The attacks, highly well organised and coordinated ones, targetting churches and five star hotels in Sri Lanka are now looking very much like they are Islam related. When the first news came in of these dreadful and terrible attacks that have claimed the lives of nearly 300 people, I didn’t immediately think ‘Islam’. That is because Sri Lanka has been afflicted in the recent and not so recent past by terrorism that was related to ethno-religious conflict and not Islam.
However, as time goes by it is becoming more and more clear that it was an Islamic group behind these atrocities. It has been reported in the Times of Israel that Sri Lankan government spokesperson has said that it was a local Islamic group, National Thowfeek Jamaath, who were the perpetrators of this horrific mass murder. This group is said to be native to Sri Lanka but may well have had help or assistance in carrying out or planning these attacks.
This was most obviously an attack on both Christians and Western tourists and has taken the lives of many Sri Lankans and others from other nations who were visiting. I must say that the targets of the attack, the methodology and the coordination of them are extremely reminiscent of similar Islamic attacks and it is to this quarter where blame needs to be pinned for these atrocities.
It galls me somewhat, that as a British person I have to rely on the Times of Israel for anything approaching neutral or truthful press coverage of these attacks. Whilst the Times of Israel was quite prepared to report the words of the Sri Lankan government spokesperson who speculated that this could be an Islamic attack, we did not see the same honesty in earlier reports from either the BBC or from Sky. The report on Sky News is at the current time (16:38) still saying that the perpetrators of the attacks were ‘religious extremists’ but not stating who the religious extremists were are speculated or suspected to be. This is lying by omission in their headlines and is contradicted by Sky as further down the article by a tweet stating that Sri Lanka has been warned about Islamic jihadist groups operating in the country and plotting attacks. The BBC in their early reports were also claimed by social media users to be equivocating over the nature of the perpetrators, but have since used the word ‘Jihadist’ with a reasonable amount of emphasis. Maybe the evidence is now so strong that this was an Islamic attack that not even the BBC can hide this factor any more?
Further evidence that this attack is Islam related comes from the mealy mouthed condolence message from Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May. She said:
The acts of violence against churches and hotels in Sri Lanka are truly appalling, and my deepest sympathies go out to all of those affected at this tragic time. We must stand together to make sure that no one should ever have to practise their faith in fear.
Needless to say this act of empty hand wringing was mocked by Twitter users who in one case asked her about the language used in her condolence message to Sri Lanka and compared it to the much stronger language that she used following the Christchurch mosque massacre. Having seen both statements, the Christchurch one and the Sri Lanka it does indeed seem as if there is a double standard in operation here. There is most certainly a double standard with regards the type of language that Theresa May used to describe the violent deaths of Muslims and the violent deaths of Christians.
The sort of bland ‘don’t rock the boat’ language used by Theresa May with regards to the Sri Lanka attacks is also very similar to the blandness of the words used by Mrs May to describe the Sri Lanka murders. We have the same empty ‘thoughts and prayers’ guff along with the ‘this is not what we are/worship freely without fear’ type of rhetoric as we got from her following the Manchester Islamic attack. As someone who is party to intelligence reports on the activity of Islamic terrorists and who may have known much more than she is letting on about the Sri Lankan Islamic extremist situation, the Prime Minister should really have been more honest about where this attack is most likely to have come from. I don’t think that it would have compromised any security sources to state what has become more and more plain over the last day or so which is that these attacks are linked to Islam.
In the aftermath of the Sri Lanka attacks we have also seen the disgusting spectacle of the Muslim Council of Britain taking time out from oppressing the peaceful Ahmadiyya Islamic sect and whining about how ‘oppressed’ British Muslims are, to shed crocodile tears over the Sri Lanka mass murder. They said in a statement on their website that they ‘condemned’ the attacks and said that the terrorists ‘didn’t represent anyone but themselves’. What a pile of complete and utter bollocks. If this is an Islamic atrocity, which is something that is seeming increasingly likely, then it has a root where it draws its hatred and its violence from and that root is Islam. Despite the MCB’s protestations to the contrary, these attacks look like they are everything to do with Islam. The wording of the MCB’s statement on the Sri Lanka attacks looks suspiciously similar to the statements they made over the Manchester Islamic bombing atrocity and the London Bridge attack. It’s almost as if they have some sort of boilerplate response that they make to Islamic atrocities? To me it looks as if the prime motivation for the MCB’s statements are not to express genuine solidarity with those killed in Sri Lanka and in other Islamic terror attacks, but instead to divert attention away from the primary cause of these attacks, which is Islamic theology itself.
This series of attacks is truly monstrous and were targetted and carried out in a way that could only come from a morally debased and disgraceful theological culture and morally debased and disgraceful is certainly a damn good description of Islam. These attacks on a nation that has hitherto been spared the scourge of Islamic violence are truly appalling and have taken the lives of Sri Lankans, Indians, Britons, Americans Japanese and Chinese citizens. None of these people deserved to die but die they did at the hands of Islamic savages. Whilst I quite rightly mourn for those who died, I also hope that these deaths will cause righteous anger at the underlying cause of these attacks among those seeing this story unfold. It is right that we are angry at what is an attack of even greater magnitude than that of the Bataclan Islamic attack and just short of the death toll from the Beslan attacks. We should no longer tolerate either these attacks and the ideology that fuels it nor the empty hand wringing about these attacks from our politicians. The world has yet again been attacked by the more deluded and violent followers of Islam. This situation of Islamic attack after Islamic attack will continue until we face the reality of the problem and select politicians who will put this foul ideology back in the box, never again to trouble a world that has been made much more unhappy by its presence.
Sorry, but as soon as the magic words “suicide bombers” were uttered, it was clear that it couldn’t be anything but the Religion of Pieces. Therefore obviously a well coordinated team of mentally ill “lone wolves” whose murderous, supremacist, fascistic actions clearly have nothing-to-do-with-shhhhhhh-you-know-what, meaning that we really should avoid any hint of any “phobias” after the multitudes of “peaceful” inspired maimings and atrocities. I do hope that wasn’t too “phobic”.
I didn’t immediately think ‘Islam’ when the words suicide bombers were mentioned as the Tamil Tigers used this tactic a lot during the Sri Lankan civil war. However as soon as I saw the targets that were chosen the chances that this was an Islamic attack increased tremendously.
The situation will continue ‘until we … select politicians’ who will do something about it? So, iow, the situation will continue until the land currently labelled the ‘British Isles’ becomes part of the dar al-islam. (What is the Islamic position on converts from Judaism, btw?)
Your vote is up against the Trigglypuffs and Aids Skrillexes of the world—this lot.
And no fancy voting systems will rectify this—just about every ‘democracy’ in the world has some form of fancy PR or preferential voting, and every one of them is on the way out. Every. Single. One.
We’re not voting our way out of this.
(Essay time…)
When measuring the success (or otherwise) of the phenomenon of ‘democracy’, one should remember that our current experiment of mass democracy—far away from the Athenian principles of democracy’s inventors—is actually quite recent, in Britain dating only from 1918.
Simon de Montfort convened the first English parliament in 1265 (its roots lying in the 8th Century Saxon Witan and Moot).
The Irish parliament was formally created in 1297 (although their first parliament met in 1264).
The Scottish parliament emerged in the 13th Century (the first ‘colloquium’ meeting in 1235), it first being recorded as such in 1293.
Dating our system of government from the convening of our first parliaments—say England’s 1265—means that for 653 years our country at the very least ticked by: England remained England, Wales remained Wales, Ireland continued being Ireland, and Scotland Scotland; and Cornwall was Cornish, Cumbria Cumbrian, Yorkshire was full of Yorkshiremen, Cardiff was Cardiffian, Belfast full of Belfasters, Aberdeen Aberdonian, etc.
244 years saw England so powerful it held the balance of power in Europe, reflected in Henry VIII’s motto ‘Cui adhæreo, præest’—‘Whom I favour, wins’.
338 years saw our islands fully united with the Union of the Crowns, creating, pace Dicey, a ‘united country [with] the power to resist in one age the threatened predominance of Louis XIV., and in another age to withstand and overthrow the tremendous power of Napoleon’ (Dicey was actually describing the 1707 Act of Union: Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 1885, 8th ed. 1915, lxxix).
342 years saw the beginning of our island’s global empire, with the founding of Jamestown in Virginia.
550 years (after Buonaparte’s defeat) saw us a hyperpower, the like of which had not been seen since Rome.
653 years after de Montfort’s parliament, we passed the 1918 Representation of the People Act and enfranchised everyone, the only qualification being that they were still breathing at the stipulated minimum age; then expanded the franchise further and yet further with the 1928, 1948 and 1969 RotPAs.
So what have we achieved in 101 years of mass democracy?
No longer a hyperpower by 19th Century’s end, we remained a front-rank superpower; but have since allowed ourselves to be reduced to a vassal state of both Washington and Brussels; a craven nation pushed around by no-marks like Spain, Iceland (Cod Wars), Ireland, Iran and Argentina; our ministers insulted with impunity by foreign dignitaries.
We surrendered significant territory and resources with Southern Irish independence.
Crime has increased exponentially—from 1921 to 2011 (per population), ‘all offences’ have increased 2,614%, rapes 8,5098%, crimes of serious violence 5,270%, ‘Total Violence Against the Person’ 39,607% (but homicides & attempted murders ‘only’ 109%).
Britain is no longer recognisably British; nor England English, Wales Welsh, Ulster Ultonian, Scotland Scottish; our nation’s capital is no longer majority British let alone Londoner; and today a Bradfordian is more likely to be a muslim of Indo-Pakistani ancestry than the dour Yorkshireman of old. The number of native British in our schools is declining—from 75.6% in 2010 to <67% in 2018 in England. As Mark Steyn says, ‘The future belongs to those who show up for it’; and we’re leaving the building.
101 years of mass democracy have turned one of the safest, most civilised countries in the world into a crime-ridden hellhole; reduced our country from superpower to international joke; and demographic trends show the native British, some of whom can trace their ancestry here a millennium while many can trace theirs millennia, are heading for extinction (our ancient squabbles—Catuvellauni versus Trinovantes, Briton versus Saxon, Saxon versus Norman, Anglo versus Scot, Prod versus Taig—will be replaced by Sunni versus Shia). Mass democracy is ending our island story.
For 653 years we, at our worst, endured as a nation and people, and at our best, dominated the globe; but mass democracy destroyed us within a century.
You have some interesting perspectives on mass democracy. They are not ones that I entirely agree with but what I will say is that for democracy to work effectively you need an educated populace and that is something that the Left in recent decades has robbed us of. To answer your question about converts to Judaism from Islam this can vary depending on the background. However what I have noticed is that some converts to Judaism from Islam do seem to have to look over their shoulder far more than those who choose Judaism who come from other paths or backgrounds.
Not for the first time, the coverage of this by our cowardly lying media makes me ashamed, on this day, to be an Englishwoman…
Agree there, the coverage, especially by Sky who used the mealy mouthed words ‘Religious Extremists’ was appalling. Hundreds of innocent lives have been taken by these Islamic savages yet our media still refused to tell the truth and say the ‘M’ word.
(Re. converts, did you inadvertently transpose terms? I know apostasy from Islam is punishable by death. A quick internet search suggests muslims are not as obsessive over ethnicity as Onkel Adi was, but given the visceral hatred many muslims harbour for Jews, I can understand a Jewish convert to Islam having to ‘look over their shoulder’.
But it wasn’t a serious question—pray neither of us find ourselves seriously contemplating converting to Islam as a survival strategy, that people will wake up long before.
Btw, on the topic of conversion, David Wood (youtube channel and website) did a funny series of videos: ‘Islamicize Me!’—not bad, and amply demonstrates the insanity that is Islam and how the entire idea needs to be sunk to the bottom of the sea.)
Wrt an ‘educated populace’, modern ‘democracies’ (both sides of the aisle) depend on the dumbing down of the populace far more than a sovereign monarch—it’s easy to take rights away from those who don’t even know they have them; to expand government, MPs creating sinecures for themselves and their families, when people are ignorant of their history and how small and efficient government used to be; to con the public into believing they need pay our poorly performing politicos and public officials more ‘to encourage high performing individuals to consider a career in politics’ (reward their incompetence and corruption, yeah, that makes sense…).
Here is parts 5–7 of chapter 7 of Hans-Herman Hoppe’s 2001 Democracy—The God That Failed, the most relevant points highlighted. Hoppe is contrasting monarchical immigration policies with democratic but his arguments apply more generally, encompassing public education; he describes how an egalitarian philosophy results in democratic rulers indifferent to whether they run a nation of ‘bums or geniuses’, and often seek the low quality.
As long as the democratic State remains in charge of education, they will continue to prefer propaganda to education, and indoctrination to teaching.
James Bartholomew documented how the State’s 19th Century takeover of education was unnecessary:
(Bartholomew, James. The Welfare State We’re In. Methuen, 2004. 153.)
Also: Bartholomew, James. “Education Without the State—British Private and Charitable Schooling in the 19th Century and Beyond.” Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung Occasional Paper 26. Paper presented at the conference “Liberal Education—International Perspectives” organised by the Liberal Institute of the Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung, Potsdam 2–4. September 2005.
E.G. West is the goto for the history of British education:
Education and the State: A study in political economy, 1975, 3rd ed. 1994.
Education and the Industrial Revolution, 1975, 2nd ed. 2000.
Now…
What is the actual point of ‘democracy’?
(Think about it. Really think about it.)
Forget highfalutin notions ‘that all Men are … endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights’ (US Declaration of
TreasonIndependence). As Robert Heinlein wrote in his 1959 Starship Troopers: ‘Ah, yes, the “unalienable rights.” Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What “right” to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. … If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man’s right is “unalienable”? And is it “right”?’ (125–6, Ace Books). Discard even Heinlein’s proposal that ‘every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult [military] service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage’ (193). Likewise shed the idea—traditional though it is—that only ‘stakeholders’ (i.e. property-owners) deserve a say in their country’s direction. And never mind the modern opinion that everyone, their aunt and their dog should be enfranchised because… well, just because.Is there an actual, practical, utilitarian, cold-bloodedly cynical advantage to some form of ‘democracy’?
(Again, think about it. Too bad this is not a r/t convo as I would like to hear your thinking rather than simply proceed to
hectoringvolunteering my own view.)I believe Pax Dickinson defined democracy best when he wrote:
That is the real practical benefit of ‘democracy’: staving off bloody rebellion and civil war. Both from the perspective of a ruler avoiding provoking those whom he rules, and partisans on either side of an issue (no matter how strongly you feel about X, if the headcount reveals your side as numerically inferior, best reconcile to living with/without X as, if it comes to civil war, you’ll likely finish up kneeling beside a ditch).
But, as per Pax, if one side is composed of… whatever this is, crybabies and snowflakes requiring ‘counselling’ after a lost vote, then the single, outstanding advantage of democracy disappears.
A healthy, mature system of government should be more than an act of charity—or as someone described female suffrage, a ‘gigantic exercise in chivalry’. Wrt participation, only the views of those who might storm the Winter Palace or Bastille count; anything more leads us to where we are—the Tyranny of the Snowflake.
Two final (for this essay-length comment) points about ‘democracy’:
(1) There are increasing calls in America (and what the US drinks today, Britain drinks tomorrow) and Britain to lower the voting age to 16; the SNP lowered the age to 16 for the 2014 referendum as well as put their EU immigrants on the electoral roll; Remain fanatics want to disenfranchise eldsters; and there have long been calls on both sides of the Pond to enfranchise convicts. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence recognises this as brazen attempts to game the system, to put thumbs on electoral scales. And the Left love them their immigrants: as has been said before, they support immigration as immigrants do the jobs that Americans/Brits won’t—vote Democrat/Labour/SNP.
Meanwhile, in Britain, small parties and their supporters favour some form of PR and preferential voting—to get their foot in the door, if not No.10. But in Australia there are calls to restore FPTP as their preferential voting keeps small parties out (e.g. Pauline Hanson of their One Nation Party would have won her constituency in 1998 with FPTP; she actually led in 7 counts, excluded only on the 8th, with the Liberal candidate winning the seat despite him coming 3rd out of 5 candidates on initial count, and continuing to trail third even on the 6th).
Whether favouring or opposing lowering voting age, disenfranchising here and enfranchising there, supporting or opposing PR or FPTP—are we not all just attempting to game the system? And if we’re all trying to game the system, is that not the corrupting effect of democracy? Is democracy intrinsically corrupting?
(2) While many like to pat themselves on the back for the awesomeness of today’s society—We’ve got, like, iPhones and Facebook and s**t, and we’re not, like, racist like those racist white imperialists of the past, and we got, like, abortion, and don’t, like, do death penalty and stuff—if we manage to get through this period of insanity, how will history judge us? A ‘civilisation’ that allows the most depraved of murderers to live relatively comfortable lives before dying peacefully a-bed (when not releasing them to commit further murders and other crimes); while killing children on an industrial scale (9 million in Britain, 1968–2017), thriftily using their corpses to heat our hospitals (Shee-it, Adolf got nuttin’ on us!). That disarms our most vulnerable, leaving them to the mercy of predators. Whose police, when they bother to show up at all, too often side with the criminals. For all our sheer ‘star-spangled awesomeness’, it’s possible that history will reckon 21st Century Western society as one of the most evil to ever curse our Earth—arguably even more evil than Adolf’s, whose régime at least had the shred of ‘decency’ to conceal their dark deeds (no #ShoutYourGenocide hashtag from them).
This society has been brought to you by democracy.
And ‘democracy’ makes us all accomplices to these evils—or so history might judge, seeing as we voted for this.
(Anyway, tell where and why you disagree. Not because I’m sure I’m right—I’m the blind man in the dark cellar like everyone else. I’m always learning and my politics never stop evolving.)