Sunday, 1 November 2015

EMBRYONIC COLONIES: WHAT USE IS ISLAM?


EMBRYONIC COLONIES: WHAT USE IS ISLAM?


The more an attempt at Islamisation fails, the more [Islam] blames Jews and Crusaders and the more it exports its violence.

Christopher Hitchens, The Enemy

 Their neighbourhoods aren’t temporary ghettoes that will fade away with integration; they’re embryonic colonies that will continue to grow as the result of immigration and reproduction.

Bruce Bawer, While Europe Slept

 
History is full of grave questions phrased simply. Kant’s ‘What can I know’; Lenin’s ‘Who whom?; Primo Levi’s ‘If not now, when?’ The gnomic query which has a bearing far beyond its brevity is part of the DNA of interesting times. For the contemporary West, treading as it is a dangerous and narrow path between fiscal profligacy and identitarian ideology, one of these pithy and querulous aphorisms is beginning to write itself in the mist on the mirror; What use is Islam?

The disparate voices of the dissident Right see many hidden reasons why the EU and America are treating Muslims as a protected species to be imported quicker than oranges. Primarily, they see a pre-fabricated voting bloc for the nominal Left. Islam seems to suit the Left. The ummah already marches in ideological lockstep, its Sunni-Shia sectarian differences notwithstanding. It is easily bribable with a range of social benefits and Americanised consumer baubles. It is easily fooled by revanchist illusions, as mosques replace churches as on a geopolitical Monopoly board. There is only one problem with this argument; politically speaking, there is only the Left. If they are of the nominal Right, ‘opposition’ parties across the West are just as busy cosying up to the many-headed Islamic outreach groups as the Left. In terms of pragmatic politics, we are all Leftists now, and supposedly warring parties vie with one another over Muslims in the same way divorced parents spend more on the kids when it’s their weekend. Anyone who voted for Cameron in part-concern over the Islamisation of the UK must be busy looking up the dictionary definition of ‘Conservative’.

What of Muslims considered simply as a component of immigration? We are told by our governing class that immigration is a good thing. But are Muslim immigrants considered separately a benefit? Benefit seems to be an apt word, but not quite in its positive sense. A cursory glance over the internet suggests that Muslims cost the UK more than they produce – and that’s without policing and security costs – whereas Eastern Europeans produce more than they take from the state. Of course, some of that money may find its way back to Gdansk and Sofia, but there are indications that we should be focussing on importing Catholic workers far more than Islamic ones.

Then there is the social impact. It is now an old saw that the political class can be as enthusiastic as their PR people tell them to be about immigration, because the immigrants will never befoul the areas where the political class live. It is reminiscent of the American joke; a college degree teaches you all about people from other cultures, then guarantees you the income to live as far away from them as possible.

But not everyone, of course, can live far away from those they wish to avoid. For the Leftists in government and their enablers in the media, of course, no one should be allowed to express reluctance concerning any aspect of mass immigration. In Germany, Merkel and her new pet Mark Zuckerberg are working hard to criminalise any anti-immigrant rhetoric on social networks and in the real world, to the extent of producing ‘hate maps’ of areas of dissent, and describing PEGIDA as having ‘hate in their hearts’, when these people are devoted to peaceful assembly. It is the hard Left who cause the vast majority of the violence at PEGIDA walks.

There are rarely arrests of the Far-Left mobs. Last week, St. Pancras station was attacked by the usual suspects; Charlie Gilmour, adopted son of the Pink Floyd guitarist Dave Gilmour was in attendance. No arrests were made. In the week prior to that, however, the law was applied without hesitation to two Tibetan women who had the temerity to wave the flag of their country, currently occupied by the Chinese. This illicit display of nationalism – and nationalism will be verboten under the coming regime – took place during the state visit to London of the Chinese premier, up to whom our Prime Minister is currently trying to suck. It is axiomatic that Muslims can march under the banner of any provocation they choose – including incitement to murder – and the British police will be less likely to be interested in them than they are in the names and addresses of people who buy Charlie Hebdo.

And what of consequences intended and unintended? In the UK, and across Europe, the deliberate importation of unassimilable populations into the heart of the yeomanry will soon have the effect the political elites desire; inter-ethnic and inter-cultural civil war. This will then enable them to ratchet up their totalitarian fantasies and turn them into reality. We told you that you were racist, they will say, and we were right, which is why you are now being watched. And still water-cannon and sound-cannon are being stockpiled. The UK government will never use chemical weapons on its populace, but it will use lawfare.

Islam is being used by the political class, but the motives for that usage are still unclear. I don’t believe the ruling class wants to Islamise the UK; even they can see the woeful adaptation of Islam to the modern world in the procession of failed Islamic states. Neither do I believe that ethnomasochism accounts for any more than the lunatic fringe of the Left, the same mindset that sees American Liberals fall weeping and apologising in front of black people over the legacy of slavery, such as they understand it. I don’t believe the will to power can become that dysfunctional. The reason for this vast and dangerous social experiment, however, had better turn out to be a convincing one.

No comments:

Post a Comment