QUOTE OF THE MONTH (bonus)

Yesterday’s attack has everything to do with Islam or rather ‘Mohammedanism’.

23rd March 2017

The terrorist attack in Westminster was just the latest in a long line of atrocities committed internationally in the name of Islam.  No continent (except Antarctica) is free of Islamic terrorism – for obvious reasons.

We call them ‘terrorist’ attacks, but terrorists usually have a measurable political objective.  For example, the IRA wants Northern Ireland to become part of the Irish Republic.

The late and un-lamentable Martin McGuinness only persuaded the official IRA to give up overt terrorism after the 9/11 attacks in America. They knew the funding from the USA would dry up and the US authorities would take a new and entirely different view of their activities.

Nevertheless, the IRA’s terrorism did succeed and they murdered, bombed and terrorised their way into the Northern Ireland government. So, let’s stop pretending terrorisms never wins. It can and sometimes it does.

But what do Islamic terrorists want?  In most cases, like yesterday’s, they have no obvious measurable objectives.  As far as we can tell all they get out of it is martyrdom and 72 virgins waiting for them in paradise.

To try and make sense of it we need to understand what ‘Islam’ is really about.

• First of all, let’s stop calling it Islam (submission to the will of Allah) and accepting it on its own terms.
• We should return to calling what the West used to call it: Mohammedanism –the cult of Mohammed – because that is what it is.
• It is a death cult, born and steeped in fourteen hundred years of violence and bloodshed, that propagates itself by intimidation, violence and conquest.

And yes, I know, that Mohammedan terrorists kill as many of their own co-religionists and as they kill non-believers, or ‘Kaffirs’ as they like to call us. That is because they are considered the wrong type of Muslim.

The terrorist yesterday was a Mohammedan ‘literalist’: one of those who read the Koran and take literally the bits that say ‘kill non-believers, make war on non-believers, strike terror into the hearts of non-believers’.

The terrorists are the van-guard of Mohammedanism.  They set out to cow the non-Mohammedan population, so that the ‘moderate Muslims’ can get on establishing Sharia courts, forcing halal food in school and works canteens, and making the authorities look the other way regarding criminal activities for fear of being called racist and Islamophobic.

A phobia is an irrational fear.  A normal non Mohammedan should have a perfectly rational fear of ‘Islam’.     

The question is: what is our Government going to do about it?  Or will they take the Mayor of London’s view that terrorist attacks are just ‘part and parcel of living in a major city’.

Gerard Batten, UKIP MEP. 

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

'The nation which comprises the Staatsvolk [the English are the Staatsvolk of England] confers upon the state the culture of the nation, as is reflected by the religion, the holidays, and the history for example. In this way, the civic institutions of the state reflect the culture of the nation. For the civic nationalists and multiculturalists, this is a problem. The civic nationalists respond by trying to drive out the nation's culture and influence from the civic institutions, while the multiculturalists seek to multiculturalize those institutions with immigrant cultures.

          Regarding the problem of national unity, there are three positions. First, the ethnic nationalists stress the weakness of civic nationalism/constitutional patriotism and its likely failure to hold the nation together. Second, there is the liberal wing of civic nationalism/constitutional patriotism which disagrees and promotes the idea that citizens can be taught to give allegiance to the state devoid of any national culture. Third, there is the communist wing of civic nationalism/constitutional patriotism, the Habermasian view, that the likely weakening of national loyalty is desirable, should be encouraged, and is a prerequisite for a communist revolution. With the Habermasian view, civic nationalism/constitutional patriotism is a mechanism for promoting the opposite of patriotism – that is, promoting a hatred of the country's history and hence the Staatsvolk. With the Habermasian view, the state is owed allegiance by all citizens; immigrants and other disaffected groups are to be encouraged to challenge existing national culture and tradition. The state owes no loyalty to the nation. Multiculturalists likewise reject the concept of a national culture; Parekh and his supporters even go so far as to advocate a 'multicultural post-nation'.

          In this way, civic nationalism/constitutional patriotism is a means of destroying the nation state and replacing the national culture, the culture of the Staatsvolk, with universalist values – i.e. abstract theories such as international human rights laws, with the state implementing these theories in preference to defending the national interest. International and superstatist organizations are to be promoted – in particular the EU.'

The above is from The Genesis of Political Correctness: The Basis of a False Morality, by Michael William (available from Amazon, Kindle or direct from CreateSpace). The 'basis of a false morality' subheading is important.

It should be noted that, in response to the latest Islamist terrorist atrocities, Theresa May was talking of our common values in parliament, including human rights (as she interprets them). She is further obsessed with globalization and global institutions. May is a part of the problem and not a solution to it.

The Genesis of Political Correctness deals with responsibility of political correctness for the increase in Islamist terrorism, including an analysis of the sympathy of many Muslims for that terrorism.