Wednesday, May 24, 2017

The problem isn't Islam, it is us.

Another day, another terrorist attack, this time at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester. I have the deepest sympathy for those who have lost loved ones and others who will have to nurse broken and maimed bodies back into some semblance of a normal life. 

The Islamic State has claimed credit for the bombing, which was carried out by a 'Briton of Libyan descent', but unlike others I am not going to blame the Islamic faith, even though I have written before about my concerns about the tenets of that religion. The fact that so many of these terrorists are home-grown, often second or third generation descendants of immigrants who came to the West in search of a better life, should tell us something about the roots of the violence. These killers are not the advance guard of an external enemy, they are fifth columnists who want to destroy their own societies from within. The problem is not Islam, the problem is us.

I believe we in the West have incited this wave of Islamic terrorism in our midst at least in part because we have become cringing apologists for our own way of life. We teach our children that Western nations are the cause of every grievance of non-Western people all over the world. We maintain we were responsible for slavery, even though slavery was a universal fact of pre-Enlightenment human society and it was Britain that led the world in stopping the slave trade. We maintain we are racists and misogynists, despite the fact that we have built our modern societies on equal rights for all and have emancipated minorities throughout the world. We maintain that we entrench inequality, despite the fact that it is the Western values of free enterprise, property rights and the rule of law that are responsible for the vast majority of the world's population being lifted out of poverty over the last century.

A few days ago I listened to an excellent interview by Mark Steyn of Hollywood screenwriter Lionel Chetwynd that shed some light on the nature of the problem. Chetwynd served in the Black Watch regiment of the Canadian Army before going on to write dozens of scripts for films and television series and he talked about Hollywood's need to internalise the enemy. Thus, Tom Clancy's novel The Sum of All Fears, which was about Palestinian terrorists getting hold of an atomic weapon, became a film in which the bad guys were neo-Nazis. If you are watching the current Netflix series, Designated Survivor, you'll see a similar transformation. Hollywood is a magnifying lens for our culture and the fact that it always makes us the bad guys simply reflects our societal self-hatred.

If we keep telling ourselves that our society is the root of all the world's evil, is it any wonder that a few of the children and grandchildren of those to whom we are supposed to have done evil will nurture those grievances to the point where they want to destroy us? If we don't believe our society is worth defending, how can we possibly expect them to value it?

I don't think I have ever listened to an Ariana Grande song and I dare say I would find her music a little too saccharine for my tastes, but her concerts are very much part of the culture I value and want to defend. She would never be allowed on a stage in Riyadh or Khartoum and that is an indictment of those societies, not ours. The fact that millions of people from Islamic nations want to come and live in our countries, but not the reverse, is all the proof we need that our society is better than theirs. 

We need to stand up and defend Western society and values. We need to say that Islamic State and the like will never drag us down to their level and will never defeat us. Doing so won't necessarily stop the terrorist attacks, but at least it will make the battle lines clear and people will know what we are paying the price of terrorist attacks to defend. And it might just help a few of those second and third generation potential terrorists figure out who are really the good guys.


paul scott said...

There are three positions on Islam

1. Islamists >> and all their collaborators .
Collaborators are all the Islam apologists, believers in "moderate" Islam, and the nonsense of progressive peace, pyjama vigils, peace brother religion and love. Our Western Governments especially Germany. UK, Sweden, France , Australia , and Canada , arguably New Zealand will all talk the same nonsense about cultural diversity and enrichment. The only enrichment Islam will give us is our blood on the soil of our land. #Collaborators are traitors to Western civilisation , and as far as I am concerned fair targets

2. Dreamers >> Pontificators
eg Most of the liberal and progressive centre . These people think Islam can be contained and that it will self moderate. We can think about it and it might go away.
If you see the words Islamophobe, Xenophobe, Racist, Nazi, pushed at you then you are dealing with a #Collaborator or Dreamer
These people think Islam can be tamed, moderated, or like to fluff around with the reality of Islam ambition. Kiwiwit the author here is a classic pontificator > "the problem isn'yt them it is us > close to a #collaborator

3. Patriots >>
Patriots claim the right to identity of existing culture, and Nationhood, and controlled Immigration. ie Poland, Russia, Hungary, Israel, East Europe, Sunni Arab countries, some individual Westerners. We know from history that Islam has been conquering by the blade since about 600 AD. Death to Islam.

Death to Islam

Here is an example of today Australia of Government . #Collaborators > Islamist collaboration
[ Source Adam Piggot Australian patriot and blogger]
In Senate estimates this week, Senator Pauline Hanson asked the head of ASIO, Duncan Lewis, if the terrorist threat to Australia was being “brought in” via the refugee intake. His response to the question was as follows:
[[ “I have absolutely no evidence to suggest there’s a connection between refugees and terrorism’’. He added there was ‘’no evidence’’ to suggest that children of refugees were more likely to become adherents of radical Islam. Unfortunately Senator Hanson did not follow up her question with numerous examples that would have contradicted Lewis’s response. I have no idea what Hanson’s advisers are doing with their time but they certainly aren’t providing much guidance. Andrew Bolt has published a comprehensive list of possible examples that Hanson could have used. Bolt finishes with this statement:
The reason that Lewis responded in the way he did to the Senate estimates is because his top priority is his career. His personal fortune is more important than the fortunes of Australia and of Australians, even though he is tasked with such a sensitive and vital responsibility as being the head of ASIO.
For those wondering why Lewis is able to so confidently make the claim that there is no correlation between the refugee intake and terrorism, it is because ASIO, the federal police, and police services in general around the country have the latitude to define what is or is not terrorism. The attacks and outrages that Australia has been subjected to are defined as ‘lone wolf extremists’ or other such nonsense. Our police forces have gone from upholding the letter of the law to defining the letter of the law, and even in some circumstances to advocating for new laws to be passed that they may then enforce.]]

paul scott said...

The fake truth cards, are beginning to fall.
You can hold up the card which says [Science is 97% consensus, Australian ] and later people will find out that that is nonsense. The East Europeans are ready to back out of the Paris accord, and obdurate States and Mayors in USA will keep ramping taxes up till every body leaves Hollywood.
The earliest fossils of man look as though they are from Greece, and of course there is a clear genetic link to intelligence and other attributes and it varies between races.
White Europeans are quite smart, and so too the Japanese. Where I live in Thailand they are not too bright at all, so I get away with all sorts of things.
Now, about three quarters of the USA know that John Kennedy was shot in a coup of the State, or at least not by Oswald.
Many more of us have found out the moon was in Arizona for NASA purposes in 2070, and the Clintons organise contracts on dozens of people who get in the way.

But you don't have to worry about all this Kiwi wit, I wil deal with it.
You just get ready for our own coup, expect the appointment as PM shortly after September. It will be nice to wake Winston up with the truth, I am King and I make the rules.
The 97% can vote as they please. I've made up my mind.

paul scott said...

No the moon was in Arizona for NASA shoots, filmed by Kubrick, in 1979 till 1990 or there abouts. Kubrick was sorry he got the lighting all wrong. It might not have been Kubrick doing the filming, but it was not at the moon. The whole idea is not possible een today.