Picking up from yesterday (with one of the most responsive pieces I’ve posted in a long time) I continue today with the ongoing theme of Muslim Jihad. In trolling the comment threads from the various pages I post on, it is obvious that there is a whole lot of pent up vitriol out there, most of it related to defeating Islam and how to stem the out-of-control takeover of Western Civilization from the Muslim Jihad warriors who are literally suffocating entire swaths of nations with their increasing steam-roller invasion.
As to the how, why, and wherefore of stemming the invasive tide of Muslim Jihad in its tracks while at the same time developing the will to win, I must say that I stumbled across more than a few excellent responses. Is it harder for instance, to develop the will or the means to win? I’m guessing some poor freedom fighter manning the walls in Constantinople in 1453 would have said “the means, you fool!” But sometimes I don’t know. When the West has the will it seems to be able to develop the means (e.g. 1945). But how does one regain the will some 70-plus years on following decades of easy living? Especially when it relates to Muslim Jihad.
Of course, I can’t say definitively. But I believe that focusing on means gets us into a better practice mode, which hopefully develops a stronger will to follow that and pull the two together. After all, both should strengthen each other. One or two dozen people focusing in an organized way on the means to defeat Muslim Jihad is worth thousands of isolated people wandering around dazedly attempting to develop the will to win against the same Muslim Jihad.
Popping by Mark Steyn Online in the interim, I was interested in the fact that Steyn himself was opining on the very same topic, and focused on the very same target, as yours truly in yesterday’s feature. As in:
Mayor Khan is a slippery customer, and he used a slippery phrase in reassuring the public after Saturday’s carnage: London, he declared, was “one of the safest global cities in the world”. “Global city”? What is the difference between a “global city” and a mere city? The latter are more or less ethnically homogeneous places with insufficient vibrancy and diversity for the likes of Mr Khan. A “global city” is a microcosm of the global.
Saturday’s dead, for example, numbered four of Her Majesty’s subjects (one English, one Canadian, two Australian) and three citizens de la république française. In part because of the socialist sclerosis of that republic, London has become home to one of the largest French populations on the planet. That’s a “global city” – where an Aussie can head across London Bridge to a fashionable pub and fall into conversation with a charming demoiselle.
All these Canadians and Australians and Frenchmen were killed by a jihadist born in Pakistan, another born in Morocco, and a third from either Morocco or Libya. In London and the other “safest global cities in the world”, a New Zealander can meet a nice Danish girl and be blown up by a Yemeni on the way home. The conceit of the global city is that there is no distinction between a Dane and a Yemeni.
Face it. If you’re a politician (especially an Islamic Muslim Jihad politician like Khan) it’s all about perception. An energetic, confident, charismatic denial of reality works almost every time, especially if the media is in on the deception. Happy faces, hope and change, and promises that are impossible to keep, are all the grist that is required to keep their mill grinding merrily along.
The problem comes when they are faced with an implacable enemy. Whether that enemy is the head of National Socialism in Germany, commanding world class technology, or some Muslim jihadists bottom feeding on technological detritus that can be easily misapplied to create mayhem, these antagonists are not influenced by a politician’s warped reality. But the political class is incapable of comprehending the consequences of this mismatch.
In a politician’s view, the important thing is to keep the news focused on happy faces. If we would only ignore the terrorism, it wouldn’t be a problem; in fact there would be no reason to engage in terrorism.
Steyn goes on unapologetically:
In his new book The Strange Death of Europe, Douglas Murray returns periodically to a vital question: What happens when global cities become “global countries”? By 2011, “white British” were a minority in 23 of London’s 33 boroughs. A similar transformation is well advanced in every city down the spine of England from Manchester and Leeds to Birmingham and Bristol, in all of which Islam is the principal source of population growth.
For the most part, citizens of the new west accept that as a normal feature of life – while still expecting to find Cornish villages full of Cornishmen or Welsh market towns full of Welshmen. But soon we will have not just global cities but “global villages”.
Sweden, where most ethnic Swedes now alive will end their days as a minority within their own country, is already trending that way. A few months ago, I passed a pleasant few hours with a young couple who’d moved out of Östersund after a sexual assault by, um, “youths” and settled in a small town about an hour away in order to get away from the aggravation of said “youths”. Not as easy as it was.
They’d rented a place in a pleasant two-story apartment house only to find, as the chap put it to me, “I’ve got a f**kin’ mosque in my basement.” In a municipality of under a thousand people.
The irreversible bottom line is that Europe can’t cope with terrorism. The Germans attempt to hug a refugee then find him/her wearing a suicide vest. They attempt to calm an economic migrant and they get an AK47 in their face. The Middle East/sub-Sahara is not here because they love Elgar or the rolling green British countryside; they know there’s easy white underage meat and a benefits system to give them a flat and internet access.
In the United Kingdom there are over 3 million of these primordial sociopaths. Bradford, Rotherham, Birmingham, London … they reproduce at a staggering rate. They hate the nation, and frankly, it’s still a mystery why they gravitate there other than the obvious benefits system. It’s not through any love for the British, that’s for sure.
One Brit tagged me with this: If my demeanour is irate it’s because I live here, and if I’m not adhering quite strictly to house rules it’s because over 30 of my fellow Britons have been slaughtered the past three months and hundreds more traumatized by horrific injuries. Yes I am incredibly angry. Government does nothing but speak platitudes, the public lights candles, lays flowers and wreaths, and the Left blames us.
It’s like a very bad dream that will not end.
For full Mark Steyn simply click on Logo…