Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Is it only me?

Or has everyone else who has been reading many news stories on the British, er Muslim, doctors terrorist plot, not been told this salient point for which I had to turn to The London car-bomb plot was designed to kill women. - By Christopher Hitchens :
...Only at the tail end of the coverage was it admitted that a car bomb might have been parked outside a club in Piccadilly because it was "ladies night" and that this explosion might have been designed to lure people into to the street, the better to be burned and shredded by the succeeding explosion from the second car-borne cargo of gasoline and nails. Since we have known since 2004 that a near-identical attack on a club called the Ministry of Sound was proposed in just these terms, on the grounds that dead "slags" or "sluts" would be regretted by nobody, a certain amount of trouble might have been saved by assuming the obvious. The murderers did not just want body parts in general but female body parts in particular.

I suppose that some people might want to shy away from this conclusion for whatever reason, but they cannot have been among the viewers of British Channel 4's recent Undercover Mosque, or among those who watched Sunday's report from Christiane Amanpour on CNN's Special Investigations Unit. On these shows, the British Muslim fanatics came right out with their program. Straight into the camera, leading figures like Anjem Choudary spoke of their love for Osama Bin Laden and their explicit rejection of any definition of Islam as a religion of peace. On tape or in person, mullahs in prominent British mosques called for the killing of Indians and Jews.

Liberal reluctance to confront this sheer horror is the result, I think, of a deep reticence about some furtive concept of "race." It is subconsciously assumed that a critique of political Islam is an attack on people with brown skins. One notes in passing that any such concession implicitly denies or negates Islam's claim to be a universal religion. Indeed, some of its own exponents certainly do speak as if they think of it as a tribal property. And, at any rate, in practice, so it is. The fascistic subculture that has taken root in Britain and that lives by violence and hatred is composed of two main elements. One is a refugee phenomenon, made up of shady exiles from the Middle East and Asia who are exploiting London's traditional hospitality, and one is the projection of an immigrant group that has its origins in a particularly backward and reactionary part of Pakistan.

To the shame-faced white-liberal refusal to confront these facts, one might counterpose a few observations. The first is that we were warned for years of the danger, by Britons also of Asian descent such as Hanif Kureishi, Monica Ali, and Salman Rushdie. They knew what the village mullahs looked like and sounded like, and they said as much. Not long ago, I was introduced to Nadeem Aslam, whose book Maps for Lost Lovers is highly recommended.

He understands the awful price of arranged marriages, dowry, veiling, and the other means by which the feudal arrangements of rural Pakistan have been transplanted to parts of London and Yorkshire. "In some families in my street," he writes to me, "the grandparents, parents, and the children are all first cousins—it's been going on for generations and so the effects of the inbreeding are quite pronounced by now." By his estimate and others, a minority of no more than 11 percent is responsible for more than 70 percent of the birth defects in Yorkshire. When a leading socialist member of Parliament, Ann Cryer, drew attention to this appalling state of affairs in her own constituency, she was promptly accused of—well, you can guess what she was accused of. The dumb word Islamophobia, uncritically employed by Christiane Amanpour in her otherwise powerful documentary, was the least of it. Meanwhile, an extreme self-destructive clannishness, which is itself "phobic" in respect to all outsiders, becomes the constituency for the preachings of a cult of death. I mention this because, if there is an "ethnic" dimension to the Islamist question, then in this case at least it is the responsibility of the Islamists themselves.

The most noticeable thing about all theocracies is their sexual repression and their directly related determination to exert absolute control over women. In Britain, in the 21st century, there are now honor killings, forced marriages, clerically mandated wife-beatings, incest in all but name, and the adoption of apparel for females that one cannot be sure is chosen by them but which is claimed as an issue of (of all things) free expression. This would be bad enough on its own and if it were confined to the Muslim "community" alone. But, of course, such a toxin cannot be confined, and the votaries of theocracy now claim the God-given right to slaughter females at random for nothing more than their perceived immodesty. The least we can do, confronted by such radical evil, is to look it in the eye (something it strives to avoid) and call it by its right name.
I think what Hitchens is trying to say, though even he will not name it, is that this terrorism is part of not just a religious or ideological war, but also a racial war, a war to control the Other's women, which is no doubt what many Muslims think we are trying to do when we criticize things like full hijab. Somewhere, there, is another insight into what motivated these doctors in their various, body management and bombing for Allah, careers. The modern liberal West denies the significance of both race and religion as fundamental motivators of human behaviour, especially of trained medical men; it seems certain Muslims are trying to tell us otherwise.

Race consciousness is a product of sexual, or marriage partner, selection and exchange, and of all the cultural and genetic traits that go with it; and this is not (not least among those who deny it) a random or ethically neutral business. Islamic apologists like to tell us that within Islam all races are equal, united in the Umma. If that's so, why the cousin marriages? How many Pakistanis in Britain have Arab wives, or vice versa? I imagine more of each have white wives. As we see everyday in the tribal killings of Iraq, the battle for both sectarian and racial leadership of the Umma remains open in the new global order.


Anonymous said...

On the topic of barbecued Kaffir slag body parts, how many people are aware of the gruesome fate of Charlene Downes:




This may be only the tip of the iceberg. Muslim males in Britain are notorious for grooming and abducting Kafir girls.

Many of these girls "dissappear" , usually it is claimed to Pakistan to enjoy nuptial bliss with Muslim husbands.

In actual fact they are being recycled in Allah's Snackbars to fatten up more pre-pubescent Kafir slags.

dag said...

Most adult Canadians know of Marc Lepin; but how many people anywhere have ever heard of Gamel Gharbi?

dag said...

For Google results in English look for Gamil Gharbi. No doubt there are variations available.

truepeers said...


The logic of your last paragraph was beyond me until I looked at your first link. Still, it is at best a hypothesis, right? if not a new kind of blood libel against Islam - I have no doubt that it is anthropologically correct to say that murdering fundamentalists are performing a sacrificial ritual in Allah's name, but are they consciously feeding their victims to unknowing patrons of kebab houses? or is that just overdoing the moral of the story and discrediting the story teller? I didn't find anything about Downes at your second link, a Judeophobic white nationalist site. While I believe we have to face, intellectually and honestly, the realities of race consciousness in our world, if Britain's only hope is Judeophobic BNP-style politics, it's not much hope at all in my books. We need a conservatism that integrates/assimilates most if not all (some people should be encouraged or made to leave) of the people who are already in the West, while reworking immigration policy to make it saner and preserving the culture and security that makes us a free society where you can marry whom you want. I am more comfortable talking about licensing or even outlawing the practise of Islam in the West, than I am talking about race war. The fundamentalists may see the war in racial terms, and so in respecting my enemy so do I, to some degree, but the enemy must be defeated by eliminating his ability to divide us racially, for that is really the ruin of a free society. The authoritarianism of much of the anti-racism crowd only proves it.

dr c. riyal kilah said...

From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2023024.ece

‘Those who cure you will kill you’

An al-Qaeda leader in Iraq boasted before last week’s failed bombings in London and Glasgow that his group was planning to attack British targets and that “those who cure you will kill you”, The Times has learnt.

The warning was delivered to Canon Andrew White, a senior British cleric working in Baghdad, and could be highly significant as the eight Muslims arrested in the wake of the failed plot are all members of the medical profession.

Canon White told The Times that he had passed the general warning, but not the specific words, to a senior official at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in mid-April. A Foreign Office spokesman said last night that it was forwarding the actual words to the Metropolitan Police. "

“He talked to me about how they were going to destroy British and Americans. He told me that the plans were already made and they would soon be destroying the British. He said the people who cure you would kill you.”

The man, who was in his forties and had travelled from Syria for the meeting, said that the plans would come to fruition in the next few weeks and target the British first. He said that the British and Americans were being targeted because of their actions in Iraq. He did not learn the man’s identity until after the meeting, and will not disclose it now, but said: “I met the Devil that day.”

truepeers said...

Yep, the corn flakes are after us; and now is the time we find whether we can produce serious leadership and a coherent national response, or whether we will indeed let Islam rip our societies apart.

dag said...

Well, what's it going to be then, eh?

I go back continually to Primo Levi's essay, "The Drowned and the Saved." He write that most people who showed up at the extermination camps were dead as soon as they arrived because they were too timid or too stupid or too determined to follow the rules (rules that if followed properly were made to kill them in three weeks) that they died there and then in the head. Drowned. They were dead right off the starting post. What do we want? We want the living to join us at our meetings so we can perhaps save some of those who will go down without a whimper otherwise.

Who are you, reader? Are you Human or are you already dead?