Originally Posted by
Drummond
A most interesting thread ! Thanks to Tyr for it .. I've just now read it in greater detail.
From my own experience in the UK, it seems perfectly obvious that Islamists have three distinct ways of operating in order to achieve a form of dominance in a Society.
The first is through terrorism .. and not much needs to be said on that score. 9/11, the UK's '7/7' attack in London, the attack at the Atosha station in Spain .. and many more attacks besides, in various parts of the world. Through murder and mayhem, they hope that through acts of terrorism, the will to fight back can be sapped .. and, I'm sorry to say, this sometimes is successful.
The second, pivotal, means (aided and abetted by the Left) is through social incursion. Immigrants arrive, equipped with their cultural and religious identities, they take root in specific areas, form their own communities, all of which pushes out what was in the area they occupy beforehand. Demands are made, all of which serve the requirements of the invading Islamic culture and traditions. Integration is a non-starter ... always, those communities expect OTHERS to bend to THEM.
The third is through exploitation of indigenous freedoms. Demands are made to insist that concession after concession is made to them. Pressure groups form, and always citing either the race card, or the 'bigotry' card, they insist that anyone opposing them must be doing so through unacceptably antisocial means. This is particularly where the Left comes in ... Left-wingers insist that to speak out against them is evidence of racism or bigotry, and pressure groups invariably win out. Laws are passed, such as 'hatespeech' legislation, making strong criticism actionable in law. But more, the indigenous population becomes conditioned to revile anyone not conforming to these socially-conditioned imperatives.
Terrorism is a very 'blunt instrument' for Muslims to use ... though also a much-favoured one, as we've all seen.
Social incursion is less blunt, dealing in large measure with a form of physical invasion. Areas are occupied and, in essence, 'terraformed' to become Muslim in 'nature'.
Exploitative incursion is the most insidious. Through it, social conditioning is brought to bear, aided, as I've said, by the Left. People are pressured into believing that just THINKING of forms of opposition is wrong .. bigoted, racist, intolerant generally. So, belief-systems grow which always, but ALWAYS, lead to an ongoing process of evolving deference .. to Islam and to those practising it.
Folks, understand .. I am not theorising, just describing an ongoing reality in my own society !! Common throughout all of this is the sheer invasiveness of Islam. Islam, in my experience, has no interest in compromise that doesn't end up in achieving considerable advantage to ITS purposes, and more often than not compromise isn't even a factor AT ALL. No, Islam spreads and dominates .. and that's the point of Islam in a nutshell .. one of DOMINION.
Now .. how is that remotely compatible with the preservation of freedoms ? Answer .. IT ISN'T, not if those 'freedoms' are freedoms to defy Islam.
The conflict of Sharia with Western values is a case in point. In the UK, as a guiding legal principle, UK law should always prevail. If a Sharia directive can be arrived at and no UK law is broken, then 'fair enough' in our system ... BUT ... legally, no Sharia law 'court' can set itself up in defiance against UK law.
Sounds fine, doesn't it ... BUT for the process I've described already. Our laws are the product of values reflected by the population, HOWEVER, if those values change, then we can expect our laws to reflect that. Hatespeech legislation is a case in point. So .. if our values bend over time, if in the name of 'tolerance' we find we 'want' to accept other values and defer to them (led by the nose into this by Lefties ..) .. then the law, in the fullness of time, can undergo a form of erosion, where other laws supersede them.
As a consequence of ALL this, it's evident that we've been seen in the UK to be fair game for incursion. We get remarkably little incidence of terrorism here, I think because the 'sneakier' methods work here so very well !! So, goodbye churches, and hello, monolithic Mosque structures. And be careful what you say !!!!
But, America has an advantage we fail to have. You have a Constitution which can act as a barrier to certain incursions, it seems to me. So, the question for me is, just how bulletproof does this make America by comparison ?
I've heard that Obama is known for acting unconstitutionally when it suits him to .. surely a dangerous precedent. Should your society allow it ?
Does Obama cite reasonings to justify himself, reasonings which persuade others to adopt societal values which can 'catch on' and seem reasonable ? Folks, I'm somewhat out of my depth in trying to judge this either way, but what I'm saying is, IF this is happening, the dangers inherent in that process are grave.
So, surely, Americans must be prepared to fight if needs be, for what is theirs by right .. by birthright. Tyr's spirit is commendable, but perhaps more importantly, is INSIGHTFUL ... because you ARE in a war against those utterly determined to overthrow your values. They'll use whatever methodology works, be it the gun or bomb, acts of savagery, or of deployed propaganda crafted to fight your very thought processes and change them to THEIR preferences.
Therein, if they succeed, lies the road to the death of freedom.
DO YOU WANT THAT ? YES OR NO ? Because if 'no', then my suggestion is that you take the utmost notice of what Tyr had to tell you. And .. if that isn't enough for you, then cast your eyes and ears eastwards, to learn what's happening on my side of the Pond. To see what COULD happen .. if you allow it to.
-from me. A
Reply With Quote
