 |
| Tower Hamlets UK. The Muslim population is now 12.5%, over the 6% population where no country totally free, as I showed 7 years ago |
What is it that irks me about this article, "No London has not fallen to Islam" by Sadek Hamid? Its straw man attacks? London has not "fallen to Islam" (the straw man), but there's a process happening before our eyes, and it's the Islamisation of the UK. Is it its rampant victimhood? Muslims are "demonised" or seen as 'the enemy within" (no they're not, as hate crime figures show: Jews are much more attacked than Muslims, both in total number and in proportion). Is it Its claims that all who criticise Islam are of the Alt-right? Quillette for example is most assuredly not an alt-right site, as Hamid claims: it's very much of the Left, just not of the regressive Left that the likes of Hamid count on to support their supremacist agenda. But to Hamid it's critical of the ideology of Islam, and therefore Alt-right. That's the new catch-all slur, added to "racism".
I dunno, but it's of a piece with narratives that any critique of Islam must somehow be based on racism, bigotry and islamophobia.
Not that muslims must do anything to fit in, mind you. Oh no, "integration is a myth". it must be abandoned, in favour of "acceptance", by the host society, of course. So Hamid tells us. Accept, that is, things like the increasing number of Sharia courts — 100 plus in the UK alone at the latest count. Accept "modesty" clothing, burkas and all (despite the fact they're banned in a number of Muslim countries for security reasons). Accept the closure of pubs and wine bars (alcohol-free zones). Accept the wiping out of pork on menus at schools and hospitals (sharia law zones). Accept that there really are "no-go" zones. Zones where unveiled women enter at their peril. Zones where Ambulances are attacked because they represent the authorities. And Tower Hamlets (I've been) is most assuredly Pak-Arabia in England. (and not in a good way: to repeat, if it were Hindus, dressed equally differently as are Muslim women, there would not be anything like the concerns, because the concerns are about the ideology, not the dress per se).
And if we observe that all of that is "islamisation" then shame on us.
Hamid quotes one Otto English about Andy Ngo's piece: "It's like going to Lancaster county in Pennsylvania and assuming that The Amish are taking over". Well, no, because the Amish have no doctrine of take-over. The Islamic doctrine very much does. The Amish have stayed put in Lancaster for 200 years. Islam is spreading to every corner of Europe and the UK.
Hamid is playing the card that says: "nothing to see here". And if you do, you're an islamophobe.
This will resonate with many. And render society mute and helpless against a very muscular ideology which very much wants to Islamise the west. That's not fantasist conspiracist paranoia. That's baked into the ideology of Islam and blow to the likes of Hamid for trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.
By the way; I went to study and work in China in the seventies. A very different China from today. One of the things I did, almost without thinking, was to try to fit in. I learnt the language, I wore Chinese clothes, their "Mao suits" and cotton cloth shoes, I ate their food, I lived where they did. There's nothing wrong with trying to fit in. There's a great deal wrong with deciding that, as a matter of course, as a matter of ideology, you're not going to fit in. Because, well, because Islam.
