight, I prefer to exhaust all other possibilities first. If all those possibilities expire and there is no other choice, I am not going to 'appease' and give in. I will fight. I will not fight in a riot in the streets, an open target for tear gas and bullets. I will fight the way I learned when I was homeless. From behind. With a brick. When you're homeless you can't risk losing a fight by playing fair. You might freeze to death before anyone finds you - and anyone who does find you is going to nick your stuff before they'll help you.

I don't see as immediate a threat as you do. Perhaps because I don't live anywhere that Sharia has taken a hold. I do see a threat building rapidly. I also see a group, in that video, acting to try to stop it. I do not believe all Muslims are Bin Laden any more than I believe all Christians are either Matthew Hopkins or Martin Luther King. People are brought up in a religion and often follow it simply because everyone else does. That applies to every religion on the planet. I am certain there are churches, mosques, synagogues and temples in which nobody at all believes a word of what they are saying but they all keep going there because everyone else does. It has more to do with 'herd' than 'piety'.

Let's see what happens on Saturday. It's less than a week away. If the moderates are really 'sleeping Jihadis' they will join with the mad mullahs and not fight them. I hope that won't happen. I can assure you, I'll see the difference between a real fight and a show-fight.

If it looks as if the protests are sham, I'll be tooling up for a fight. I don't need guns or knives. I'll be packing HB pencils and surprisingly heavy walking sticks. It would be better if it didn't come to that.

I am not an appeaser. I won't fight unless I absolutely have to but if I do have to, I don't fight fair.

There will always be radicals in every religion. Christians brush theirs aside and laugh at them and the nutters such as Westboro Baptists achieve nothing more than nuisance status. They don't kill anyone because they know the rest of Christianity will not support them.

The radical Islamists currently believe that all Muslims will support them. The group in that video intend to show them that is not the case. They might fail. They might succeed.

All I'm saying is, let them try.

Meanwhile, the real enemy behind all this is still the Labour party who set it all up and who continue to provoke the British people at every opportunity. They want riots. If they get riots, we are all stuffed.
26th Oct, 2009 18:53 (UTC)
Re: One step at a time
That you are not a fan of religion is your right. That I am not a fan of Islam is my right. That it won't matter a jot what either of us likes or dislikes if the Islamists carry on in the same way that they have been for the last 1300 odd years appears, to me, obvious. There is a danger that, in being unwilling to confront this nonsense now, head on, that by retaining the wish to be civil and reasonable towards those that have proven themselves uncivilised and unreasonable, that we allow them to build such a head of steam that when the time comes that we are forced to confront them, they will have grown too strong, we too weak, that the battle be lost before it starts.

Islam, in all its forms, is incompatible with Western democracy. One or the other will endure. God forbid it should be Islam, because you and I both will be first against the wall.
26th Oct, 2009 20:41 (UTC)
Re: One step at a time
I have no wish to be civil or reasonable to those who call for 'the heads of the unbelievers' and whose slogans include 'freedom go to hell'. They should be dealt with by the law for incitement, but they are not. Not because of their strength but because of the weakness of government and the politically correct rubbish that ties the hands of the law.

EDF are told they can't maerch because they are 'inciting racial tensions' but the crazed radicals of Islam can march through London and demand that the Queen be deposed. Do I think that's okay? Hell, no.

We are told by bragging Jihadis that there are two million muslinms in this country. Few of those muslims want to rise up and take over and there are 58 million non-muslims here. If they kick off, they will lose and lose very badly. So they try to browbeat the rest of us (including the Muslims - remember, in Muslim countries it's Muslims who are oppressed by Sharia) by pretending they are Big Men.

The are a group of bullies who will cave in as soon as they are isolated and shown to be the weak, gang-mentality thugs they are. The government don't do this, in fact they do the opposite. They cower and whimper at the bullies' feet. They actually recognise a Muslim parliament of Britain which nobody at all has voted for! They do this deliberately, just as they deliberately encouraged the feckless and useless of all religions from all over the world to migrate here.

But I am against violent response because that is what the government are trying to provoke. Once they have that, they can make use of the Civil Contingencies act and then Sharia is the least of our worries. We will have a Soviet police state. There will be no more Sharia courts or Muslim Parliament. They will have served their purpose as provocative elements.

Sharia is a threat, yes, but compared to the more immediate threat of a government that hates its own people and is willing to destroy the country for no more reason than pure spite, it's not that big a threat. It's a distraction.

While everyone goes with the 'all muslims are evil' line, the EU is cracking the country like an egg and our government are holding the frying pan for them.
26th Oct, 2009 21:18 (UTC)
Re: One step at a time
Neither you nor I venting our spleen on a blog is going to achieve a thing.

The EU is on the verge of achieving one of its main goals on the road to a one-world government, namely the destruction of national identities by destroying the concept of nations. Mass immigration of alien cultures and religions are part of the plan. Useful idiots then defend the destruction, in the interests of liberty.

The current Gov is complicit in this plan, just like the last one was and the next one will be. I think that the Gov is using the Islamic situation for their own ends, as you appear to as well.

None of these facts, in my opinion, leave room for the Islamic colonisation of the nation to go unchallenged. I would not tolerate bad behaviour, or even manners, in a visitor to my house. The visitor would be warned and if the bad behaviour continued, would be asked to leave. If they had any sense, they would leave voluntarily. If they didn't have any sense, they would be physically escorted from the premises. The same should apply to foreign (am I allowed to use that word?) guests who, metaphorically speaking, come to the country, demand I rearrange the furniture, fetch them a cup of tea and take great offense if I am not overtly grateful for the benefit of having their presence forcibly imposed on me and mine. I have had enough. A great many others have had enough as well. It will almost certainly end in war, Kosovo style (which war presents startling evidence of what happens to an area of a country that becomes Islamified). Opposing one of the tools the Gov are using i.e. the muslims, is a whole lot more achievable than opposing the Gov itself. Dismantling the systems they use against us might give them the hint that they will be next, if they do not stop this nonsense.
26th Oct, 2009 23:25 (UTC)
Re: One step at a time
You're right. Neither of us is going to achieve anything by writing about it.

But doesn't that bring us full circle and back to the original point? Those muslims who oppose their radicals are doing something about it.

It might work, it might not. I would like to see them succeed but I doubt it will be that easy.

The example you give of a badly-behaved visitor is also true. Those who are breaking the law here should be thrown out. Why aren't they? Because our government is as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike. They want those troublemakers here.

Unless we fix the root cause, even if we were to totally remove every Muslim from this land, we'd just face another favoured group with a new set of demands and the government would use them in exactly the same way.

I'm going after the cause, not the symptoms. I probably won't succeed but I'm going to try anyway.
27th Oct, 2009 00:28 (UTC)
Re: One step at a time
I understand your point, that it is not a suicide bomber's fault if the Gov let him into the country and then give him free reign to do as he pleases. But it is his fault if he then does exactly as he usually pleases, and kaboom.

This Gov will be dealt with at the GE, the muslims will not. Things have got so far now that the symptoms ARE the cause. Islam and its followers are gaining access to power, real power. The Gov is advocating all minority candidature in some wards, muslims are in the House of Lords, the House of Commons, they are Councillors, J.P's, Police Officers, High court Judges. They have an alternative legal system and courts for that system, they have an alternative Parliament, they are the enemy within. Islam is spreading as a result of decadence and stupidity of Western nations that encourage these people to behave as though they own the place. Intemperate language? Not half as bad as 'Death to those who insult the prophet'.
27th Oct, 2009 02:35 (UTC)
Re: One step at a time
I understand your point too, although I would argue that while it is not the suicide bomber's fault that the government are useless enough to let him in, it is entirely his responsibility to decide whether to kill people or not.

The government will not change at the GE. Only the names will change. It will take more than swapping EU Labour for EU Tory. the Tories now have all-women shortlists, ie it doesn't matter whether you are any use as an MP, all that matters is what's between your legs. Change? Not with the Tories in power. Soon there will be all-minority shortlists so people who make up less than 1% of the population will be representing 10%. None of that shopuld happen. MPs shpuld be selected on ability, not on gender or skin colour. If the best MP on the list is a black lesbian, pick her. If the best MP on the list is a white heterosexual man, pick him. Ability, not some patronising 'give the poor buggers a chance' attitude should decide the outcome.

We have broadly the same aims, I suspect, but with different primary targets. Perhaps between us we can get somewhere.

26th Oct, 2009 13:57 (UTC)
Muslim v Muslim
They are doing it the right way, Leg Iron? There is no right way, or any way. Fundamentalists have not just fallen from the trees - they started out as newborns with no beliefs. They have become fanatics. They will bully, threaten, otherwise coerce moderate Muslims to toe the fanatic line, and they will succeed. Our government will see to that.
Those Muslims who were moderates will, in order to protect families and properties, take on the appearance of fundamentalism, doing the same to others to "prove" loyalty. People like you, Leg Iron, are a gift to the fanatics.

Shariah is already here, practised in the larger Muslim communities. At least one High Street bank (Lloyds TSB) is offering Sharia mortgages, but only to Muslim customers.

Big business has the smell of Muslim money in its nostrils, whilst the white population is becoming disenchanted with failing free-market capitalism and consumerism. The market here is fading. Politicians, greedy beyond belief and all Christian morality, and their business buddies, must import a new, naive market. Tbe attractions of living in the more affluent parts of the world have been demonstrated by so many migrant Muslims. They are ripe for the picking. The poorer they are, the better - they will want whatever they see advertised, and they are going to get it, keeping the often Jewish business owners extremely rich and amused in the process. Taking big business to poor, Islamic nations is a waste of time - no mass markets. Getting enough Muslims here, where there is a tradition of insatiable personal and corporate greed, but too much debt, is a clever compromise, is it not?

It will not matter much that girls of eleven, in a futile attempt to run away from paedophilic husbands, are stoned to death. It will not matter if those girls die in childbirth, as they were only third or fourth wives, and were expendable. All of this and much more is permissable under Sharia. The moderate Muslims clearly fear what is coming, but luvvies, politicians and businessmen will welcome it. Diversity and megabucks.

In a few years there will be no moderates on either side. Enjoy.
26th Oct, 2009 18:26 (UTC)
Re: Muslim v Muslim
As you said in your first paragraph - the government will see to that.

That's your enemy. Not the Muslims who are being coerced, the ones who are coercing and more importantly, the ones who facilitate and encourage that coercion.

Fundamentalists are bullies, no matter what religion they use. No matter which political party they hide behind. They want to control others, and that is all they want. Those moderate Muslims are perhaps better termed 'ordinary people who happen to believe in a particular religion but don't want to be beaten round the head with it'.

Again in your last paragraph - 'those moderate Muslims clearly fear what is coming' - of course they do. A lot of them came here to get away from Sharia. They've seen it in action. The fundamentalists can corrupt the children of immigrants, who have not seen Sharia in action, but not their parents, who have seen the stonings and the amputations and the hangings with their own eyes.

Targeting ordinary Muslims will push them towards the extremists. Target the extremists and those who encourage their activities.
26th Oct, 2009 22:26 (UTC)
Moderate Muslim Demonstration
I hope this is what we have been wanting for a while now, Muslims taking a stance and opposing the extreme elements of their religeon. Hopefuly it will spread and law adiding and hard working Muslims will assimilate more and leave the extremists in the cold.

The problem is that I am a pessimist and I worry that this demonstration could just be another piece of political maneouvering by the powers that be in order to calm the waters.

26th Oct, 2009 23:18 (UTC)
Re: Moderate Muslim Demonstration
I don't think the powers that be want to calm the waters. They appear to be working for exactly the opposite.

If there is to be any reformation of Islam it has to come from within. I hope this is the start of it. We'll know on Saturday.
( 18 comments — Leave a comment )