Kitman TV presents: an Interview With Jared Taylor
Jared Taylor on Paula Zahn Show
My foreign land
Andrew Bolt picks up on a vicar’s wife report on her stay in a Muslim land:
I have just returned to London, where I have lived since I was 11. I have been away for four years, living as an ethnic minority in a monocultural part of the world, amassing a host of stories to tell to disbelieving friends. On the whole, I am glad to return. I shan’t miss some locals’ assumptions that, being a white woman, if I was outside after dark, as I occasionally was, usually to walk the few metres between my house and the church, I must be a prostitute eager to give them a blow job. I shan’t miss the abuse my priest husband received: the daubing of “Dirty white dogs” in red paint on the church door, the barrage of stones thrown at him by children shouting “Satan”. He was called a “f***ing white bastard” more than once, though, notably, never when in a cassock. I will also not miss the way our garden acted as the local rubbish dump, with items ranging from duvets and TV sets, to rats (dead or twitching) glued to cardboard strips, a popular local method of vermin control to stem the large numbers of them which scuttled between the rubbish piled in gardens and on pavements. Yes, I am very glad to have left Britain’s second city.
For four years, we lived in inner-city Birmingham, in what has been a police no-go area for 20 years. We know that because some plain-clothed cops told us when they asked to use our vicarage as a stake-out to bust drugs rings that pervade the area. Having heard a parishioner’s tales of what his neighbours did to him when he was wrongfully suspected of having grassed up a cock-fighting ring, we refused, explaining that we had to live here, they didn’t. Even during this time we saw the area change. When we arrived, the population was predominantly Pakistani. Now Somalis are there in equal number. Most of the run-down Irish pubs were turned into mosques during our time.
Read on to see the unfixable damage wreaked by one of the most reckless social experiments visited on Britain – one the almost no one in journalism or academia dared to even protest.
FOR WHAT IS BEING brought home to us, through painful experiences that we might have avoided had it been permitted before now to say the truth, is that we, like everyone else, depend upon a shared culture for our security, our prosperity and our freedom to be. We don’t require everyone to have the same faith, to lead the same kind of family life, or to participate in the same festivals. But we have a shared moral and legal inheritance, a shared language, and a shared public sphere. Our societies are built upon the Judeo-Christian ideal of neighbor-love, according to which strangers and intimates deserve equal concern. They require each of us to respect the freedom and sovereignty of every other, and to acknowledge the threshold of privacy beyond which it is a trespass to go unless invited. Our societies depend upon a culture of law-abidingness and open contracts, and they reinforce these things through the educational traditions that have shaped our common curriculum. It is not an arbitrary cultural imperialism that leads us to value Greek philosophy and literature, the Hebrew Bible, Roman law, and the medieval epics and romances, and to teach these things in our schools. They are ours, in just the way that the legal order and the political institutions are ours: they form part of what made us, and convey the message that it is right to be what we are…
So what happens when people whose identity is fixed by creed or kinship immigrate into places settled by Western culture? The multiculturalists say that we must make room for them, and that we do this by relinquishing the space in which their culture can flourish. Our political class has at last recognized that this is a recipe for disaster, and that we can welcome immigrants only if we welcome them into our culture, and not beside and against it. But that means telling them to accept rules, customs, and procedures that may be alien to their old way of life. Is this an injustice? Surely not. If immigrants come it is because they gain by doing so. It is therefore reasonable to remind them that there is also a cost. Only now, however, is our political class prepared to say so, and to insist that the cost be paid. And it may be that this change of heart comes too late.
In France, speaking freely on such matters can still lead to punishment by the nervous and over-mighty state:
A French court on Friday convicted the prominent commentator Ã‰ric Zemmour on charges of “provocation to racial discrimination” for televised comments in which he suggested that a majority of criminals in France were “black and Arab,” and said that employers “have the right” to deny employment to those ethnic groups.Â Mr. Zemmour was ordered to pay over $14,000 in legal fees and damages to the five rights groups that were the plaintiffs in the case, and also received suspended fines totaling $2,700.
Is it illegal, then, to point out other hard truths – such as the evidence that Arab culture seems not conducive to the democracy the West takes for granted?
No Arab country has ever produced a democracy, or at least a lasting democracy; none of the 22 member states of the Arab League are classified as “free”, and all do badly on press freedom and other indicators. In fact, there is only Arabic-speaking country in the world where elections are free, the press is free, and Arab citizens are free, and that’s Israel. So to believe that Arab states cannot “do democracy” is not a judgment based “without knowledge or examination of the facts”, but the opposite.
Neither is it racist to acknowledge that there are clear differences between Arab and European nations that make the former barren ground for democracy. And the major difference is that Arab countries are not “nations” as we understand it.
Writing in theÂ Telegraph, the Islam-friendlyÂ Daniel Knowles takes issue with an article by an anonymous vicar’s wife that appears in the current issue ofÂ Standpoint magazine, and was seized on by Torygraph bloggerÂ Ed West to bolster the myth of Muslim ghettos.
The Telegraph introduces Daniel Knowles as “a young journalist specialising in economics.”
Daniel Knowles is not some sort of journalistic moonbat, he is just unable to connect the dots. Unfortunately for him, Â commenters don’t buy his drivel:
Sparkbrook is not a wonderful place. It is a deprived inner-city area where the only attraction is the curry houses. It is not, however, the post-apocalyptic abandoned…Â Read More
Muslim Poverty Explained
Robert Spencer nails it with the example of Thailand’s ‘Restive’ South:
The intrepid mujahedin, gunning down teachers and forcing school closures in the entire province. Later on, they, along with analysts in the West, will complain about the region being poor and underdeveloped, and say it causes jihad. But this is a classic example of jihad causing poverty, and obliterating the means of improving one’s lot in life.