The Irish are now getting worked up over Muslim atrocities.
Quotes:
A suicide bomber attacking a concert for little girls is a little earlier in the curve of depravity than I’d expected. But a nurse being cut to pieces as she minded the injured on London Bridge — at this point in the descent into the abyss, perfectly predictable. The Nazis hid their crimes. These people exult in theirs, knowing that the path to a moral nadir is paved with the public glorification of the most revolting violence. It is also paved with passivity, excuses and equivalence from the host communities.
Post-Hitlerian European societies have done something almost unprecedented in human history. They have mobilised their cultural defences not against outside threats but against those antibodies that are trying to protect them: almost the sociopolitical equivalent of Aids. Indeed, until very recently, being “racist” or an “Islamophobe” carried a far greater cultural taboo than did seeking to destroy the homogeneity or tranquillity of a society. Hence the crushing silence in Germany that greeted Angela Merkel’s treasonable decision two years ago to admit a million Muslim migrants.
The hijab — the full facial veil — is a public refutation of the norms of our society. After the shocking events across Europe over the past year, it should be taboo. Instead, it is becomingly increasingly common in Ireland, and any attempt to outlaw it would probably be denounced as “racist” — a meaningless term in this context, but no matter: the purpose of language here is not to achieve clarity but moral superiority. As (the now) President Higgins keeps telling us, Islam is a religion of peace.
Moreover, the Irish media will do almost anything to promote the notion that there is a rough equilibrium between Islamic and anti-Islamic violence. So RTE News reported at length on Wednesday on the shocking affair of a stone being thrown at a mosque in Galway. Yes, a stone actually being hurled at a building, and now live, over to our Galway correspondent: actually, no-one hurt, no-one even hit — but otherwise, goes the implicit message, it’s really six of one and half a dozen of the other. (Was this the same mosque where a couple of years ago, an RTE reporter repeatedly and pontifically addressed the imam as “Your Holiness”?)
No doubt this parity of victimhood is being promoted to prevent young Muslims being “radicalised”, as the expression goes. An interesting concept, this “radicalisation”. A radicalised Presbyterian turns purple and thunders about Popery. A radicalised Catholic attends five Tridentine Masses a day, bawling out loud in Latin while mainlining on incense. A radicalised member of the Church of Ireland will say that you’re probably right when you say there is no God, but evensong is jolly anyway. A radicalised member of the Church of England has two lumps of sugar in her tea, and yes, perhaps even a second fairy-cake. A radicalised Jew beats the bejayus out of his forehead against the Wailing Wall. And a radicalised Muslim?
You see? We’re using words differently, aren’t we? As we must, tip-toeing round the ecumenical garden wherein all religions are held to be equal, the only differences being stylistic. So, naturally, we ignore the poll ICM conducted for Channel 4 last year which revealed 20% of British Muslims approved of the 07/07 bombings in London,which killed 52 people and maimed many hundreds, and that two thirds of them would not report an Islamic terrorist threat to the authorities. Lovely. Lovelier still is that the figures for young Muslims are far, far worse.
We now know that multiculturalism doesn’t produce artistically enriching fusions but, instead, volitional apartheid. In Britain, immigrants have created autonomous Islamostans, often ruled by sharia law and even by the barbaric knife of FGM. There are many dazzling aspects to this, but perhaps the most wonderful has been the utter silence of British feminists, as hundreds — and perhaps thousands — of underage white girls have been groomed and raped by Muslim men, and uncountable numbers of Islamic girls circumcised.
Jesus, whom European societies have traditionally revered (until we began instead to worship The New Blessed Trinity of Secularism, Gay Rights and the Welfare State) urged us to turn the other cheek, and suggested that maybe he who was without sin might cast the first stone. Mohammed was a little less wobbly. He had 600 Qurayzah Jewish captives, mostly pubescent boys and men, but also one woman, beheaded. And (gays)? Why, stone ‘em to death. So how can anyone seriously maintain that two religions based on the words and deeds of such utterly different men are in any way comparable?
It’s probably futile saying this, so powerful is the “anti-racism”, “anti- Islamophobe” mob of prating, Christianity-hating liberals, but I believe that we have no historic choice but to seriously restrict the numbers of Muslims moving to Ireland.
-Kevin Myers, quoted by MavPhil
maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/ … -them.html
