| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Current discussion about the attacks on England are confirming comments I've been making here. In January I reported on the findings of Bat Ye'or, who has been studying Islamic jihad for 30 years. She has written extensively about the non-assimilation of large portions of Muslim populations, who have been permitted to immigrate in large numbers to European nations. She has warned for 30 years about the dire danger this presents to Western societies. She foresaw it because Islamic nations have used identical techniques to conquer countries for centuries.
Just how much trouble Britain is in due to this Islamic strategy of jihad through massive immigration and non-assimilation is documented in this poll -- "One in four Muslims sympathises with motives of terrorists":
Needless to say, this is a huge danger to England. Like many nations before it, England has fallen into the trap of Islamic jihad via massive immigration and non-assimilation. As I've observed recently in the post, "Consequences":
...it is essential to note that we can't eradicate terrorism by arresting and killing only the terrorists themselves, because the society that produced them can always produce more of them.
...But if there are consequences that affect the larger society that produces terrorists -- the shop-keepers, store-owners, the guys who run the restaurants near the mosques that teach people to kill, the friends who encouraged the killers -- if there are consequences to them personally, that will be another story. ... Then they will have to rethink their support of the killing of women and children.
Terrorism cannot long continue in the face of severe blow-back to the societies that produce the terrorists.
On the plus side, the same poll of British Muslims finds:
Arrests of British terrorist leaders and a fairly large-scale deportation of their followers may be an example of a way to proceed.
(Hat Tip to commenter Tsar Lazar.)
#1
#2Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
#3"Tom", are you arguing that people who kill women and children in the name of a religion, are protected by the Constitution of the United States? I don't think you'd be able to sell that to the real Thomas Jefferson.
#4The founders had in mind LEGITIMATE religions, not one like Islam with a destructive fascist agenda to overthrow the very constitution whose protections they invoke in order to be able to carry out their subversive schemes unimpeded.
A law which would provide an expatriation incentive for potential terrorists and jihadist supporters would be an essential step in making sure that the Bill of Rights remains in effect for our children and grandchildren, and is not ultimately replaced by its diametrical opposite, Sharia law. It is part of our duty as stated in the Preamble:
"to form a more perfect Union (as opposed to an imperfect, fractured, multiculturalist one) ... insure domestic Tranquility (as opposed to domestic terrorist chaos) ... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"
#5nab, these are innovative and useful suggestions, that are worthy of discussion.
#6“Tom”, are you arguing that people who kill women and children in the name of a religion, are protected by the Constitution of the United States? I don’t think you’d be able to sell that to the real Thomas Jefferson.
I am arguing that NAB's proposal designed to "thin out" the "Muslim population" (note that NAB did not specify those who kill women and children) is unconstitutional.
I also believe NAB's later argument that Islam is not covered by the First Amendment is false, and the insinuation that "perfect" and "multicultural" are antonyms is absurd.
#7I am arguing that NAB’s proposal designed to “thin out” the “Muslim population” (note that NAB did not specify those who kill women and children) is unconstitutional.
My proposal is designed to protect the lives, potentially of my own children, from being destroyed by terrorist violence and/or the elimination of the First Amendment along with the rest of the United States Constitution. It is not a "final solution" in the manner of Hitler's "thinning out" (annihilation) of the Jews.
What injury or hardship does it impose? Funds are offered which can be taken or not. It gives those muslims who are willing to be truly loyal to the principles and ideals on which Western Civilization has been built a golden opportunity to prove it, and thus gain the respect of non-muslim countrymen and lift the cloud of suspicion that hangs over them due to the fact that there is no other way to know who are the good ones and who are the bad. It also has the potential to get rid of those who are here to kill us - the idea being that they are here on an opportunistic and impermanent basis anyway, and so would be likely to want to take the money and leave.
I also believe NAB’s ... insinuation that “perfect” and “multicultural” are antonyms is absurd.
My argument is that "union" (not "perfect") and "multiculturalism" are opposed - i.e. united into a single culture vs. splintered into a mixture of non-integrable cultures.
And BTW, the suggestion of a tax disincentive to discourage overpopulation is meant to apply to all citizens, not just muslims.
These can also be looked upon as defusing proposals that that could obviate the bloodshed that will inevitably result from the clash of two fundamentally incompatible socio/political systems. As long as Muslims remain a non-threateningly small per-centage of the total population, animosities can be contained. But if it gets to the point where they become demographically significant enough to be able to start using democracy to vote democracy out - and vote Sharia law in - it will start to get extremely ugly, as westerners decide that they would rather die fighting than have their liberties taken away.
Muslim populations in the UK, and other countries in the Western Civilization bloc, should be thinned out in the following humane manner. Offer an incentive, i.e. a bribe, to emigrate back to Turkey, Africa, the ME, or wherever. Let's say $30,000, or some determinable amount that would result in
a) those without any loyalty to the host country deciding to take the money and go live like kings where they came from;
b) those who really want to stay and integrate into the host country demostrating their loyalty by deciding to forgo the stipend and remain.
This of course will only work if airtight border control policies are implemented to prevent those who leave from ever being able to come back.
Secondly, in order to discourage the kind of excessive uncontrolled breeding that would ultimately result in the demographic displacement of the original inhabitants and owners of these countries (assuming they do not harbor culturally suicidal desires to betray their posterity's future), impose steeply graduated tax disincentives for having more than two children.