Feels like the Age of Great Delusion. I am reminded of Revelation 13 - the beast that rises from the ocean is not a person, it's a system. It only took 25 years from 911 to a radical muslim being elected as mayor. It will surely be a downhill progression from here. I'm old, one foot out the door, but I hate it for my kids and theirs - the destruction that is coming.
I suspect Western flirtation with Islam will be short lived. It is one thing to push transgenderism or feminism as the effects are either diffuse or not that visible.
So agree. Even the deliberately obtuse (the polled 17% who say they will vote Labour but who aren't Muslim) are going to have to face the real life consequences of political patronage. Because the dishonest MSM runs cover for the bought and paid establishment (China's payroll must be huge) many politically disengaged people are oblivious to the scale of the problem.
Yes they will. It is coming for them. We see it already in some northern councils. Tribal mentality is alien to the West and those nice middle class ladies are in for a shock when they find out their new friends are not becoming Guardian readers.
We can cling to hope. The infestation is deep now, though, so I am wondering if under the radar is a better plan than open rebellion. French Underground comes to mind.
No I think it is simply not compatible with anything we would accept. If anything will change attitudes it is immigrants being unreasonably pushy and forcing Islamic ideas on us. They came here. Attitudes would harden quickly.
I think average citizens won't be the deciding factor, although their support may help some groups. A counter-elite sensing a cause they can exploit is probably closer.
There is no such thing as Islamophobia. Muslims in the west borrowed the phobia stigma from homophobia as a tactical calculation.
Homophobia always and forever carries the implication that the reason for antipathy toward homosexuals is the attempt to hide one’s own repressed homosexual desire.
I agree. It is an invention. But it is now so overused there is a degree of fatigue. These things were never going to work because the West is so clearly not abusing Muslims, immigrants or anyone else.
"These things were never going to work because the West is so clearly not abusing Muslims, immigrants or anyone else."
Really??? The United States is currently abusing a large number of groups and countries. And not even 100 years ago, the United States was abusing homosexuals( in the name of Christianity), blacks, Jews, and communists—I'm sure there are others.
Poor use of words. Ordinary people in Western nations are considerate towards other races and ethnicities. More so than almost anyone else on Earth.
Historically yes, plenty of action overseas. And our recent adventures in the Middle East were far from neutral.
But the man on the street isn't lynching blacks or abusing recent immigrants. If anything we are far too accommodating.
As for homosexuals, almost all countries have banned it and frowned upon it. The West was mild compared to most. Look at their fate today in the Middle East. In China you are sent for psychiatric help if caught. In Britain they legalized it in the 1950s I think.
No of course not. And nor could that be inferred from my comment. Western nations are famously open. It is the white nations who have historically been the ones concerned about people who are different from them. No one else bothers even now.
I agree about Turing's treatment. But it is hardly unique. No one's history is without its blemishes. But it did reflect many of the social mores of the time. It was illegal until the 1950s.
"This is unprecedented in the West..." Going to "uhm äckcherry" that one, I'm embarassed to say. Sweden is two decades ahead in that regard. It was snuck in, when the original "hate speech"-law (colloquially called "hets mot folkgrupp" = "inciting racial hatred") was revised. Religious affiliation was added, but it is only ever used when someone cricises islam or moslems.
If it is moslems themselves doing it.
Here's a kicker:
Let's say Unternemen Seelöwe would have gone off as planned, resulting in German occupation of the UK. Would the Englishmen and the other islanders be worse off, or better off, than today?
That is something that is a right proper kick in the nads of all the numpties defending mass-migration, islam and the further mongrelisation of the European peoples.
It is an eternal source of memes for sure. What did we fight for? Etc etc
And yes I never thought to check if you Scandinavians had got there first. But this is being discussed as a blasphemy law, at least by some. The government's attempt to pass Islamophobia laws were defeated. Unpopular even with some of their own people.
They will do something but it is facing ridicule. So perhaps taking the piss will defeat it. I see lots of burning korans in the near future.
The traitors and the muzzies would of course riot and threaten and attempt murder.
So, any group or loose affiliation doing this would need to be prepared and aware, and ready to utilise the rioting et c as a political resource to sway the mushy peas-middle.
Key is "mass". Not one or two places, but a couple of hundred. Impossible for the police to control and cordon off the moslem's rage means nation-wide looting, rioting, arson and murder, and the politicos would be forced to make a choice in public (if their challengers within and without are on the ball):
For England and the English, or for islam and the invaders.
Never offer people any other choice when debating them on this stuff.
"Past attempts to outlaw “Islamophobia” have failed as they are too blatantly religious in a modern secular state that champions atheism and materialism."
You are too ready to conflate atheism with materialism. How about some justification?
"Where are the militant atheists so quick to trash peaceful Christianity but have nothing to say about people who want to dismantle the West in the name of a more aggressive religion?"
How about an example of peaceful Christianity? Would you say the United States is majority Christian? The United States is the most militaristic, corrupt, hegemonic country on earth.
"Like the Democrat Party in the USA they have sold out the country to foreigners and continue to do so. Anything to gain and retain power.1"
Or the Republicans who have sold out the country to the Zionists.
Religion is a major contributor to tension and war the world over.
I am not making a case for any religion. Just contrasting the venom aimed at Christians and Christianity versus the radio silence when another religious group ask for explicit blasphemy laws. The point was about them.
I have no strong views on atheism or materialism. But again we see ridicule of Christianity from people who champion atheism and hold a materialistic view of the universe, and total capitulation to another religious group that rejects both those views. Not a peep, and certainly not ridicule.
"But again we see ridicule of Christianity from people who champion atheism and hold a materialistic view of the universe, and total capitulation to another religious group that rejects both those views."
Christians ridicule atheists constantly. I know of no atheists who capitulate to any religion.
The point is their silence. Here in Britain we have social commentators very quick to ridicule most religious believers, not just Christians. Really religious belief itself. But they will not condemn the campaigns to enact blasphemy laws. That is the point. I am not supporting or criticizing religion myself.
Feels like the Age of Great Delusion. I am reminded of Revelation 13 - the beast that rises from the ocean is not a person, it's a system. It only took 25 years from 911 to a radical muslim being elected as mayor. It will surely be a downhill progression from here. I'm old, one foot out the door, but I hate it for my kids and theirs - the destruction that is coming.
I suspect Western flirtation with Islam will be short lived. It is one thing to push transgenderism or feminism as the effects are either diffuse or not that visible.
Islam is very visible and people will push back.
So agree. Even the deliberately obtuse (the polled 17% who say they will vote Labour but who aren't Muslim) are going to have to face the real life consequences of political patronage. Because the dishonest MSM runs cover for the bought and paid establishment (China's payroll must be huge) many politically disengaged people are oblivious to the scale of the problem.
Yes they will. It is coming for them. We see it already in some northern councils. Tribal mentality is alien to the West and those nice middle class ladies are in for a shock when they find out their new friends are not becoming Guardian readers.
We can cling to hope. The infestation is deep now, though, so I am wondering if under the radar is a better plan than open rebellion. French Underground comes to mind.
No I think it is simply not compatible with anything we would accept. If anything will change attitudes it is immigrants being unreasonably pushy and forcing Islamic ideas on us. They came here. Attitudes would harden quickly.
But are average citizens up for insurrection? Modernity has softened us.
I think average citizens won't be the deciding factor, although their support may help some groups. A counter-elite sensing a cause they can exploit is probably closer.
There is no such thing as Islamophobia. Muslims in the west borrowed the phobia stigma from homophobia as a tactical calculation.
Homophobia always and forever carries the implication that the reason for antipathy toward homosexuals is the attempt to hide one’s own repressed homosexual desire.
Irony maximization.
I agree. It is an invention. But it is now so overused there is a degree of fatigue. These things were never going to work because the West is so clearly not abusing Muslims, immigrants or anyone else.
"These things were never going to work because the West is so clearly not abusing Muslims, immigrants or anyone else."
Really??? The United States is currently abusing a large number of groups and countries. And not even 100 years ago, the United States was abusing homosexuals( in the name of Christianity), blacks, Jews, and communists—I'm sure there are others.
Poor use of words. Ordinary people in Western nations are considerate towards other races and ethnicities. More so than almost anyone else on Earth.
Historically yes, plenty of action overseas. And our recent adventures in the Middle East were far from neutral.
But the man on the street isn't lynching blacks or abusing recent immigrants. If anything we are far too accommodating.
As for homosexuals, almost all countries have banned it and frowned upon it. The West was mild compared to most. Look at their fate today in the Middle East. In China you are sent for psychiatric help if caught. In Britain they legalized it in the 1950s I think.
"But the man on the street isn't lynching blacks or abusing recent immigrants. If anything we are far too accommodating."
You mean we should be lynching blacks and abusing immigrants?
"In Britain they legalized it in the 1950s I think."
Really? Look up Alan Turing. What Britain did to him was inhuman!
No of course not. And nor could that be inferred from my comment. Western nations are famously open. It is the white nations who have historically been the ones concerned about people who are different from them. No one else bothers even now.
I agree about Turing's treatment. But it is hardly unique. No one's history is without its blemishes. But it did reflect many of the social mores of the time. It was illegal until the 1950s.
I am not as sanguine as you.
Indeed.
It’s hard not to notice, it takes a lot of mental effort not to notice.
There are many brownie points in not noticing. Or at least not saying.
Right, so.
"This is unprecedented in the West..." Going to "uhm äckcherry" that one, I'm embarassed to say. Sweden is two decades ahead in that regard. It was snuck in, when the original "hate speech"-law (colloquially called "hets mot folkgrupp" = "inciting racial hatred") was revised. Religious affiliation was added, but it is only ever used when someone cricises islam or moslems.
If it is moslems themselves doing it.
Here's a kicker:
Let's say Unternemen Seelöwe would have gone off as planned, resulting in German occupation of the UK. Would the Englishmen and the other islanders be worse off, or better off, than today?
That is something that is a right proper kick in the nads of all the numpties defending mass-migration, islam and the further mongrelisation of the European peoples.
It is an eternal source of memes for sure. What did we fight for? Etc etc
And yes I never thought to check if you Scandinavians had got there first. But this is being discussed as a blasphemy law, at least by some. The government's attempt to pass Islamophobia laws were defeated. Unpopular even with some of their own people.
They will do something but it is facing ridicule. So perhaps taking the piss will defeat it. I see lots of burning korans in the near future.
A co-ordinated mass-burning of Korans would work.
The traitors and the muzzies would of course riot and threaten and attempt murder.
So, any group or loose affiliation doing this would need to be prepared and aware, and ready to utilise the rioting et c as a political resource to sway the mushy peas-middle.
Key is "mass". Not one or two places, but a couple of hundred. Impossible for the police to control and cordon off the moslem's rage means nation-wide looting, rioting, arson and murder, and the politicos would be forced to make a choice in public (if their challengers within and without are on the ball):
For England and the English, or for islam and the invaders.
Never offer people any other choice when debating them on this stuff.
I could see that happening. I could also see the current regime siding with the Muslims to condemn the "hate crime" lol.
"Past attempts to outlaw “Islamophobia” have failed as they are too blatantly religious in a modern secular state that champions atheism and materialism."
You are too ready to conflate atheism with materialism. How about some justification?
"Where are the militant atheists so quick to trash peaceful Christianity but have nothing to say about people who want to dismantle the West in the name of a more aggressive religion?"
How about an example of peaceful Christianity? Would you say the United States is majority Christian? The United States is the most militaristic, corrupt, hegemonic country on earth.
"Like the Democrat Party in the USA they have sold out the country to foreigners and continue to do so. Anything to gain and retain power.1"
Or the Republicans who have sold out the country to the Zionists.
Religion is a major contributor to tension and war the world over.
I am not making a case for any religion. Just contrasting the venom aimed at Christians and Christianity versus the radio silence when another religious group ask for explicit blasphemy laws. The point was about them.
I have no strong views on atheism or materialism. But again we see ridicule of Christianity from people who champion atheism and hold a materialistic view of the universe, and total capitulation to another religious group that rejects both those views. Not a peep, and certainly not ridicule.
"I am not making a case for any religion."
Your comments that I listed contradict that.
"But again we see ridicule of Christianity from people who champion atheism and hold a materialistic view of the universe, and total capitulation to another religious group that rejects both those views."
Christians ridicule atheists constantly. I know of no atheists who capitulate to any religion.
The point is their silence. Here in Britain we have social commentators very quick to ridicule most religious believers, not just Christians. Really religious belief itself. But they will not condemn the campaigns to enact blasphemy laws. That is the point. I am not supporting or criticizing religion myself.
I think most atheists are blithe to get involved in religious pissing matches.
Well they are quick enough with other religions. That is the point.
Do you have an example of atheists condoning or supporting any other religions?
Gee, it's fun being equal.