clear

Subscribe

Recent Posts

clear

Categories

clear
Monday, 30 June 2008
The British Police, Affirmative Action, and Muslim Infiltration
Share
clear

"The people I do criticise are those three who have benefited from positive action and have been elevated through the ranks."
--from the news article linked below

What this statement by Simon Humphrey means is that the three Muslim officers in question who are now suing the police have been the beneficiaries of an Affirmative Action policy -- always morally unacceptable, and in this case foolish and even dangerous. The very idea that one would wish to encourage Muslims, to promote them throughout the police, to have them rise high and discover, from the inside, police methods, and policies, when by their mere presence they will inhibit discussion, limit discussion of measures that might need to be taken, and be a permanent nightmarish security threat to the police, and therefore to the country, from within -- all this has to be discussed.

"War is deception" was Muhammad's dictum. Taqiyya, kitman, the plausible smiling imam at the Mosque Outreach, or other Muslim spokesman or defender who turns out to have been, turns out to be, quite different in his real attitudes -- as has been discovered so many times in the Western world, when a tape of a meeting is made, or an Interfaith-Racketeer ends up quickly leaving the country for the Middle East -- how often does this kind of thing have to happen, in the United States, in Great Britain, anywhere, for the Infidels to begin to get the idea. How many careful strategies for obtaining Infidel cooperation (as, say, from Western school administrators to give special treatment for Muslim students and prayer-rooms and prayer-times, or to ensure that textbooks in the West  present an airbrushed and glowing view of Islam) have to be made available on the Internet, before Infidels will begin to grasp the concept of the Stealth Jihad, the Quiet Jihad, the one that works not mainly by terrorism or combat (qitaal), but by a slow steady transformation, from within, of Infidel societies, and depends obviously in part on infiltration -- and above all, on infiltration into the police and other security services.

Great Britain does not face some undifferentiated threat whose source cannot be located. The main threat to the people of Great Britain and to their political and legal institutions is to be located in Islam, and the carriers of Islam, the willing "slaves of Allah." These are those who not only call themselves Muslims, but take to hear, choose to take to heart, the texts and tenets of Islam. And since we cannot know who does, and do does not, take to heart the texts and tenets, but have reason to believe -- history tells us, testimony from defectors (apostates) tells us, the non-apologist scholars (including those who are safely dead) tell us, that the hold of Islam over the minds of its adherents is truly extraordinary, difficult for non-Muslims to grasp -- that a great many, most, do, and since we also have no way of knowing who, for reasons having nothing to do with politics but rather with personal setbacks or mental disarray, may cease to be a "moderate" Muslim (that is, an undutiful Muslim, one who does not take it all to heart)-- there have been many such cases, for not every convinced terrorist started out that way, and not everything that caused his change was the result of politics. Mike Hawash, the Intel engineer who had come to America, married an American girl, had three little-leaguing children, was earning $360,000 a year, had some kind of change, as he rediscovered Islam, grew a beard, read the Qur'an, and after 9/11/2001, far from being shocked or embarrassed, made plans with others to go off to China, and then to Afghanistan, to fight with Al Qaeda against his fellow countryman. That is one example of a more widespread phenomenon. The failures need not be those of losing a job, or losing money in investments, or losing a girl; they can be in that large category of perceived unsuccess that is the common lot of men, and include, of course, the mental disarray -- depression, for example -- that hits at any one time a great many people, or other psychic illnesses that, if they hit Muslims, may result in what may be called "true Muslim behavior," with the pre-fabricated scapegoat of the Infidel available.

How can Western security forces, or governments, be expected to foresee, or even to recognize, much less to be able to remedy, all the setbacks that men suffer, and when the men (or women) in question are Muslims, they are likely to behave as Islam teaches them to behave, even if before their psychic disarray, they managed to be "moderate" in their Islam?

The Muslim complaint against the British police is that they are not showing the right cooperation in Muslim attempts to compile information for obvious Muslim uses. It is an attempt to constrain the British police, and to further the rising high of Muslims in the police force, beyond what individuals may merit, but not so much, as with appeals or lawsuits in other countries brought by members of non-Muslim groups who are trying to attain, by such exploitation, merely job security, and more money, for themselves that they would not, often, have attained on merit, in this case, it is an effort that is not so much about money as it is about infiltrating a force, the very force that must monitor, and constrain, Muslims who are now so obviously a threat to the future of the legal and political institutions and social understandings of Great Britain, as of all Infidel societies where Muslims have been allowed to settle in very large numbers, without any understanding of what it was they brought with them, undeclared, in their mental baggage.

clear
Posted on 06/30/2008 12:54 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Comments
30 Jun 2008
Hugh Fitzgerald

Address Unknown will explain everything.



30 Jun 2008
Special Guest

I've never been a fan of the epistolary form, but the description of "Address[ee] Unknown" sounds fantastic, and horrifyingly prescient (complete with an O. Henry-like ending).  And in its ability to inform the public about the growing danger of fascism, is exactly what NER aspires to.

I have no trouble admitting I have difficulty following some of the references and conversations at NER.  Sometimes I feel like a child listening to the grownups' conversation at a dinner party;  sure, a few words here and there can be gleaned, and the meaning surmised.  But it's an imperfect process.

The reference to "Memory fault: core dump" was to reader Reactionry, who devilishly wrote a paragraph with a mis-matching number of opening and closing parentheses, in an apparent attempt to cause me (and programmers everywhere) apoplexy.  Once again, my faux pas (this time thankfully unlicentious) is unintentional.  It was not a cypher meant to indirectly cause the death of any of NER's readers or staff.  Honestly.  It's just the typical result of grammatical mistakes in computer source code.

And the reference to Barry Bonds was to a top-echelon athlete who (allegedly) twisted the rules to further boost his stellar statistics. (The preceding was for the benefit of those who do not follow U.S. sports).  Analogous, say, to posting the same article multiple times in order to boost one's total number of postings (for example, just to pick a random number, 4562).

I won't pretend, with my limited cognitive abilities, to understand the significance of Hugh's comment.

I'll admit it.  I don't.



30 Jun 2008
Hugh Fitzgerald

The comment by "Special Guest" that mentions Alameda, and Barry Bonds, and 4562, not to mention, as a comment on another comment, this dead-giveaway -- (Memory fault: core dump 0x25e269f28. Segmentation fault: Missing ' at line 26, near 'Kopfweh mit Schlag'.) -- is obviously intended to show that this website has more than a little to do with the correspondence reproduced in Kressmann Taylor's "Address Unknown" or, as the last letter returned to sender in that short epistolary novel had stamped?sinisterly across it, ?"Adressat Unbekannt."

Let's admit it. It does.



30 Jun 2008
Hugh Fitzgerald
No, I didn't. More in the line of a failure to communicate. Technical difficutlies, now resolved.

30 Jun 2008
Special Guest

I remember the time I had lunch at a small seafood restaurant in Alameda, and found myself sitting across from baseball superstar Barry Bonds.

Should there be an asterisk after that "(4562)"?



30 Jun 2008
Send an emailMary Jackson
You can say that again. In fact, you just did.