The Betrayal of the Christians of Bradford UK
Saturday
The following was written by Babs Barron, originally published in FaithFreedom.org here and republished with permission:
I have just read an account of wilful dhimmitude in an online article in the UK Daily Telegraph. It exemplifies so much of what endangers UK society in the face of the tide of Islam which threatens to engulf it, and such wilful and irresponsible blindness to that danger, that I could hardly believe what I was reading. I invite readers to try to make sense of it alongside me:
It concerns a statement by the Church of England Bishop of Bradford, the Right Reverend Nick Baines, to the General Synod in York, in which he says that some parishes in his diocese were 95% Muslim but that this should not be seen as a problem. Were he talking about a predominance any other ideological belief system then he might have a valid point — I cannot imagine Sikhs or Hindus or Jews or Rastafarians or Zoroastrians or any ideology other than Islam causing problems for their neighbours in such numbers — but the Bishop is talking about Islam which, as we know and so should he, is constitutionally incapable of coexisting peacefully alongside any other ideology when it is in the majority.
The Bishop’s statement is an indication of wilful ignorance, yes, but it is also a slap in the face to the Christians who are under threat from Islamic supremacism all over the world (see also here and here). Baines’ ignoring the threat to the Christians of Bradford has betrayed his brothers and sisters in Christ there and has given Islam yet more purchase in the UK. The UK government has not the courage to curb the immigration from Muslim countries which has resulted in this state of affairs, or to stand firm against the sort of tensions which arise when Muslims form a majority in any geographical area.
A charitable explanation for all this might be that Baines is simply afraid to name the dangers of the encroachment of Islam for what they are and to speak out against the Muslim predominance in Bradford. Perhaps he believes that if he had the temerity to speak as plainly as the former Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir Ali, about no-go areas for kufar in parts of the UK he would receive the same death threats. Baines, however, seems blissfully ignorant that Nazir Ali’s warnings have been borne out in Tower Hamlets in London. If the Synod speech arose out of fear it was motivated in equal measure by Baines making a virtue out of a necessity when he dressed his dhimmitude in the false clothing of Christian humility. From the Telegraph article:
“This is a fantastic opportunity,” he [Baines] told the General Synod, the Church of England’s national assembly, in York.
“It is a challenge, yes, but it’s an opportunity to rethink what it means to be a Christian community. We often ask Muslims to learn what it is to be a Muslim as a minority culture.
“Maybe we could benefit from learning some of the same lessons in some of our cities.”
Really? The poor, mystified fool! He makes the mistake of assuming that just because Christianity would treat minorities with respect, an Islamised Bradford will respect his Church! At base level he must recognise that it will not otherwise he would not be trying so hard to talk up the idea, but, chillingly, he seems not to grasp that Islam will not be satisfied with a finger, or a hand, or even an arm, but that it will not be content until it has consumed him and his kind entirely. Before very long there may not be a Christian community worthy of the name in Bradford!
As Paul Weston writes in The Multi-Layered Betrayal of Britain on the Gates of Vienna:
“But at the top of the pile sits Islam. Imported and appeased by politicians of all parties, Islam is the real winner here and is promoted as the religion of peace when it is clearly no such thing. Polygamy laws are ignored in order that Muslims may demographically destroy us, laws are introduced to curtail any criticism on pain of exhibiting “Islamophobia”, and money is directed toward them in order that they need not work to house their multiple wives and children even as they plan to overthrow us.
“The rest of us, however — the war veterans, the elderly, the young, the new-born, the indigenous population, the non-Islamic immigrants, the middle-class, the working-class and the Christians — have been betrayed in our entirety.”
And the Rt Rev Nick Baines is complicit in that betrayal.
How to Stop Islam's Exploitation of Our Foolish Fellow Countrymen
I WAS LISTENING to Civilization and Its Enemies last night. I read the book years ago and thought it was so good, I bought the unabridged audio version, which I've listened to four times now. One of the insights from the book that has finally overridden the last residue of my youthful idealism is this: It is a fact of life — a hard, unchangeable fact, like Newton's law of universal gravitation — that if someone is willing to risk their lives to take something of yours, you will have to be willing to risk your life to keep it, or you will probably lose it.
This applies at a personal level and at a national level.
The author, Lee Harris, was describing what happened after World War One. "The Great War" was so horrible, people would try anything to prevent it from happening again. They wanted conflicts between countries to be handled civilly — without bloodshed. But there is a Catch-22 embedded in that thinking: The more civilized people get, the more of an opportunity it presents for someone who is not civilized.
Apparently there is a famous example of civility often recounted in books on etiquette that epitomizes the essence of civility and good manners. The late Shah of Iran was sitting at a table with the Queen of England and many other guests. A bowl of rose water was presented to each guest so they could wash their fingers.
The principle in civilized company — the prime principle of etiquette — is that you do not ever make someone feel they have done something wrong. You never make someone feel embarrassed or offended. You never let them think that they are not civilized.
But what if they really aren't civilized? The rules of etiquette assume the other person cares as much about courteous relations as you do. But what if they don't?
I want you to try something: Google "sociopath" and read about the strange and frightening phenomenon of sociopaths who live among us, not as serial killers, but as ordinary-appearing people who heartlessly use, manipulate, and take advantage of people without the slightest twinge of remorse or regret — and all the while, fooling their victims by imitating human empathy, deliberately giving the impression they have normal human feelings.
One of the articles has a "comments page" and a huge number of people have written their stories — painful, heartbreaking stories of being married to a sociopath, for example. And after 25 years of a nightmarish existence, they finally found out such a thing as sociopathy exists! They never knew it and tried their best to explain their husband's lying, cheating, remorseless behavior in some other way, like blaming themselves, or trying to help their husband "work through" his childhood issues. And the sociopath, of course, goes along with the process because it means he can keep getting away with his lying, cheating, remorseless manipulations.
But sociopathy isn't the result of a hard upbringing; it isn't the result of an "anger issue" or a lack of opportunity, or anything else. It is the result of being born as a sociopath — a person who has no capacity for human empathy, no guilt, and no feeling of sympathy for others.
And no amount of any kind of therapy will help a sociopath become less sociopathic. As a matter of fact, those who get therapy become even more effectively sociopathic because in therapy they learn how to better manipulate people — they learn what excuses people will buy, and they learn how to convey authentic-looking emotions better. They learn more about people, and it makes them more successful at taking advantage of non-sociopaths.Now, for a wife who doesn't know such a thing as a sociopath exists, they explain their sociopathic husband's behavior in some way. They don't leave it unexplained. It is almost impossible for a human being to not explain something. So they explain it. They think it's because their husband had a bad childhood, or they themselves are not a good enough wife, or whatever. But they come from the idea that "deep inside, everyone is basically good" and this assumption prevents them from grasping the true nature of their husband's character.
They can't conceive of the real explanation, and because they can't, they become an ongoing victim.
I think the same is true on a global scale dealing with any group or country that is willing to be ruthless.
If you have ten countries and they all agree to be civil to each other and work out their differences in a civilized manner and to forgo using violence to solve their differences, they will all get along great. But they will also have created an ideal environment to exploit for someone who is willing to use violence to get their way. In fact, the more civilized those ten countries become, the more vulnerable they will be to exploitation by an uncivilized enemy. The more the ten countries disarm themselves, the more ripe they will be for the picking.
It is just a fact of life you can't get around.
I've been thinking long and hard about what it is that prevents people from getting simple facts about Islam. And I think I've actually finally struck bedrock. This is it. Just like the sociopath's wife who doesn't understand that sociopaths exist (and that her husband is one), our multicultural friends don't understand that some ideologies are sociopathic, some cultures can be sociopathic, some religious doctrines can be sociopathic, and this ignorance keeps them vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation, and ultimately subjugation.
If you don't personally think it's possible for someone to just be born bad, then you can't conceive of the existence of a born sociopath. And if you can't understand that a person can be born a sociopath, then maybe you can't conceive of the possiblity that a religion could be started by a sociopath and could create an exploitative, violent religious doctrine, creating a global movement of dominance-oriented political action.
And the more people do not want to believe such a thing exists, the more easily they are defeated and subjugated by those who are following this creed. The more civilized people get, the more unwilling they are to make others feel wrong, the more easily they are bowled over and manipulated by those who are willing to exploit their ignorance.
Knowledge of sociopathy is the antidote to all our difficulties. Okay, I'm probably overstating my case. But if people understood that sociopaths exist, and if they understood that a sociopath can't be changed or improved, and if they understood that some people are just born that way, then they could understand that not everyone is a good person "deep down" and then they could understand it's possible for a religion to be started by a sociopath, by someone who only wanted to exploit the features of a religion. And if they could get that, they might be able to listen to a description of such a "religion."
Once those spouses of sociopaths finally realize that sociopathy exists, and they finally identify their spouse as a sociopath, they have no problem at all ending the relationship and stopping their own victimization. Their realization and reversal is sudden and complete.
I think if these people to whom we've been trying to get through finally realized sociopaths exist, through this chain of realizations, they could ultimately stop being the foolish, exploited victims of Islam's ruthless aggression.
(citizenwarrior.com)
*************************
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire