Diversity Killed Lee Rigby

Posted on May 27, 2013


Lee Rigby – a fine young man taken down in the prime of his life by multiculturalism and ‘tolerance’.

One aspect of the  recent London terror murder of Soldier Lee Rigby, that stands out in my estimation, is the response of the public officials.  Britain has long been under the threat of islamist attacks from within and has suffered much loss of life and limb in the last decade, but the government has walked on eggshells with regards to its reactions to these murderous thugs.

While the government deals severely with its own native population with respect to eliminating their rights to self-defense, branding patriot groups as ‘extremists’ and hounding citizens for free speech infractions in violation of political correctness – the radical islamic immigrant population operates virtually with impunity.   It seems that I am in good company in this perception.  Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle, told Steve Malzberg in a recent interview:

“For some reason, the British have been very slow to clamp down on the mosques where jihad and violent jihad is routinely preached.”

Well, sir – the reason is not that difficult to identify.  Britain is in the grips of two political parties that strive to foster the illusion that they are opposite one another on policy matters.  The reality is that the ‘Conservative’ Party, aka, ‘Tories’ and the Labour Party are really just ‘Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum’.  One is Tweedle Dummer than the other, but not by much.  The situation resembles the delusion of a two-party system here in the United States.

In Britain, both major parties are so irrationally committed to multiculturalism, that it takes on the sanctity of a virtue that overshadows public safety and national security.   In truth, multiculturalism is an intellectual abstract that has attained the status among rational and clear thinking people as a mental infirmity.  It’s suicidal.  Mr. Perle goes on to say:

“The French, for example, complain that the Brits allow this sermonizing that then produces radicalization that has to be dealt with in other countries, not just in the United Kingdom,” he said.  “So it’s high time that they . . . face the fact that there is a system of recruitment into acts of violence in the name of a radical Islamist vision or ideology. And pretending that it isn’t there is not the way to deal with it.”

That’s a worthy observation.  Where I part company with Mr. Perle (aside from him being a Neo-Con),  is when he suggests that part of the answer is the muslim community denouncing acts of jihad.  That belies a naivete that is unbecoming of such a well-informed man as Richard Perle.  Here in America, after the Boston Marathon terror attack, we saw and heard spokespersons from the ‘Muslim Community’ denounce the actions of the bombers.  Observing this, the average self deceived progressive says “Good, it’s about time they oppose extremism”.

Here’s the problem.  Appearing to denounce terrorist acts is nothing more than a recently adopted tactic in the discipline of deliberately deceiving un-believers, referred to by them as ‘infidels’.  Widely taught in islam are the instructions of the prophet Muhammed, to lie to non-muslims and to mislead them of one’s true intentions for the purpose of advancing the footprint of the religion.  And they do – 24/7/365.

As noted on the website ‘The Religion of Peace‘, there are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman.  These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause of islam – in  gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.  Here’s a brief sampling of the passages in muslim scripture that advocate deception:

Qur’an (3:54) – “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit.  If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same.

Qur’an (3:28) “Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.” So, the point of this is to mislead the infidel into assuming that you are an ally, when in reality, you are a mortal enemy to be dealt with accordingly when opportunity permits.

Bukhari (49:857) – “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.”  Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 – 8.2) – “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression…

Taqiyya is the muslim phrase for lying.  What we’ve shown here is merely a small sample of the numerous exhortations to bear false witness for the advancement of sharia and the establishment of a world caliphate under submission to allah.  (Side note: you may wonder at my practice of non-capitalization of certain words relating to islam.  I disdain to do so, because I am convinced that islam is not a legitimate faith, but a concocted political movement centering around an ancient Syrian tribal idol – allah, the god of the Moon.  Therefore I refuse to dignify it even so much as to capitalize the nouns as ‘proper’).

To sum up then – if a spokesperson of a mosque, tells the media and city officials that they are in opposition to a act of Jihad, there is a preponderance of evidence suggesting that this is ‘Taqiyya’ and nothing else.  Thus, it matters little if they acclaim or denounce the terror or the hateful rhetoric – we must refuse to view any statement they make outside the context of the teachings that they propagate.  Yassir Arafat the P.L.O. Leader, notoriously promoted hatred and violence in his speeches to fellow Palestinians, but rang a conciliatory note in his translated comments to Western journalists.  What is heard from the militant followers of islam depends entirely on the intended audience.

Now, British Prime Minister David Cameron comes forth with a series of statements that make it abundantly clear that he and the rest of the British government still don’t get it or have no intention to do what it takes to protect its citizens:

“The brutal terrorist murder of a “brave soldier” on the streets of London will bring the UK together and “make us stronger”. “The people who did this were trying to divide us. They should know something like this will only bring us together and make us stronger,” he said. “This country will be absolutely resolute in its stand against violent extremism and terror. We will never give in to terror or terrorism in any of its forms. 

“This view is shared by every community in our country. This was not just an attack on Britain and on the British way of life; it was also a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country. “There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act.”

So much foolishness – where do I start?  “Something like this will only bring us together and make us stronger”?  Shouldn’t it perhaps instead, spark a discussion about how bringing in millions of immigrants that don’t share your values is not the great idea you thought it was?  I’m just asking.  “This was not just an attack on Britain and on the British way of life; it was also a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country.”  What?  A betrayal of islam?   Isn’t islam itself that is a betrayal to your undeserved ‘tolerance’?  And then – “There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act.”  Let’s see, where did we hear something like that before?  Hmmm, wasn’t it from the lips of the ‘kindler, gentler, conservative, George W. Bush, when he said, “Islam is a religion of peace”?  

Even dull witted people have a point at which their experiences purge them of false precepts.  These (the Bushes, the Browns, the Blairs, the Clintons, the  Obamas and the rest of the ilk) – are not ignorant people, they are people who are willfully careless and irresponsible.  It sounds like the political class in the U.K. is making noises about what they are going to do to see to it that such a disgraceful event never occurs again.  I don’t believe it.  Yet it raises a couple of questions from inquiring minds such as my own.  Number 1 is, elected officials had reason to know and should have known that 9/11 was an islamic jihad attack.  That was 12 years ago.

They had a second event in 2005 – the London Subway bombings as well as the Glasgow International Airport attack, the Exeter Attack and dozens of others that were unsuccessful either through the incompetency of the plotters or the good fortune of the police bringing them to miscarriage.  Why haven’t they dealt with that element in their midst already?

My next question is what – beside bulldozing the mosques, could conceivably cure the problem?  The islamic religion is intractable and completely incompatible with the values of Western Civilization.  They cannot ‘Coexist’.  The British government however –  is looking at the English Defense League with the same measure of disapproval as they are the jihadists!  As far as I can see, the EDL haven’t beheaded any soldiers or attempted to bomb a subway or airport.  Their claim to ‘extremism’ is to be righteously angry at the perpetrators and enablers of these gross indignities committed against the English people.  In a bit of irony, the AP, while disdaining to call border trespassers in the United States, ‘illegal immigrants’, has no reluctance to describe the English Defense League as ‘extremists’.

I have no respect for P.M. David Cameron or his so-called ‘Conservative Party’.  They are not conservatives.  Sir Winston Churchill would take drastic measures for drastic times.  Not these pussycats, oh no – just a lot of empty talk from the gas bags in the political class.

Where’s the people with an Empire that the ‘sun never set upon’?  Where have they gone?  I see a little bit of it in the eyes of the angry young men of the English Defense League. 

God Save the Queen.