Mark Alexander
Friday, August 25, 2006
Gustavo de Aristegui, Foreign Affairs spokesman for the conservative Partido Popular, yesterday admitted that he considered that a fundamentalist website has issued death threats against him. PP Foreign Affairs spokesman 'an enemy of Islam'Mark Alexander
The pro-Kremlin daily "Komsomolskaya pravda" published on August 16-19 an investigative report claiming that more than half the members of a recently liquidated terrorist group in Karachayevo-Cherkessia were Russians or Ukrainians. Russia: Slavic Converts To Radical Islam Pose New ThreatMark Alexander
Video courtesy of Google Video and the Walid Shoebat Foundation
Mark Alexander
Iranian nuclear development is proceeding apace as the international community continues to drag its feet on responding to the nuclear program.Mark Alexander
Israel maintains Iran is a threat to the world, says an Iranian opposition group. Iran's Nuclear Threat Continues to Grow
The lily-livered, multi-culti, pro-Islam biassed, anti-Irael BBC doesn't mention anything on its UK webpage about the growing number of Brits becoming intimidated by Islam! Surprise, surprise! BBC UK page
Mark Alexander
The alleged plot to blow up transatlantic airliners and last year's terrorist attacks on London have made more people fear Islam as a religion, not merely its extremist elements, a poll for The Daily Telegraph has found.Mark Alexander
A growing number of people fear that the country faces "a Muslim problem" and more than half of the respondents to the YouGov survey said that Islam posed a threat to Western liberal democracy. That compares with less than a third after the September 11 terrorist attacks on America five years ago. Islam poses a threat to the West, say 53pc in poll by Philip Johnston
Thursday, August 24, 2006
"The government is aware that society is fragmenting into tribes - but if they are talking about creating common values for different faith groups, what are they?" - Munira Mirza, multiculturalism researcher [Source: The BBC]'The New Face of Britain' - Photo courtesy of BBC
British society is facing challenges that threaten its record on uniting ethnic groups, says Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly
Tensions between people of different ethnic groups and faiths in British society must be tackled, says Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly.
Ms Kelly launched a Commission on Integration and Cohesion, calling for a "new and honest" debate on diversity. UK 'must tackle ethnic tensions'
The full text of Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly's speech launching the new commission to look at how to counter tensions between people of different ethnic groups and religions. In full: Ruth Kelly speechRuth Kelly, in her speech, stated that she believes that Britian’s diversity is a huge asset to our country – economically, culturally, and socally.
She stated that immigration had helped transform the economy: it had supported growth and had boosted productivity. She went on to say that immigration had helped enrich our cultural life; and migrant workers had been vital to supporting our public services.
She added that in the government’s attempt to avoid imposing a single British identity and culture, she asked the question if we have ended up with some communities living in isolation of each other, with no common bonds between them.
She is setting up a commission to look into the problems.
She went on to say that the UK needed a “controlled, well managed [sic] system of immigration that has clear rules and integrity to counter exploitation from the far right”.
She rejected totally that faith schools – which are burgeoning here – are bad for the UK. She said that it was important to offer “choice”.
I should like to say the following…
I should like someone to show me how all this immigration and diversity has been a “huge asset” to the UK. It seems to me that the UK was doing pretty well before the advent of mass immigration. The UK used to be homogenous and well-integrated. There was already a great diversity in the UK. Look at the English, the Scots, the Irish, the Welsh, the Cornish, etc. We survived well without Islamic culture infiltrating our society.
But what is equally galling is that this mass immigration has been allowed to go on without consulting the people. This is an insult to democracy – the system of government whose virtues these very same people espouse.
If immigration has helped to transform the economy, it certainly hasn’t helped the cause of lowering taxation. Because of immigration, ever-increasing amounts of money have to be thrown at the security services in order to keep the British safe from “Islamic terrorism” and the jihad.
Not everything in an economy can be, or even should be, measured in terms of economic growth. Perhaps it is time people realized that ever-increasing economic growth can impose too high a price on the community as a whole. Businessmen should not be allowed to run the system!
That migrant workers may be vital to support our public services is an indictment on the economic policies of successive governments. Our leaders – past and present – should have seen these problems coming, and should have done all in their power to encourage an increase in the birthrate. But what has it done? Sweet Fanny Adams!
She admitted that the government had attempted to avoid “imposing a single British identity and culture” on the people. Well, now the truth is coming out! This is the very thing they should have been doing: They should have been encouraging homogeneity. How on earth can a country function as a homogenous whole when such diversity is encouraged. This flies in the face of the American “melting pot” theory – a theory that worked so well for the States for so long.
She has also rejected the idea that faith schools, the type of schools which are being encouraged in this country, are so detrimental to integration. If children are taught separately, especially when they are taught values diametrically-opposed to the values of the country as a whole, then we are most certainly encouraging tribalism, and we are shoring up colossal problems for ourselves for the future.
Little wonder that Munira Mirza, a multiculturalism researcher, has stated that British society is fragmenting into tribes! And the process of fragmentation into tribes will continue unabated until something is done about absurd government policies. Verily, I say unto you: Tony Blair and his government have been nothing short of a disaster, a catastrophe, for this country. It is high time for him to resign and hang his head in shame!
©Mark Alexander
The safest airline in the world, it is widely agreed, is El Al, Israel's national carrier. The safest airport is Ben Gurion International, in Tel Aviv. No El Al plane has been attacked by terrorists in more than three decades, and no flight leaving Ben Gurion has ever been hijacked. So when US aviation intensified its focus on security after 9/11, it seemed a good bet that the experience of travelers in American airports would increasingly come to resemble that of travelers flying out of Tel Aviv. What Israeli security could teach us by Jeff JacobyMark Alexander
TONY BLAIR’S peace mission to the Middle East appeared in jeopardy last night after Hezbollah declared that the Prime Minister would not be welcome in Lebanon because of his support for Israel during the war. Hezbollah warns Blair: you're not welcome in BeirutMark Alexander
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
When I look around me, it is so obvious that Western civilization is rotting from within. Standards in public life and standards in private are in decline. As far as I can discern, there is little doubt that this is so. How people behave, how people speak, how people dress, family life, the declining influence of religion, standards in education, in fact, standards in most walks of life seem to have taken a beating.
I am old enough to be able to remember different times. It is not so long ago that there were standards worthy of being emulated by the masses. For example, in the United Kingdom, BBC English was the gold standard in language: people who wanted to be socially mobile aspired to being able to speak like radio and television announcers. Then there were the grammar schools which all children who wished to be educated well would aspire to enter.
Children, except in exceptional circumstances, were raised in a conventional family: there was a mother and father to correct and discipline the children. Mothers did their duty, and endeavoured to raise their children correctly, very often to very high standards of behaviour, achievement, and dress. Moreover, mothers would take pride in keeping a good table for their husbands, children, extended family, and visitors.
A formal and an informal education were given to children. That means to say that they received an education in the school and in the home. Further, children from good homes would be encouraged to go to church on Sundays, and if not to church proper, then certainly to Sunday school, where they learnt the fundamentals of their faith, and where the proper way to behave, already taught in the home, would be reinforced.
In short, children were given direction, and solid moral values.
In school, they were put through the rigours of a proper education: they were pushed to achieve. Pushed by their teachers and pushed by their parents. Their achievements were measured by rigorous tests and examinations, which not all children passed. A child passed an exam only when he was good enough to do so. Children who didn't measure up, failed; and there was no easy way out, either. There was none of the current ‘feel good factor’, the ‘touchy-feely’, everybody-has-got-to-pass nonsense. If a child had not come up to standard, he failed, and that was the end of it. Of course, he would be given the chance to re-sit the examination – often the following year.
The family, even the extended family, would see to it that children dressed appropriately for the occasion. This went for the less well off, too. No excuses were made for the poor in this regard. They just had to try and keep up, somehow.
In public life, standards were generally much higher, too. Prime ministers led by example. They took the decisions they felt were right for the nation. They were not governed by opinion polls, and they generally didn’t pander to this lobby group or that. In addition, they didn’t shy away from the tough decisions they felt were necessary to maintain public order. They legislated on behalf of the people in order to maintain high standards of civilized life. The crime rate was low, and when people misbehaved, they would be sanctioned by the system, and they were punished accordingly.
Money, profit, and economic growth, though very important, were not the be all and end all of life. There were other considerations. People were less materialistic than they are today: they were prepared to make do with less. As a result, mothers, for the most part, stayed at home to raise their children, realizing that nobody else could raise them as well, and realizing too that it was their duty to raise them. Furthermore, because women stayed at home, there was an adequate supply of newborn babies to ensure the survival of the nation. British governments, at least, didn’t look to immigrants to fill the gap (the post-War period was an exception). If more children were needed, then the father would benefit from increased tax benefits to encourage more procreation.
In general, the system worked well; though, as standards tended to be rigid, they could be a little stifling at times. But there was order in society; and people knew where they fitted in. Generally, people were not lonely, because there was always the family to fall back on.
With the Sixties, things started to change dramatically. With the Sixties came the ‘anything goes’ ‘culture’ (if one dare call it that), and Western civilization started to decline. Then came ‘the Pill’, which made for a sexual revolution. Women could go to bed with men before wedlock with impunity. They could make sure they wouldn’t become pregnant. With this change, the morality of the nation went into freefall.
If we compare then with now, if we look at the situation critically, if we are indeed old enough to remember, then it is an indisputable fact that things have not improved in terms of education, values, morality, or in terms of politics. Things are indeed going downhill. The tragedy is that our leaders today do not have the courage to tell people the way things ‘should be’. Of course, we are living in a period of moral relativism; so many would argue that who is to say what ‘should be’ anyway?
Even the Church of England is wary of saying what ‘should be' today. The Church elders have long since given up on moralizing to the people. The ‘Good News’ is not theirs to teach, it seems. They would prefer to engage in politics. They would prefer to demonstrate to show their disapproval of this government policy or that one. The fact that the churches are emptying at an alarming rate seems to evade them completely.
Church elders also seem to be oblivious to the fact that Islam is ready and willing and waiting to fill the vacuum that the failing Christian churches of Europe are creating by their lack of certitude in the superior teachings of Christ.
The fact of the matter is that we are living through very dangerous times. The times are not dangerous only because people are being threatened by terrorist bombs by the jihadis, but they are dangerous times for us also because we have allowed our standards to drop, because we have become unsure of ourselves and what we stand for, and because we have allowed foreigners with vastly different ideas and values to enter our countries in their millions. Interestingly, and disturbingly for us, these immigrants are very sure of what they believe in, they are very sure of their destiny, and very sure of their moral rectitude.
In the States, there is the almost unsolvable problem of illegal Mexicans there. Some estimate their numbers at up to twenty million! Some estimate their numbers far lower. But the fact is that nobody knows how many there are in the country. Further, Islam is growing apace in the States. The future of the ‘Land of the Free’ lies very much in the balance. Yet there appears to be no will to do anything about the problem.
Here in the United Kingdom, we have a similar problem with illegal immigrants, too. In the case of the UK, most of them are Muslims. This problem, because it is not being addressed, will clearly change the nature of the United Kingdom in the years to come, and it will certainly change its politics, too. Already we have heard calls from the small but vociferous Muslim community for the UK government to become more anti-American and more anti-Israel, and more pro-Islam and pro-Arab. And this with present numbers!
In view of the Muslims’ propensity to procreate quickly and in great numbers, it doesn’t take a PhD in mathematics to do the calculations: The indigenous population, moderate as it has always been, will in years to come be outnumbered by the extremist voice of the ‘new breed of Englishman’ – Muslim and of Asian descent as he will most surely be.
It would appear that it is now only a question of time before the West, as we know the West to be, will be a civilization of the past. If Islam comes to influence the politics of our nations, which if present trends continue it most surely will, then rest assured that lax moral values will be cleaned up forthwith. Our way of dressing will change, as will our way of speaking (will Arabic become our lingua franca?), our way of behaving, our politics, our thinking, even our economics. Oh, and don’t forget the meting out of barbaric punishments for relatively minor offences. Punishments will no longer fit the crime. Freedom and democracy will become concepts of the past. We shall have entered into the Islamic era – an era which will be characterized by ‘dark age’ thinking; indeed, we shall have entered the ‘new dark age’ that I wrote of in my book.
These changes, of course, are not inevitable; but if we wish to save the West, then we have much thinking to do, much bellyaching, and many policies will have to be reversed.
I suggest that we start today. There is no time to waste.
©Mark Alexander
Objections to Turkey's launch of membership talks with the EU have been raised by leading French and German politicians. However, the Commission remains adamant that the talks will start as scheduled on 3 October. Turkey: France and Germany turn up the heatMark Alexander
The same article may be read in German here: EU-Beitritt der Türkei: Widerstand in Frankreich und Deutschland wächst
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
In a recent column for JewishWorldReview, Daniel Pipes describes what he sees as a new, tougher, approach by the Vatican to the encroachment of Islam throughout the West, and the decline of Christian populations in Islamic states.Mark Alexander
In his closing paragraph, Pipes tells us, “Obtaining the same rights for Christians in Islamdom that Muslims enjoy in Christendom has become the key to the Vatican’s diplomacy toward Muslims. This balanced, serious approach marks a profound improvement in understanding that could have implications well beyond the Church… Should Western states also promote the principle of reciprocity the results should indeed be interesting.” The Vatican Confronts Islam by Paul R. Hollrath
Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei on Tuesday blasted the US President George W. Bush for his recent "impudent" claims.Mark Alexander
"This guy (Bush) speaks as if he is the master and owner of Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Iran and other Muslim states; whereas, if the huge power of nations comes to the scene, the arrogant powers will -- as was the case recently in Lebanon -- be humiliated and the enemies of Islam will no longer be rude," said Ayatollah Khamenei in an address to heads of the three branches of the government, the Expediency Council Chairman Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the state and military officials, and ambassadors of Muslim states on the feast of Mab'ath, marking Prophet Mohammad's (PBUH) divine assignment to prophethood. Supreme Leader blasts Bush's recent "impudent" remarks
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)