>
http://www.geertwilders.nl/
We're all neighbours now, says Brown
Gordon Brown has a completely skewed vision of society in general he actually believes that you can get people who are totally different in outlook, mannerisms, social practices and social norms to become one unified society - dream on Gord.
The real world is by no means so simplistic, over many thousands of years people have developed their own unique way of living this is why we have French people, German people, Russians, Spanish, well you know the story and these people are rightly proud of the cultures they have developed, the same is equally true of this land - Britain and its people.
To say that here is no common denominator linking these cultures would be untrue, indeed there are many similarities between the cultures of the countries of Europe and Britain, most of these similarities grew out of the "enlightenment", integration between these "like countries" is made easier because of the commonalities of culture that exist.
Problems arise when cultures with no common denominator are mixed, there will be the inevitable clash and that is what we are now seeing in Europe and the UK.
Mr Gordon Brown clearly does not recognize this fact despite it being demonstrated time and time again, this same cultural blindness is seen in all of the various quangos that exist in the UK
We're all neighbours now, says Brown
Monday, May 19, 2008
According to the Prime Minister Gordon Brown, whether people follow Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism or Islam, everyone should live by the same moral codes: we are our brother's keeper, we should do unto others as we would have them do to us;, and we should believe that when some are poor all of us are impoverished, when even a few are not free none of us can be truly free, and when others are weakened in spirit and hope no-one can boast our society is truly strong.
The above sentiments are truly laudable but totally unachievable, it is a vision of utopia, take for example "we should do unto others as we would have them do to us", tell that to Allah Gordon, the followers of Allah will gladly accept all that is given them but they will not reciprocate and if it is not freely given then they will take it, such is the will of Allah - strike one.
"we are our brothers keeper", sorry, we are not, we will and do offer help when needed but we are NOT responsible for the well being of everybody else on the planet- strike two.
This attitude presented by Gordon is dangerous, we do not live in a global village.
Islam has a vision of the "global village" its called the Ummah, this as you know is pursued by Islam and inflicted upon others by the sword, the only village they see or want is an Islamic village - nothing less.
Is the Islamic vision of a global Ummah the reason why Gordon Brown and the Labour party - not forgetting the "common purpose brigade" find ISLAM SO ATTRACTIVE, is this the reason why so many Muslims have been allowed to flood into Europe? is this the reason why the Islamic "faith" has been supported and developed across .Europe?, is it because they share a common vision of just one amorphous mass of humanity, the similarities are just too close to ignore, indeed the words he uses " and we should believe that when some are poor all of us are impoverished, when even a few are not free none of us can be truly free, and when others are weakened in spirit and hope no-one can boast our society is truly strong." sound very Koranic to me..
Iam fairly certain there is a Sura that says something very similar in the first verse then goes on to tell the Muslim how to kill the Jew and children of the book in the second verse, I think Gordon is paraphrasing the Koran - I could be wrong and I am certain somebody will tell me if I am.
Mr Brown went on to say:
: "Our neighbour is every person in every country … we share the same global neighbourhood within the same moral universe. Our task now is extraordinarily complex and yet very simple: together we must make this world a better home – not just for some, but for all."
The Global village is not going to happen, people are indivuduals, nations are unique, co-operation between individuals and nations is good but each must have its own space on the planet.
We do NOT share the same moral universe, The morals of Islam are barbaric we do not have anything in common with such murderous brutality and complete lack of respect for other human beings on this planet-- strike three , you are out Mr Brown.
i'd say he'd lost his marbles, but i'm not sure he ever had any. i know i have things in common with christians, jews, catholics, hindus, buddists, taoists, athiests, agnostics etc.... but i have nothing, absolutely nothing in common with muslims except we breath the same air (unfortunately)....
not sure what asylum al-gordo emerged from!
Reply to this
Sorry you are wrong!
About 5 years ago I was supervising a handout to an elderly muslim. Whatever his contribution to our culture was in the 30+ years he lived here it did not require him to speak English or make the slightest concession in the matter of dress.
All communication was via an interpreter and when standing close to me he would hold the end of his turban/headcloth over his mouth and look anxious. This puzzled me because I do not normally have halitosis. I was told later the reason was he did not want to breathe air that had been polluted by an infidel. Whether this is true or not I cannot say but I can think of no other reason for his behaviour. And yes he got the money.
Reply to this
Thanks Fred, i stand corrected, and am verey happy to do so!
Reply to this
Geert Wilders to Bush (quoted by UPI), "Islam's growth is the greatest threat of this century and we need to interact more on how we (the United States and the European Union) will protect traditional Christian and Jewish (territory)," Wilders said. "I see America as an ally in that fight."
He lambasted cultural relativism and said Islam was incompatible with democracy and Western values. "We shouldn't pretend that all cultures are equal and let equality rule. We've witnessed attacks on America and Europe, so we're all in danger."
http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Emerging_Threats/Analysis/2008/05/19/analysis_dutch_critic_of_islam_warns_bush/6308/
Mr Wilders,can you please send a copy of your memo to PM Gordon Brown.
Thank you.
Reply to this
Kumbaya yeeeeeaaaaah.
Perhaps the Blairistas knew what they were talking about when they put it around that al-Gordo had psychological difficulties. Frankly, he's mad.
I will see a Muslim as my neighbour when he's perfectly happy to let my non-Muslim son court his Muslim daughter ... and then marry if they so wish.
Instead of murdering her as happened recently to that poor young girl in Basra.
Reply to this
whats with this WE stuff, kimo sabie
go tell that to the iman, he dont think so. lets see what kind of deal you get in the mosque this friday, cyclops.
The only we we are interested at this stage is we the people of the UK
Reply to this
Now lets see what the Hindu religious texts say of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Moslems etc
Lie in wait for them, ambush them, and strike them in neck. And after much slaughter, let them live if they accept that they are subjugated and pay a special tax.
Something akin in all the other religious texts - Buddhist, Sikh, you name it.
There is one exception - The Bible and specially the New Testament. In this you find one of the most violent passages in any relgious text, said by the founder of Christianity himself - "Blessed are they that kill in my name, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven, where there will be wine, women and young pubescent boys".
I'm surprised that Gordon Brown has it so wrong - Islam is the RoP - it is trade marked, Pres GW Bush states it on every occasion, and so do all the leaders of the Western world. They cant be all wrong.
Reply to this
Memo to PM Brown
We are our brother's keeper, we should do unto others as we would have them do to us.
This comes from the Bible. It is known as the Golden Rule. It is most certainly NOT in the Koran. So to ask Muslims to live by the fundamental rule of Christianity, is going against the most fundamental rule of multiculturalism. We thus have a confict in fundaments. We have a choice
1. Multiculteralism is right, then
both the Koran and the Bible are right - which is impossible.
1. Multiculteralism is wrong, then either
the Bible is right or the Koran is right.
Reply to this
Shortage of logic there DP.
In both cases both Bible and Koran can be wrong (which is what I believe). I'm not disputing that the Christian i.e. NT philosophy is self-evidently vastly better than the Islamic philosophy. That doesn't make it necessarily "right".
Personally I have no belief in any deity, neither Jehova nor Allah nor Zeus. The Golden Rule is not a religious entity, but rather a moral entity. A good one, and I do like it, but there is no necessary connection to any religious belief or text.
Reply to this
SHM
My post was in response to Brown's views - he does not mention Agnostics or Atheists.
My position is based not on logic but reality - as logic can also be wrong if based on the wrong assumptions or axioms.
The fact is that atheist or agnostic philosophy has not given rise to anything of any value. From the perspective of science - the greatest scientists were devout Christians, i.e. those who simply changed the way we look at the universe. Why this is so, and how come that the scientific revolution occurred nowhere else but in a society that was immersed in the Christian faith, is certainly not a coincidence. One may regard it as a coincidence, but that is most unlikely. Again, all the charitable agencies we see have their root in the Christian faith - no other ideology or religion founded such work. There is so much - I would hazard that 95% of what we term Western civilisation or thought, is founded and rooted in the Christian faith. Even secularism, the separation of divinity from the affairs of the state, is a Christian concept.
Logic is not to be trusted at all times. Great originality in science, particularly Physics, is intuitive. Perhaps it is the reason why the Greeks, those great believers in logic, never gave rise to the scientific revolution, though they had a head start in mathematics.
So recognising my human fallibility, and the impossibility of ascertaining truth, I'm left with just "right" as far as the human condition is concerned. It must be so, for the rest of the world is incorporating Western thoughts and ideas - with one notable exception.
Look forward to your reply.
Reply to this
I was only pointing out that their are four options
Both books right
One right, the other wrong
One wrong the other right
Both books wrong.
I don't want to get into arguments over religion; that's not what this is about - we all have different beliefs: some people justify their beliefs by calling them Religion, others don't. I don't.
And even within that limitation, I don't consider Islam to be a religion - it is a political ideology. People pay it far too much respect when they think of it as a religion. Yes, as a general rule I do think religions are deserving of respect, but only up to a point. Religions start losing respect when they get taken control of by men (and it usually is men) who then create a 'theology' whereby they can tell others what to think and how to behave in ways that those particular men like.
All the religions were created by men (and hence all the Gods) as explanations for a world they didn't understand.
And no, outside very limited boundaries, I don't have all that much faith in science either. I still haven't been able to work out the difference between "And the Lord said 'Let there be light' ", and "It started with a big bang". Which is the religion and which is the science?
So we know very little more now than we did thousands of years ago when the larger religions first started - we've just started to fill in a few details in one of the corners of the big picture (and we don't even know how big the picture is), that's all. But do we need to know it all? What for? Is it even possible to answer a "Why" question? Except, that is, with something that just leads to another "Why"? Maybe I'm just one of these unusual human beings who doesn't need to know. I was conceived, a bit of time is passing, I will die. After dying is death, which is only a mirror immage of before conception i.e. utter oblivion, so deep and abiding there wont even be anything there to know that I was once alive. I'm content with that. All I ask is that I be left alone to live my own life and think my own thoughts. All the religions are content (if not happy) to let me do this, so I have no objection to them - they haven't all always been like that, but rational people have successfully put them all in a cage now. However, Islam is different: it does want to tell me how to live my life and what thoughts I should think, so I will oppose it in whatever way necessary, and to the death if necessary; having to think the thoughts and live the life that someone else deems appropriate is no better than death anyway.
Much simplified - but I've read your words all over the world for the past 2-3 years, and you're certainly intelligent enough to appreciate what I'm saying, even if you don't agree. And as a Christian you'll be content to let me live my own life and have my own thoughts even though you might prefer they were different.
Reply to this
SHM
It is not a matter of science or Christianity. The two are inseparable, as science grew out of the Christian ethos. Our whole moral, legal and constitutional arrangements are from that faith. Divorcing them is akin to cutting the roots of a tree and hoping it to survive.
There is no question of you not living as you like and believing what you like - our civilisation, a product of Christianity gives freedom and free will. What I'm concerned about is that we are confronted by a religion, Islam, whose adherents are fervent believers, and most important are willing to happily die for Islam, as along as they can take Infidels with them.
Now if we examine the history of Europe when it was under continuous Islamic invasion for a thousand years, Europeans were unable to defeat the invasion till they were fortified by the native faith of Europe. The Reconquista, Vienna, Malta, are all examples that only strong faith can resist the enemy we are confronted by. Moreover, the enemy we are fighting has contempt for Unbelievers. They feel they are sure to win against us, we of no faith. Their morale is high because of that certainty. As a soldier you will no that morale is the key in any war.
In modern times, Israel and India are further examples. As long as Israel was fired by Zionism, they had no difficulty in resisting the Arabs. Over the last 20 years, Zionism has receded from public consciousness, ad well demonised by the Isreali liberals, and Israel, though militarily never as strong as now, does not have the will, or the wherewithal mentally to resist. India, that other country that has been on the receiving end of Islamic Jihad illustrates this yet again. Till some 10 years ago Hindus, aping the secular liberalism of the West, turned about tack, and reasserted their native faith, and in so doing, started to fight back vigorously against the Jihad.
SHM, don’t get me wrong here. I’m not advocating that you or anyone else must become Christian to turn back Islam. That will not work at all, for it will be for the wrong reason. All I’m pointing out is that Islam has been defeated only when confronted by a force that had stronger will and resolution. If you had the opportunity to see Dispatches last night, you will have seen that Christians are fighting back. They are fighting back, despite the open contempt of the liberal MSM, because they do not want to live under shari’a – and neither does anyone else, including the Atheists and others, but we are all cowed. These Christians are doing so openly, using their own names, and their faces on TV. If we criticise or even demean that very faith on which our salvation rests, then it will be a strategic blunder.
SHM, all this would never have arisen had it not been for the liberal political elite allowing millions of Muslims into the country. But they have. Islam is a virus infection – external injection of antibiotics will not do. Only the immune system of the body can defeat it.
Reply to this
DP, we don't differ much at all, not really in the fundamentals of this struggle. Do think you should give a little more credit to the pre-Christian Greeks and Romans though ...
One of my problems with Christianity in this struggle is that it is far too nice, too reasonable, to do the hard things necessary. It wasn't always that way, but it has become so. For that you'll need barbarians - civilised barbarians mind :) - like me, and in large numbers. Set a thief to catch a thief ... set a barbarian to defeat a barbarian. I think it's gone past the point where this can be sorted in any civilised manner. And as I was agreeing with someone the other day (Defender, I think), there is no longer a political solution. This conclusion has cast me into a really deep depression because I know what it means if it's correct. Personally.
You made me smile a couple of days back, though I said nothing - no, we can't love them into passivity. I agreed with Ma Eccles's response to that.
Tell you what though: your last paragraph above ... spot on. I was a part of that before I got this machine and access to real information, instead of the pap I'd spent decades consuming from the Guardian and the BBC. I knew at the time it didn't ring right, but having no other sources of info, I just couldn't pin it down. Wont happen again.
Reply to this
SHM
give a little more credit to the pre-Christian Greeks and Romans though ...
Indeed we should. The European story runs through the Greeks and Romans, and to us now. Science though is essentially a product of the Christian ethos.
One of my problems with Christianity in this struggle is that it is far too nice, too reasonable, to do the hard things necessary. It wasn't always that way, but it has become so.
I have to agree with you. But as you note, this was not so for more then a thousand years. It is only the recent past, just 30 years, that some aspects of the Bible are used by liberals to justify social policy. Two that come to mind immediately
1. The parable of the Good Samaritan
2. Turning the other cheek
For the first - the parable of the Good Samaritan was supposed to be a moral for the individual ie individual morality for the individual’s relation to God - it was never meant to be the basis of government policy for giving the country to foreigners - particularly hostile ones.
Second - turning the other cheek was a measure of defiance to superior power- Rome in this instance. However Christians were and are obliged to defend the weak and vulnerable. So it was that the various Knights of the Order defended Europeans -Christians and others from Islamic slaughter and the humiliation of dhimmitude. It is height of current arrogance to assume that only present day liberals and liberal Christianity have really understood Christianity, and that a thousand year of scholarship and philosophy is wrong, and those Knights were all so
But I see positive signs - Christians are once again standing up publicly - with no fear for their personal safety. They use their own names, are on TV, and stand up for Britain and the West. Have a look at Rev Alan Clifford's site.
Reply to this
SHM
contd..
Second - turning the other cheek was a measure of defiance to superior power- Rome in this instance. However Christians were and are obliged to defend the weak and vulnerable. So it was that the various Knights of the Order defended Europeans -Christians and others from Islamic slaughter and the humiliation of dhimmitude. It is height of current arrogance to assume that only present day liberals and liberal Christianity have really understood Christianity, and that a thousand year of scholarship and philosophy is wrong, and those Knights were all so misguided.
But I see positive signs - Christians are once again standing up publicly - with no fear for their personal safety. They use their own names, are on TV, and stand up for Britain and the West. Have a look at Rev Alan Clifford's site.
This conclusion has cast me into a really deep depression because I know what it means if it's correct. Personally.
SHM, I have warned of the threat that Islamic immigration poses the West for over thirty years. So I have reason to be even more depressed. For much of that time I was an athiest. Over that period I have tried to think of any strategy that would successfully defend our civilisation. Nothing. Nothing that could defeat the prevailing liberal orthodoxy of current day West - which is set on the road to capitulation to Islam.
So I looked back in history, and how it was that Europe turned back the tide of Islamic invasion. It was not the Hussars or their fine horses at Vienna, or swords, or fine boatmenship at Lepanto, or the will of Jean Vallette. It was steadfast resolution of a righteous faith in a righteous diety, which gave strength to our forbears. But for me to go down this path, would not just be dishonest, but it would not work. Even now my faith is lukewarm and questioning. But I know, though I do not have it now, that there are others who do. Thus for the moment, I’m relying on others to do what I do not have the fortitude to do myself.
Churchill as ever could see when others were blind
“A nation that forgets its past has no future”
And
“Religion has been the bedrock in the life of the British people, upon which they have built their hopes, and cast their cares”.
In times of trouble, and boy are we in trouble, that is worth remembering.
It is also worth remembering that the only organised, as well as intellectually coherent opposition that is available to us right now is the church- even though it is quiescent at the moment. I cant think of anything else, for as atomised individuals, with individual morality and ethics, we stand no chance against the united and collective power of Islam, the collective power of the liberal MSM and government, and Marxism.
And No, I don’t feel that depressed as I used to a few years back.
Reply to this
More reasons why Islam should never be regarded as one of the respcted religions of the world.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/03/INHA10C1TA.DTL
Reply to this
What Prime Minister Brown and the atheists cannot understand is that no mere moral code or words will change the nature of man....
To love one s neighbor is coupled/inter-wined with: to love God...and not just any God.
To reject Jesus is tantamount to rejecting the only way to fulfill it...
Reply to this
Hence when P.M. Brown speaks of a unity of mankind that was never available to us as it is now, because of the internet...he fails to understand that this man made unity (without Christ) will only make possible the greatest of evils that we have ever witnessed...Man shall truly be bound as never before...
Then perhaps, and only then will some understand the liberty in Christ...as opposed to the slavery brought upon us by man-made unity.
Reply to this
Its funny looking at the comment on the Golden Rule, I would think it is something that does bind us all, it is very important that Islam is the only world religion that does not have the Golden Rule.
As an agnostic or whatever I follow the golden rule.
Islam refuses to join the party, even the most die hard multiculturists must see that it takes two to tango. The man is bonkers.
Reply to this
Brown was right is some respects. The Internet and telephone has made the big world a smaller place in many ways that it was 60 years ago. I think that this is good, in that people can link to each other and exchange ideas and thoughts more or less with freedom - except in countries like Saudi Arabia and Burma (Mayanmar) where the Internet is horribly curtailed and regulated.
But if Brown thinks that his weak-minded blathering will change my attitude towards Muslims, he is dead wrong.
Islam is NOT a religion, so should not even be in a list that names the great religions of this world. And what the hell are the British school authorities doing by allowing Islam to be taught as part of Religious Education or studies in Schools? Islam is NOT a religion, it is a corrupt and dangerous ideology that tells it cult followers to beat women, molest child brides, hate and kill Jews and Christians, defile artworks and get irrationally angry if someone merely criticizes it! It just follows the insane ramblings of a bloody cheap camel driver of 1400 years ago who was also a foul, dirty child molester.
The Muslim is absolutely incapable of integration into any western society, because Islam forbids the acceptance of democracy and freedom. Democracy and freedom are hated and rejected by Muslims - they like to be completely under the authority of some stupid clerics and Immams and so on.
Brown, you and your bloody weak-minded and pathetic government have ruined England with your inane ranting about multiculturalism and accepting other religions. Sorry, but I will not accept anything to do with Islamism because it is dangerous to my health and dangerous to the world. Muslims are not my neighbours in any way - you forced them on us, Brown. May you and your stupid politicians rot in Hell for that. You fucking wanker.
Reply to this
I like Ataturk's description.
An absurd theology of an immoral bedouin, a rotting corpse that poisons us all. Read that on the Sheik's site, I think we need to spread that around.
Reply to this