Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Channel 4 Dispatches

"Undercover Mosque" is available at lgf.

I see that the Islamic School and Centre opposite my favourite sweet centre, the Ambala in Small Heath, featured prominently.

Interesting discussions at the yanabi message boards. Not all Muslims are terrorist supporters itching to see the black flag over Downing Street and to slaughter a few kaffirs.

"It may well be that its just another stunt to give all the muslims a bad name by exposing a few extremists.

However what i would like to know is why are these "extreme " elements in the muslim community so hell bent on giving the rest of the muslims(overwhelming majority) such a bad name anyway?
Are they not the ones providing ammunition to the Enemies of islam?

They dont seem to care what effect it will have on the rest of the civilised muslim muslim poulatin of Britain or even Europe,so why then should we give a damn about them? Clearly making it difficult for your brethren is the worst fitna.

They talk of it being haraam to live in a non muslim country,so what are they doing here?
Its not haraam to them whem they accept the conditions of nationality/citizenship with all it conditions or oaths of Allegiance,its not haraam when they queue up at the dole office to claim benefits and probably every other benefit available,but it becomes haraam when they see fit according to their twisted ideology.

Is not living by the law of the land a condition of islam too?

So all in all it may be another assault against islam,but i'd rather it be on a specific extremist little minority of islam that the whole of it."


As against :

"After reading the posts I have only one thing to say when the enemies of Islam unite against us, we must unite against them. When they are pointing fingers at the salfi wahabi deo ahle hadith now, later would be our turn ...

Demos are not enough.. If the salafi or the wahhabi are killing the enemies of Islam then they are after all our enemies too. The brits made our mosques into stables... They tried their best to destroy the Holy Qur'aan...

They were the first to use aerial bombardment by gas upon the Muslims of Iraq by the orders of churchill 1926... Need I say more as to who our enemies are ...

So if this no time to unite then when will we unite...?

To the british public we are all the same... They know no different, you can lecture them all day they still will not understand... Because they dont want to as to understand this matter is of no benefit to them.

Its about time we stop pointing fingers at others... and unite against the Kufaar..

Where ever the Muslims are being oppressed the salfi wahabbi are there even the shias are there, fighting against the oppressors... Where are we ? "

29 comments:

Guessedworker said...

Laban,

I don't think that the existence of Moslems who are not so hot-headed, not activist-minded, not drawn to confrontationalism is at all the same thing as the existence of "moderate Islam". In all societies, there is a large majority who drift along in life and concern themselves with the ordinary. The question is, do Moslems of this mein represent a philosophical strand within their faith?

After last night's broadcast I set down two questions at MR that would determine whether moderateness in the sense of tolerance for Western pluralism and Western mores actually exists:-

1) Is there any branch or sect of Islam domiciled in the West teaching that Islam has no ambition to a global belief hegemony?

2) Is there any branch or sect teaching that Western liberal values as they are currently manifest can co-exist with Islam, and that Moslems can integrate, and live in peace and in the private observation of their faith under the canon of Western liberal law?

My present understanding is that it's an article of faith that all Moslems believe in global conquest, and that any dilution of their faith through involvement with the corrupt West is absolute anathema.

The difference, it seems to me, between the troublemaking activists and the rest is not so very ideological. But I think it is very useful to self-labelled "moderates" to be able to talk it up, keep their places in the West and let the noisy ones do the heavy conflictual lifting.

There is a certain quid pro quo here. The moderates protect Islam in the West. The hot-heads advance its cause.

The same is true with Jewry, where one encounters so many fine Jewish men and women who, nonetheless, are not furiously demanding that the human rights artistes and immigration pushers among them, and the endless leftist intellectuals, identity politicians, Israel firsters, holocaustians, pornographers and so forth desist from weakening the European host.

Such "moderates" are less helpful to us than they are to their kinsmen. Neither Moslem nor Jew will stand up for our own interests. Only we can do that.

Guessedworker said...

Incidentally, what a load of utter inanity gets posted at LGF. 340 comments and not a single real idea.

verity said...

Guessedworker makes a telling point. We all know "moderate" muslims who just want to get on with their lives and have no interest in proselytising or rocking the boat. Guessworker makes an important observation when he notes that this does not necessarily - or probably - mean they do not believe the islamic cause should be forwarded. It just means they can't be bothered, or it's not convenient, or they'd rather watch TV than be activists. He is also correct to point out that the presence of these "moderates", with their mildness, camouflage the radical nature of islam.

I do not believe for one instant that "the vast majority" of muslims were "as shocked as we are" when London Transport was blown up. They would have been surprised, as one is when one doesn't know that something major is going to happen, but "shocked"? No. I don't think so.

What the British and many others are in denial about is, the entire point of islam is world domination. It is not just a few little crazy sects dotted around who believe this. It is a basic tenet of islam, which is a Dark Ages religious cult designed for conquest, not spiritual solace.

It dominates its followers utterly, with endless rules which must be observed, plus endless praying. They are always preparing for prayer - in islamic countries the muezzins start calling them around half an hour in advance - going to the mosque to pray. Actually praying. Returning from prayer. And then planning for the next round. And this rigorous praying includes little boys. This is utter mind control.

How many muslims in Britain condemned the London Transport bombings? They said they were "shocked". But did they say, "This is an intolerable evil and I am glad those little scrotes are off the planet"? No. Because in their heart of hearts, they believe those murderers were doing their god's will.

There are intelligent muslims who are independent thinkers who truly would condemn the murders, but it's better to keep one's own council in that environment. And they are few and far between. I am aware that there are some very brave muslims indeed who have reported things they have heard to the police, and they are to be admired and lauded, but again, they are a tiny minority.

The whole point of islam in conquest. And they are taught from childhood that they can tell any lie to the infidel to advance the cause. In fact, they've got lying to the infidel formalised in taqqya and kitman. They are allowed to swear solemnly on the koran when they are lying, if it is in the cause of advancing islam. So if a muslim puts his hand on the koran and says, "I solemnly swear on the holy koran that I do not know the names of anyone who is planning terrorist activity", that is not a sin, but is laudable.

They have a completely different mindset from that of the civilised West, and it is a mindset that, to the peril of our advanced civilisation, we do not understand.

AntiCitizenOne said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=428932&in_page_id=1770

One of the 21/7 bombers pinpointed a mother with her baby in a pushchair to become the principal target of his suicide explosion, Woolwich Crown Court heard.

Voyager said...

or they'd rather watch TV than be activists.

Verity......but it's satellite TV - it is Zee TV or Al-Jazeera it is TV that is alien to mainstream Britain; it is TV that reinforces another Weltanschauung.

These parents do not know what effect these TV channels have on their children

verity said...

Voyager - oh,certainly; it reinforces their alien Weltanschauung. However, I don't think it should be banned. I do, though, think there has to be a clear-out of muslims because they are disruptive and alien. Brits, by and large, unless riled, are quite gentle people. As ineed are most Europeans.

I marvel at the destruction to our societies that has been allowed to occur, and the leaders earnestly reassuring their citizenries that black is white and we are prejudiced for not wanting such an alien presence among us.

Guardian apostate said...

An important point that most in the West don't understand is that it is the 'radicals' featured last night who are the ones who are most accurately reflecting the tenets and nature of large parts of Islam and the Koran. It's the moderates who have to ignore (the 'interpretation' option just doesn't seem viable where Islam and the Koran are concerned) much of Mohammed's message. Whenever I see a smooth talking 'moderate' Muslim I can't help thinking that this is a person who must surely revere Mohammed, follow the Koran etc with all that entails. The misogyny, intolerance, violence, murder, sex with minors and as Verity pointed out, the divinely sanctioned ability to lie in the name of Allah. As has been pointed out before, there's the faster jihad and the slower jihad. It seems to me that the major difference between those highlighted in last night's programme and so called moderates is that the moderates would prefer the slower option with violence cut down to a minimum. Assuming the slower option held sway what would Bradford, Birmingham and London be like in 30 years time? 1976 was the time of punk rock. What will 2036 be like?

One final point. If anyone was wondering who the Labour MP, shown in a clip professing to be a friend of Islam, was, well it's my local MP, Rob Marris. No surprise to me to see him pop up. I emailed him once with a mild criticism about multiculturism. His response was to completely ignore any of the points or questions I raised and dismiss me in a sentence by likening my views to his predecessor Enoch Powell. How do you get through to people like him? How do you make them understand?

verity said...

Guardian Apostate writes: "How do you get through to people like him? How do you make them understand?"

You tell him you are not going to vote for him and you are advising your family and friends of his anti-British, anti-democracy attitude.

Most worrying is the willful ignorance of British lefties. They know nothing of taqqya and kitman. They don't know that it's fine with allah to swear a lie on their koran, as long as it's in the service of promoting islam.

Taqqya and kitman are formal systems of lying to fool the kaffir. Taqqya (spelled several ways, if you decide to Google it) is simple lies. Say anything you like. It's not a sin to lie to an infidel. Kitman is deceit by omission. I can't think of an example just now. But you give some reassurance, and leave out the critical fact. They formally learn how to do this.

In many - perhaps all - islamic countries today, it is legal for a man to marry a little nine-year old girl. So, all this and institutionalised paedophilia, too.

mister scruff said...

get a load of the comment thread on this - local swindon newspaper. bit of a comment storm breaking out.

mister scruff said...

verity -> and also, dont forget the term "takfiri"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfiri

takfirism was used by the madrid bombers to give themselves deep deep cover.

verity said...

Mr Scruff - Thanks very much for that link. It is horrifying and an example of, first,how the rule of law has been shut down in Britain to appease muslims via Tony Blair who says he has "read the koran" - liar. It's not a book you curl up with on a rainy day and read straight through.

Second for the degraded level of English spoken by everyone on that site. There wasn't one post posted in real English.

From this site, I can see that there is a vast, powerful underswell of indigenous British rage, though, no matter their level of English comprehension. They are furious.

(And why cannot these indigenes speak their mother tongue? Perhaps too difficult for some ethnics, given they live in homes where only one - if they're lucky - parent speaks English. So the schools have dumbed down to accommodate them.)

Verity said...

Mr Scruffy - thanks for the link.

verity said...

"Where ever the Muslims are being oppressed the salfi wahabbi are there even the shias are there, fighting against the oppressors...".

Wherever muslims are being oppressed? Or wherever muslims are attempting to oppress other people, as they have, militantly and with great cruelty, since their religion was invented?

I'd like to see a list of countries/states/shires/communities where muslims are "being oppressed". They are the annointed of the left. Tell me where they're being oppressed and I will move there in a heartbeat.

JuliaM said...

"From this site, I can see that there is a vast, powerful underswell of indigenous British rage.."

Yes, that certainly comes through! Also telling was the comment from someone calling themselves 'Swindon Sikh': "These muslims are a disgrace and giving all asians a bad name. You dont see us sikhs or the hindhus going round doing this yet were all tied to the same brush"

Gratifyingly, this poster was then assured by another poster: "a young Sikh lad tried his very best to protect my son from the Muslim gang, risking getting beat up himself. If you are reading this, you will know who you are and you are a decent human being and thank you for what you did. We know who the troublemakers are and it's not the Sikhs or Hindus."

So this is NOT anything to do with racially prejudiced native Britons, and this little exchange should be shoved in the face of anyone who dares to raise it as a means of pooh-poohing the legitimate concerns of parents at the schoool.

Worryingly, there is also a large undercurrent of distrust of/contempt for the police handling of this matter.

This should concern the police a great deal. I wonder if it does...?

Guardian apostate said...

Have I missed something? What has the Governments response to the programme been. Surely arrests should be made. There were clearly several criminal offences shown. Reverse the roles and swap preacher for BNP councilor and 'kuffar' for Muslim. MP's and police chiefs would be queueing up to make sure 'justice was done' etc etc.

verity said...

Julia M makes a very good point. I too read the comments by Swindon Sikh and the responses of the indigenes and I too was heartened. Apart from the young man who came in with a personal example of Sikh gallantry, other people swarmed in assuring him of their respect for Sikhs and Hindus. In fact, I get the feeling that Sikhs and Hindus are specifically liked in Britain, for their good humour, their diligence and their culture of obeying the law.

The government is going to have to face the fact - not that Tony Blair will face it as long as he sees his future with a Saudi financed Blair Foundation (like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) - that islam is a violent, primitive cult designed for conquering and oppression. Look at any violence in the world, from southern Thailand to the Philippines to Russia, Britain, France, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Canada, the United States, Australia and it is being prosecuted by muslims.

Guessedworker said...

VBerity,

We don't want to see the genetic integrity of our people altered at all, or their living space compromised. It makes no difference whether the aggressors are Pakistanis, Indians, Africans or well-mannered Chinese. This is our home, sacred alone to us. We cannot share it with the Third Word, whatever its religion. No compromise.

Umbongo said...

Well it's one thing to defend our home, it's quite another to sling out everybody who hasn't been here for, what, 10 generations and fails a racial purity test as guessedworker seems to suggest. I am quite happy to welcome into my home anyone from anywhere on two conditions (1) they accept that this is my home and my rules apply and (2) they remain (when a distinct and separate community) a very small minority. That is why, unlike guessedworker, I am happy to welcome "well-mannered Chinese" or Jews or anybody else who obeys my conditions.

That being said, I expect Jews to look kindly on Israel, I expect Catholics to favour the Vatican, Poland, Italy etc, I expect Muslims to support Palestinians. Closer to home Mrs Umbongo has a soft spot for the Isle of Man where many of her ancestors came from. What I do not anticipate is that Jews will try to create a Jewish state in Britain or "betray" our interests to those of Israel, that the British Chinese will turn Britain into China or Taiwan or that Mrs Umbongo will attempt to turn London into another Douglas, IoM.

Unfortunately, as far as I'm led to believe, Islam demands that all states where Muslims are present in any number must be a sharia-driven entity. Under Elizabeth I, the then Pope made life impossible for English Catholics in that you couldn't be both loyal to the Queen and a good Catholic. It appears that, if my understanding of the underlying political construct demanded by the Koran is correct, you cannot both be loyal to our present constitutional arrangements, accept and live by the general norms of civilised life in the West and be a good Muslim. Therein lies the difference and the problem. Denying that this is a problem - as most of our politicians do - creates a worse problem. Tolerating the ranters we saw on TV last Monday night is a demonstration of the weakness of the authorities: either the police know this is going on and do nothing or, possibly worse, they do not know this is going on and care less.

Guardian apostate said...

Umbongo said.. 'and (2) they remain (when a distinct and separate community) a very small minority'. What happens when they become a much larger minority or even, in some areas, a majority? I too was fairly relaxed about immigration to begin with. It was only when i realised what the full implications were for not only now but the future that I started to change my position. If not at Guessedworker's 'no compromise' then where's the line drawn? There are some immigrants I like, some I most definitely don't. At present I'm not very happy that the area I live in has become predominately ethnic. What can or should or could be done? Despite the massive amounts of criticism (to put it mildly) that the BNP receive I see their approach as being the most sensible in the circumstances. This being; no to any future immigration or asylum (except in the case of an Irish, French etc case of emergency); the deportation of all foreign criminals, failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants; opportunities for recent arrivals to return to their homelands with grant assistance if they so desire and the abolishment of all 'positive discrimination' etc. In the process British cultural norms will be reestablished and certainly such things as halal slaughter methods would be unlikely to be allowed to continue (how great would it be to see the usual liberal left suspects demonstrating for Muslim rights to cruelly slaughter livestock?). That would be a start at least.

Anonymous said...

The media haven't time to dwell on channel 4 Dispatches as they're all filling their pants over the crazy BB furore.

If it weren't so bloody cold outside I'd be out on the streets burning the Pakistani flag......on second thoughts...no I wouldn't, I'm just as apathetic as the rest of this country.....but I'm angry.

Dave said...

guessedworker, I think thats where you lose a lot of would be patriots.

I hate the governments open border immigration policies because they don't distinguish between good and bad immigrants. But you are effectively the same..

We must be able to make sensible judgements about people and whether or not they can fit in to this country and if they do they its fine by me to let them in.
Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims are not all the same race. Indian Muslims are the descendants of Arab and Afghan invaders. There are many races in India.
Race in India


I can't agree with Umbongo either, the reason these other groups don't cause the same problem as Muslims is simply down to birth-rates. Muslims have an exploding population of emboldened young men, any of these other groups would be making demands too if they were in the same position. Perhaps not in the same way, but even so they would be making themselves heard.


The problem is simply a degrading of British culture in combination with so many immigrants that they can't be assimilated.

We need a dramatically lower level of immigration, and only from friendly countries or regions.

Guessedworker said...

To Umbongo and Dave,

Surely in speaking here to you I am not in the same position as Nick Griffin, having to take account of the grip of the liberal zeitgeist on the public mind. For myself, I am quite free of it, and try to speak to others on the assumption of their freedom also. I assume that you, like me, feel no obligation but to the empirical truth - however hard-edged it may seem.

The most fundamental and eternal truth of life is that all living organisms seek to survive. Peoples, however discrete, are no more than living organisms with their own shared interest in survival. This is an ultimate interest - not a proximate interest like prosperity or curried chicken.

This stunningly uninteresting fact should mean nothing to a people secure in its island home - and for a millenium it did mean nothing. But the last six decades have progressively broken down our security, and made inevitable a loss of genetic integrity and of the right to live sovereign in one's own land that would have been unthinkable before.

We did not ask to be changed slowly into another people. It is the gravest affront, a soft genocide. It has been visited upon us by a traitor class, and it is for them that I reserve my anger - not the hapless immigrants.

Those immigrants, however, also have an indelible ethnic interest in survival. You must understand the Manichean nature of this. Orderly Chinese, educated Brahmins and culturally Western Jews still pursue their own interests in vigorous if unconscious competition with ours. It doesn't work any other way, which is why India, China and Israel do not have our open borders. Their political class is still loyal.

Visit MR's threads from time to time and debate there on anything you find of interest. I guarantee you will leave richer than you came.

giant squid said...

I just knew guessedworker would bring the Jews into this. LOL. Visit his website if you want to learn how people of Jewish background, like myself, are doing all we can to destroy all that is good and true in the world.

Anonymous said...

Not everything good & true just that its fair to ask that perhaps you might have group interests that may conflict with those of the host population.

Good to hear thats not true in your case, a true Brit. I take it then you are favour of strong immigration controls and not some cop out libertarian stance on the issue.

Bloke

Dave said...

But GW, if you kept on fighting with people genetically different from yourself you could continue until you were the only one left, is that what you want?

In the animal kingdom this does not happen, they compete with each other but at the same time they want broadly similar people to survive as well. This is why your complaints don't hit a cord with most people, we naturally want others to survive too. We are not as hostile as foreigners as you would think or like, as long as there is enough room for us too, and since most whites don't have kids there is plently of room..
Its the sexual revolution that has destroyed us. While peoples with a more 'traditional' view of the family have flourished.

Guessedworker said...

dave,

I am asserting the moral right of the English to England. If we have to fight for that then of course I will. To fight and die is more fitting and honourable than simply acquiescing in a slow, ineluctable process of dispossion and deracination - however ameanable that is to our inky, watery friend.

But understand, the fight today is not against aggressors on our living space. It is against the liberal zeitgeist and the power elite.

In that respect, incidentally, we only seem weak. Liberalism is all-pervasive and the elite is dominant. But when you look at that Swindon thread you see that the real English are not ready for racial suicide. The desire to survive as a people is palpable - and must be harnessed by the intellectuals and activists of the meta-right.

Squiddy,

As with the "bloke" ...

Do you want you to live in a cosmopolitan society located geographically in Europe and in which you are decidely not the only minority? Or do you want to live in a strong, healthy and heterogenous European society?

I'd love to hear the answer to that.

verity said...

Dave - Wrong. The reason Sikhs and Hindus do not cause problems and, indeed, are net contributors to our society, is nothing to do with their numbers. Their social system, like that of the Jews, is law-abiding. End of story.

Umbongo said...

A "small" minority, unless added to by immigration, generally stays small no matter what its birth rate because, in the end, they disappear into the majority. Let me confess an interest here. Apparently - although difficult to prove - in my ancestry is a Huguenot who came here in the 17th century. About 50,000 Huguenots came here at the same time. I imagine GW's ancestors were awfully put out. But where are the Huguenots now?

Actually their descendants are still here but as a distinct community they've disappeared. So "minorities" don't always grow nor are they always "trouble". Of course the Huguenots accepted my conditions for newcomers - they obeyed the rules of the country (written and unwritten) and stayed a small minority (and then disappeared). The Jews - although they can speak for themselves - seem to me to have done the same: according to this site 120,000 came here at the end of the 19th century and the present Jewish population is 285,000 and falling. Well I don't feel threatened by this tiny Jewish minority but then I'm not paranoid nor am I on a mission to "purify" Britain's blood.

OTOH the incidence of high levels of Muslim immigration has been exacerbated by a remarkably high birth rate. Even so had we accepted South Asian/African immigration in the thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands I daresay I would have been as relaxed about that (and the attendant high birth rate)as I was (and am) about the Ugandan Asian Amin-enforced immigration. I'm not relaxed because it seems that Islam itself prevents observant Muslims not just integrating (which probably religiously observant Jews are prevented from doing) but demands that observant Muslims actively change the society in which they live to align with sharia law. The law of the Jews, although I stand to be corrected, does not demand the same of the Jews. Also - as Verity notes of Sikhs and Hindus as well as Jews - they tend to obey the law and, incidentally, not blow up tube trains.

Guessedworker said...

Umbongo,

The Huguenots who came to East London were largely from Northern France, I think. The English are a Northern European people, genetically close enough to absorb other Northern Europeans in fairly substantial numbers.

Understand, it is an issue of genetic distance.

(My ancestors, as it happens, are Norman - Norsk-French - as well as Saxon. And yes, we have the famous recessive gene running in the family).

Well I don't feel threatened by this tiny Jewish minority

Do please read Culture of Critique, and then tell us how you feel. And think a little about the possession of power, wealth and intelligence, as well as numbers.

nor am I on a mission to "purify" Britain's blood.

"Purify" ... ah, seig hiel, the Nuremburg Laws and all that. But please do not inflate what I said for the purpose of ridiculing it. This is really no better than lying.

The word, anyway, is "preserve", not "purify". The preservation of English genetic integrity does not, I think, lead to the Nazi bastard-state.

The question is, why can't you follow the logic of where it does lead? Why do you throw up that little deception? Why, indeed, do you need "Sikhs and Hindus as well as Jews" among us? Nations are not built on a common tendency to obey the law. They are built on ethny.