The author’s observations are correct and the hypocrisy and indeed cognitive dissonance of the left with respect to Islam and our generally accepted liberal values is astonishing. Anyone who does not see how illiberal and dangerous Islam is to our western way of life is committing cultural suicide.
There are a lot of assumptions and generalisations here. The way the language of far right and homophobia here is used makes assumptions about a very complex group of people. I have reservations about the acceptance and then wholesale pushing of the LGBT community into all areas of life, entertainment, the church. I am not homophobic- a meaningless term like Islamophobia - just a Bible believing Christian who wants to see people gone to Christ.
Islam certainly is not compatible with the judeo Christian roots of western civilisation. When one immigrates the assimilation is what is required. Legislating speech and attitudes is an impossible task . It has its roots in totalitarianism. We on the right are not homogeneous like the left. We are much more diverse to borrow a term.
In a free, open, tolerant (of all views, sexual persuasions, beliefs, credos) society, Islam is at best a headwind and at worst cultural suicide for Western values of freedom, individualism and tolerance. It’s one thing to allow it to torment millions of subjugated slave-females in its native incubators, as tragic as that is for those women. To accord it equal status in developed free societies is tantamount to cultural suicide. It offers nothing to its brain-dead western adherents except the elixir of intolerance and hate. If that’s what you want, fine - go live in Afghanistan, Syria, Gaza, wherever. Islam has no role in a free society because it is a religion of intolerance and subjugation. Absent a well-needed renaissance, It should remain in the harsh desert conditions from which it was born.
The question is really whether or not these "migrants" are accepting of their new countries and willing to assimilate. As you note, there are lots of places on earth they can practice their beliefs. In the "olden days" there was a requirement in the USA that people swear an oath of citizenship. That seems a small price to pay. Those who don't live up to those values or don't want to should be shown the door back to places where they can freely practice their beliefs. But for some reason we don't deport these people.
A brilliant and much needed essay. How do we campaign for our government to stop pandering to those who want to destroy our liberal, western culture and values?
Maybe get a bill of rights. I find it interesting that our European friends don't actually possess freedom of speech. Here in the US we supposedly have that, but it is always under attack.
Isn't anything short of a textbook going to have quite a few assumptions and generalizations? From a distance (the USA), I think this essay paints a pretty accurate picture of this sad situation. However I'm not optimistic --soon or otherwise-- about that "honest conversation."
I once thought that liberal people would eventually wake up and admit that Islam is strongly opposed to their ideological orientation. But apparently now any amount of cognitive dissonance can be tolerated.
One red flag I have regards the description of Tommy Robinson as "anti-Islam" which seemed to have a pejorative ring to it. I regard Robinson as a hero, and he justly criticizes the excesses of Islam from a position of knowledge. He does note that he has had Muslim friends and says his criticisms don't apply to the entire Muslim populace.
I've been saying for years that this blindness to Islamist misogyny is one of the things I find most baffling about progressive thinking. I've asked the question dozens of times to my progressive friends and not once, ever, have I gotten an answer. And the fact that progressive women are supportive of what amounts to their own subjugation is, to put it mildly, one of the great disappointments of my life.
The cognitive dissonance (e.g. “Gays for Palestine”) is baffling, but characteristic of progressives. Their belief set may indeed be incongruous, but they don’t want to see it. They will respond emotionally by attacking you, walking away or changing the subject. It becomes a conversation with zombies.
That Keir Starmer and his ilk persist in describing the Southport riots as having been carried out by "Far Right racists," is designed to detract from the fifty years of unapologetic neglect and loathing of the white indigenous working class Brit, by political elites. The fact is that no British whites of any class have rioted over "race" since August 1958. Every race riot since 1958 has been carried out by other races or cultures. However, a search on Google reveals page after page of content urging us to "Remember the race riots of 1958 and 1979," as if they were caused by the white working class. In fact, both those "riots" began as demonstrations by the Asian and Caribbean communities who marched against the police and the white working class who were being pushed out of their traditional neighbourboods.
"The suggestion that Andrew Tate and incels present an equal ‘extremist’ danger to British women as that presented by Islam is absurd."
More than that:
The suggestion that Andrew Tate and incels present an equal ‘extremist’ danger to British MEN as that presented by Islam is absurd.
Dear Muslim neighbors in the West: More than anyone else, YOU have to step up and take a side in this fight.
You have much to offer. As an orthodox Christian, I consider you an ally on many issues.
But we must preserve the freedoms and rights of the West as a social commitment. You don't have to AGREE with what people do with their rights and their freedoms. (I often don't.)
But you do have to accept that this is a practical means to peace. This is how we get along.
So, more than anyone else, you must ACTIVELY oppose those who, claiming your religion, want to destroy this society.
I don’t think that many moslem men consider themselves misogynistic because they don’t consider their wives to be “human “ in the same sense that western women are considered human.
There are many ideologues out there. This is why the southern border is open and we are allowing tens of millions of illegals to cross and drive up the demand for housing and drive down wages. Let alone the fact that these illegals are essentially constantly exploited due to their tenuous status. A solid majority of Americans want the border closed, but one party has decided to make that stance verboten and no discussion is permitted. Therefor, the border is open. This is not to say that the R party doesn't have its open border adherents. But there are fewer of them and they are out of favor to the new party leadership (outside the Senate).
It sounds like your husband has both bought into a hard progressive political viewpoint as well as seeing those who disagree as “the enemy”. He’s definitely drunk the kool-aid.
The author’s observations are correct and the hypocrisy and indeed cognitive dissonance of the left with respect to Islam and our generally accepted liberal values is astonishing. Anyone who does not see how illiberal and dangerous Islam is to our western way of life is committing cultural suicide.
There are a lot of assumptions and generalisations here. The way the language of far right and homophobia here is used makes assumptions about a very complex group of people. I have reservations about the acceptance and then wholesale pushing of the LGBT community into all areas of life, entertainment, the church. I am not homophobic- a meaningless term like Islamophobia - just a Bible believing Christian who wants to see people gone to Christ.
Islam certainly is not compatible with the judeo Christian roots of western civilisation. When one immigrates the assimilation is what is required. Legislating speech and attitudes is an impossible task . It has its roots in totalitarianism. We on the right are not homogeneous like the left. We are much more diverse to borrow a term.
In a free, open, tolerant (of all views, sexual persuasions, beliefs, credos) society, Islam is at best a headwind and at worst cultural suicide for Western values of freedom, individualism and tolerance. It’s one thing to allow it to torment millions of subjugated slave-females in its native incubators, as tragic as that is for those women. To accord it equal status in developed free societies is tantamount to cultural suicide. It offers nothing to its brain-dead western adherents except the elixir of intolerance and hate. If that’s what you want, fine - go live in Afghanistan, Syria, Gaza, wherever. Islam has no role in a free society because it is a religion of intolerance and subjugation. Absent a well-needed renaissance, It should remain in the harsh desert conditions from which it was born.
The question is really whether or not these "migrants" are accepting of their new countries and willing to assimilate. As you note, there are lots of places on earth they can practice their beliefs. In the "olden days" there was a requirement in the USA that people swear an oath of citizenship. That seems a small price to pay. Those who don't live up to those values or don't want to should be shown the door back to places where they can freely practice their beliefs. But for some reason we don't deport these people.
A brilliant and much needed essay. How do we campaign for our government to stop pandering to those who want to destroy our liberal, western culture and values?
Maybe get a bill of rights. I find it interesting that our European friends don't actually possess freedom of speech. Here in the US we supposedly have that, but it is always under attack.
Isn't anything short of a textbook going to have quite a few assumptions and generalizations? From a distance (the USA), I think this essay paints a pretty accurate picture of this sad situation. However I'm not optimistic --soon or otherwise-- about that "honest conversation."
This was a superb piece, great clarity.
I once thought that liberal people would eventually wake up and admit that Islam is strongly opposed to their ideological orientation. But apparently now any amount of cognitive dissonance can be tolerated.
One red flag I have regards the description of Tommy Robinson as "anti-Islam" which seemed to have a pejorative ring to it. I regard Robinson as a hero, and he justly criticizes the excesses of Islam from a position of knowledge. He does note that he has had Muslim friends and says his criticisms don't apply to the entire Muslim populace.
I've been saying for years that this blindness to Islamist misogyny is one of the things I find most baffling about progressive thinking. I've asked the question dozens of times to my progressive friends and not once, ever, have I gotten an answer. And the fact that progressive women are supportive of what amounts to their own subjugation is, to put it mildly, one of the great disappointments of my life.
The cognitive dissonance (e.g. “Gays for Palestine”) is baffling, but characteristic of progressives. Their belief set may indeed be incongruous, but they don’t want to see it. They will respond emotionally by attacking you, walking away or changing the subject. It becomes a conversation with zombies.
That Keir Starmer and his ilk persist in describing the Southport riots as having been carried out by "Far Right racists," is designed to detract from the fifty years of unapologetic neglect and loathing of the white indigenous working class Brit, by political elites. The fact is that no British whites of any class have rioted over "race" since August 1958. Every race riot since 1958 has been carried out by other races or cultures. However, a search on Google reveals page after page of content urging us to "Remember the race riots of 1958 and 1979," as if they were caused by the white working class. In fact, both those "riots" began as demonstrations by the Asian and Caribbean communities who marched against the police and the white working class who were being pushed out of their traditional neighbourboods.
Alas, the other AI engines are just as bad.
Pi identified: 'Pick-up artists: Men who use manipulation tactics to seduce women, often without regard for their consent or well-being.'
Perplexity came up with: 'Certain Police and Fire Services, including London Fire Brigade and
London's Metropolitan Police'
Both had Far Right at the top of the list. Neither mentioned religious groups. My faith in AI has taken a dive.
I look forward to lawyers having a field day trying to determine the precise boundary between moderate misogyny from extreme misogyny.
Excellent piece!
Here in the Uk, it will never be resolved so long as you see Starmer hugging that poison little hobbit, khan.
Starmer has fallen under the spell of Islam and is attempting to drag the rest of us with him.
He needs to perambulate off in short jerky movements and when he gets there, continue jerking off further…
"The suggestion that Andrew Tate and incels present an equal ‘extremist’ danger to British women as that presented by Islam is absurd."
More than that:
The suggestion that Andrew Tate and incels present an equal ‘extremist’ danger to British MEN as that presented by Islam is absurd.
Dear Muslim neighbors in the West: More than anyone else, YOU have to step up and take a side in this fight.
You have much to offer. As an orthodox Christian, I consider you an ally on many issues.
But we must preserve the freedoms and rights of the West as a social commitment. You don't have to AGREE with what people do with their rights and their freedoms. (I often don't.)
But you do have to accept that this is a practical means to peace. This is how we get along.
So, more than anyone else, you must ACTIVELY oppose those who, claiming your religion, want to destroy this society.
I don’t think that many moslem men consider themselves misogynistic because they don’t consider their wives to be “human “ in the same sense that western women are considered human.
There are many ideologues out there. This is why the southern border is open and we are allowing tens of millions of illegals to cross and drive up the demand for housing and drive down wages. Let alone the fact that these illegals are essentially constantly exploited due to their tenuous status. A solid majority of Americans want the border closed, but one party has decided to make that stance verboten and no discussion is permitted. Therefor, the border is open. This is not to say that the R party doesn't have its open border adherents. But there are fewer of them and they are out of favor to the new party leadership (outside the Senate).
That could make for some awkward conversations. I expect we have subjects that just aren’t commented on.
It sounds like your husband has both bought into a hard progressive political viewpoint as well as seeing those who disagree as “the enemy”. He’s definitely drunk the kool-aid.