Paul Sutliff operates a podcast on BlogTalkRadio called Civilization Jihad Awareness. He
recently sent an email to highlight a podcast with Andrew Jones discussing
Islamization in ye old United Kingdom.
Here is an excerpt from the email alert sent:
… I have Andrew Jones, a European
academic who write for Jihad Watch, Gatestone Institute and American Thinker
talking about the Islamization of the UK. This is one show you do not want to
miss!! Civilization Jihad
Awareness with Paul Sutliff and Guest Andrew Jones
For those of us who like to embed audio or video, Paul
placed the podcast on his Youtube channel and blog which has a similar name as
the podcast: Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad.
Along with the video is the transcript of the interview.
Pay attention. If Dem Party Multiculturalists get their way,
the UK’s problems will be a forerunner to the USA’s problems.
JRH 12/21/18
So readers, I’ve been using a seven year old laptop to fulfill the
old blogging habit. My lovely wife sprang for an upgrade.
I’m a relatively small-time blogger but with a consistently
growing readership despite some token censorship from the
liberal-oriented blog and social platforms. Still looking to defray Christmas costs.
Whatever my readers can
chip in will be appreciated:
An Interview with Andrew Jones: A European Academic Talks
About Islamization of the UK
Posted by Paul Sutliff
December 20, 2018
[Posted by Paul Sutliff
Published on Dec 20, 2018]
Transcript of Civilization Jihad Awareness interview with
Andrew Jones.
Andrew Jones is an
academic and journalist living and working in Europe. He has
written for JihadWatch, Gatestone
Institute and American Thinker.
Paul Sutliff
Welcome to Civilization
Jihad Awareness.
Andrew Jones
Hello Paul, thank
you for having me.
Paul Sutliff
Your article for
Jihad Watch was "UK
from Appeasement to Collusion part 1, the Church of England."
I found it extremely important because the Church of England was one of the
foundations of the Protestant Church. Over here they call it the Episcopal
Church. I found it extremely important to think that this is happening in that
particular church. I want the world to hear about this. With a problem of mass
migration of Muslims which is also known as the hijra has come... how bad it is
in the UK. Your article talks about a massive push to transform the UK after
World War II. You mentioned that it never had a democratic mandate, what do you
mean by that?
Andrew Jones
Well, mass
immigration to the UK began after the 1945 later government leftwing party in
Britain. That’s what’s called the nationality right in 1948. In this case,
common wealth subjects, so that’s people who the respects as a British subject.
And they have done residency in the UK, although this policy was later modified
in the 1960s. So although the policy is debatable as the UK like America is a
representative democracy, what a mean by no Democratic mandate is that this
piece of very important legislation it wasn't mentioned in the Labour Party
manifesto for the 1945 election, so no one in the general population voted for
it. From 1948 onwards, steady but digestible flow of immigration continued into
the UK and there were many positive contributions to British life from this.
But it began by Tony Blair, net migration tripled in 1998 and has continued at
historic highs to the present date. So for example between 1998 and 2016,
immigration has been between 400,000 and 650,000 per annum [year] with 43% of
that being Muslim immigration.
Paul Sutliff
So that's 400,000 to
650,000 per year?
Andrew Jones
Correct.
Paul Sutliff
Wow!
Andrew Jones
And 43% of that
being Muslim immigration. So, what you have then is Blair's government's
effectively stopped enforcing immigration law and arguably thereby becoming a
criminal government. And the Conservative Party in subsequent governments,
they've just continued that. Now, there's a lot of speculation as to government
motives for opening the floodgates for immigration like this, but according to
Blair's aid; a guy called Andrew Leather, it was done to quote, “Rugby
Political Rights knows in diversity and render their arguments out of date.” So
in other words, Blair was aiming to permanently transform the UK through mass
immigration, deliberately swinging demographics in the left's favor as
immigrants and immigrant descendant communities, they overwhelmingly vote labor
like Democrats in the United States. So, being extra-legal, this opening of the
floodgates to mass immigration was again, it wasn't put to the British public
in any of labor's election manifestos. This tremendous transformation of
British culture has happened without anyone really being asked.
Paul Sutliff
It's interesting how
in different countries or on different continents, we're having the same issues
with leftists which are basically communists and how they're trying to destroy
our country's governments by mass migration. I'm amazed. So, what's been the
impact on the UK of this mass migration?
Andrew Jones
Well, I think a lot
of people would agree in Britain that there were many positives to the
pre-Blair era immigration you know, you're talking about as such a digestible
level of diversity as it were. But since the Blair era, really the immigration
has been too great an intensity to the British society to comfortably digest.
Now, even a guy called Trevor Phillips now admits this, and he was Blair's
Equality and Human Rights Commissioner. So, he was someone who was at the
center of the Labour Party's project to diversify Britain and even he has
admitted now it's gone horribly wrong. Now, on a macro scale as you say like in
America, the British and European political and business elites, it's evident
that they’ve developed a taste for mass immigration, an addiction even. This is
true across most of the political spectrum so that the political left is to say
mass immigration provides them with new voters and it's ideologically is
internationalist. So, it kind of breaks down the society, they’re sort of revolutionarily
kind of set against. And for the center-right in America, you call them RINOs I
believe, Republicans in name only; right?
Paul Sutliff
Yes, definitely.
Andrew Jones
Flooding the labor
markets drives down labor costs and this in a way recreates the conditions of
19th-century capitalism at which are heavily in the boss’s favor. So the left
and the center-right, they've aligned in what we now call globalism, and all of
these vested political and corporate interests, they want mass immigration
despite between 70-80% of public opinion across nations objecting to it, and
plainly put, this is an attack on democracy. So where the UK
now is with mass immigration, it's a state of affairs where the native British
are a minority in London; so 45% of the Capitals population is native British
and native Brits are also likely now to be a minority in Birmingham, the UK's
second city. In the foreseeable future, Pew Research predicts the UK's Muslim
population in a medium migration scenario, it's going to reach 16.7% by 2050
and that’s probably an underestimation. And Oxford University professor of
demography; a gentleman called David Coleman, he's calculated that nationally,
the native British population will be a minority by 2066. So what you've got
from this wave of mass immigration beginning after the war and then
accelerating in 1990 under Tony Blair, it's permanently transformed the UK, and
what we now have is a kind of new cultural order emerging; it's a phenomenal
transformation.
Paul Sutliff
Wow! I'm just kind
of ---I don't understand how a country can purposely move itself so much
towards destruction. These statistics are just mind-numbing.
Andrew Jones
I think it’s the
best of interest in the country which has pushed it in that direction, and I
believe you have similar patterns in the United States.
Paul Sutliff
Not this drastic
yet. Thank God for that. Andrew, you have an astounding statistic of an
increase of Muslims through mass migration in the UK between 2001 and 2011;
75%. How are they integrating if at all, into English society?
Andrew
Jones
Okay, lots of things
going on here. The increase is due to a combination of high birth rates and
mass immigration. So you have for example your typical middle-class British
couple; they'll be having you know one or two children at some point in their
30s. So that compares to an immigrant Muslim family, they will have maybe up to
five children by the time they’re 30. So it's a quick birth rate, and things
change quickly demographically, people don't really realize that they think it
changes slowly, but it actually changes within the space of a couple of
lifetimes. And maybe because of this combination of birth rates and mass
integration, the Muslim population now constitutes around 6% of Britain's total
population; 12% of London's population. This 75% increase statistic, is widely
recognized, but I drew [took] it from the Muslim Council of Britain websites;
the MCB they're called. Now, they're the supposedly moderate premier advocacy
groups of British Muslims. The MCB, it was set up by Pakistani Islamists from a
group called Jamaat-I-Islami, so essentially they are the Muslim Brotherhood.
Paul Sutliff
Yes, they are the
Muslim Brotherhood, that's exactly right.
Andrew Jones
Okay, so I would say
one has to be a little bit careful about using the word “they” you know when we
say “how are they integrating?” Because many British Muslims, they're well
integrated and they find the rise of extremism in their communities alarming.
There's a kind of almost like the silent moderate phenomenon, and it is
particularly the case I think with the older generation of Muslim immigrants,
many of whom came to the UK to participate in the British way of life. Now, the
younger generation, however, they do seem to be more at risk of falling prey to
extremism, and this is for a couple of reasons. There are the second and third
generation identity issues which go with not entirely belonging to the old
country, nor to the new country. So extremist ideology can move in on this
insecurity and provide a ready-made sense of belonging and purpose as a family.
And that alienation is added to by many of the more recent Muslim immigrants
coming from highly “Shariasized” countries like Pakistan. Pakistan in the last
20-30 years, it's Islamized, whereas the first generation of Muslim immigrants
from Pakistan, they came from the kind of like the afterglow of the British
Empire, so they had a dose of British culture in them before they arrived here,
that's not the case with the recent arrivals. And of course really as I'm sure
your listeners know, and you know the great background problem globally is the
rise of this purist extremist Islam which is funded by vast amounts of money
from the Gulf states; these petrol dollars [oil money].
Paul Sutliff
And we have a lot of
problems with that here with the Saudis funding a whole bunch of areas and
Qatar funding things, especially that have to do with education. Can you
outline some of the specifics on this lack of integration?
Andrew Jones
Okay, so the context
in Britain that the second and third generation and the recent arrivals with
Muslims finding something is one where between half and two-thirds of British
mosques could reasonably be called extremists. You got figures like 45% of
British mosques are Pakistani Deobandi sect. now, that's the same sect of Islam
followed by the Taliban. And I’ll just say that again, strap yourself in, but
just under half of the mosques in the UK are the same sect as the Taliban.
Paul Sutliff
Wow!
Andrew Jones
Those figures are
extraordinary. You add to that, all of the major Muslim advocacy groups, they
are extremist run or linked. So we're talking about the Muslim Council of
Britain, the Muslim Association of Britain, the Islamic Society of Britain,
Muslim engagements and development and the various Islamic charities. There is
no government oversight or regulation of mosques, mosque schools or Islamic
charities. So on an institutional level, Islam in the UK is predominantly anti
integrationist and extremist-leaning. This upcoming generation of British
Muslims, the people who are growing up now, they're being heavily influenced by
these organizations, so the problems are getting worse, and this is a problem
the British government simply will not openly admit to.
Perhaps they won't
admit to it because of the rise of Islamic extremism and anti-integrationism is
partly their fault. Successive governments have committed uncontrolled mass
immigration which leads to the phenomenon of large immigrant enclaves that makes
integration impossible. Recent governments, they've also failed to enforce the
law with elements of the Muslim community so most glaringly and shamefully with
the largely Muslim red gang epidemic. And government have also failed to
aggressively pursue Jihadist living in the UK on the understanding that these
terrorists, they fight back Jihad abroad and often in concert with British
geopolitical interests like you know, using jihadist to topple Gaddafi in Libya
for example. Now, a large part of this problematic appeasement is they’re all
the major British political parties, they're different shades of liberal. It's
the same liberal dish served with 3 slightly different sauces of appeasement.
If you see what I mean. So in many ways, this liberalism is the root problem
because the tendency of this liberalism is to tolerate and adapt “come-what-may,” and
this creates the circumstances for Islamic extremism to thrive. So liberal
tolerance which simply does not require integration of business Muslims, so why
should they? Why shouldn't they integrate?
Paul Sutliff
How is the UK
adapting to this influx, this push of Muslims versus the Muslims adapting to
their new homeland?
Andrew Jones
Okay, so the UK
adapting to Islam versus Islam adapting to Britain. There is a tendency for the
UK government not to require integration…. However, the UK is doing an awful
lot of adaptation to Islam, and there are numerous examples of this. They’re
pretty alarming, so this adaptation really is a sort of toleration. This is
what's driving nearly the Islamization of Britain. So let’s think of a few
examples. Female Genital Mutilation [FGM] is a largely but not exclusively a
Muslim practice.) This is wrong [upon women], and it's seeing zero prosecutions
since it was made illegal in Britain in 1985, with thousands of cases of female
genital mutilation every year in Britain, as many as 1 a day, and there have
been no prosecutions since it was made illegal in 1985. Staggering!
So you also have
Halal sort of meat has been bulk bought by British schools and fed to
unsuspecting non-Muslim children.
Jihadis returning to
the UK after fighting in Syria, Iraq they've been allowed back into the country
and many of them roam free without situational service monitoring.
Most importantly
though, and this is the subject of a series of articles I am writing for Jihad
Watch. All branches of the British states are being influenced by or
infiltrated by extremist Muslim advocacy groups. Again, the root of the problem
is the appeasing liberalism which dominates Britain's culture. And the argument
I'm making is that appeasement, it is mutating into collusion. Without wishing
to be alarmist due to the UK's radically altering demographics and the growing
power of a Muslim voting bloc, politicians in Britain, they're increasingly
going along with the demands of Islamic activists. And the wider British
population faces losing control of its political faith in the not-too-distant
future. We're seeing the Labour Party directly cleared with the extremist Muslim
organization, for example, Muslim engagement. The Conservative Party is kind of
in effectively playing catch-up. For example, by appointing a well-integrated
Pakistani heritage Muslim Home Secretary; Sajid Javid, who in many ways he
seems a good thing. But they're chasing something, they're chasing this rising
voting block. Now, in the medium to long term, the UK by doing this is arguably
adapting itself out of existence to the cultural entity and with this
appeasement. It's a growing problem and it's going to come home to roost at
some point I think.
Paul Sutliff
One of the things I
noticed under President Obama's rule here in the United States was a change in
immigration policy. Until Obama, we had a requirement you had to assimilate
into society. And you're using terms like integrate and adapt which is what the
U.S. immigration policy changed too. Can you give examples to the listeners of
how that is happening in Europe?
Andrew Jones
It's not being
pushed that hard. I mean recently in Britain, there was a government drive to
promote what's called fundamental British values which are fundamentally
liberal values and central to this was values like toleration and diversity
which of course they are sort of shall we say adaptive, they're accommodating
and accepting, and there doesn't really seem to be all that much assertion. You
know, you can't get much less assertive than not prosecuting for Female Genital
Mutilation. So there you have a tangible instance of the almost complete lack
of requirement to integrate. And so it's a very reasonable perception, that
Europe is kind of bending over backwards and not asserting anything of
traditional European values or even traditional liberal values. Liberalism has
you know…. Karl Popper pointed out, (the philosopher), that Liberalism is now
sort of tolerating intolerance and it's being destroyed in the process.
Paul Sutliff
Wow! I think it's
fascinating. You’re using the term FGM when we're talking about this because we
had a case in the United States recently where a judge decided that our law
against Female Genital Mutilation is unconstitutional. It's also interesting,
that ties together with the Pakistani mosque, because the persons who were
doing this, the persons who got caught were the Pakistani sect that you're
talking about. And I find that kind of blends together also. But I probably
should go on ask the next question. I was amazed that no one in the UK
government seems to be able to find a reason to shut the Muslim Council of
prison Britain's doors. When I read your reference to 2009 after former MCB
Secretary General Dowd Abdullah assigned the Istanbul Declaration which calls
for violence against UK Armed Forces. Would you please tell us about the
Istanbul Declaration?
Andrew Jones
Okay, the Istanbul
Declaration was a 2009 response by Muslim scholars and activists to the Israeli
operation in Gaza at the time; Operation Cast Lead. British Naval Forces and
allies of Israel participated in the sea blockade of Gaza, so stopping things
going in and out of Gaza by sea route. This declaration said that there was
quite “an obligation of the Islamic nation (the umma) to regard the
sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters as a declaration of war;
a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty
of the Muslim Nation (the umma). This must be rejected and fought
by all means and ways.” That's pretty clear. So as a result of this threat of
violence, Gordon Brown's government officially severed ties with the Muslim
Council of Britain. But, the ties unofficially continue, and Theresa May has
now renewed and strengthened these ties. We can see from this past attempts by
the British government to assert itself, and the impulse to appease winning
though, that a large growing politicized UK Muslim population is going to be
influencing British foreign policy decisions in the years ahead. And sadly, the
UK throwing Israel under the bus is something we're going to see a lot more of.
Paul Sutliff
Wow! Any time I see
a country that goes against Israel, I see its demise. But well, why has the UK
government welcomed back these obvious extremists? I'm amazed that I mean,
you're hearing about all the Jihadis returning. Why are they welcoming them
back?
Andrew Jones
Well I mean, the
returning Jihadis is a slightly separate issue to the Muslim Council of
Britain.
Paul Sutliff
I am sorry I mean
welcoming back these extremists. Why would they welcome back the Muslim
Brotherhood council into…? And I see it happened here under Obama, but you had
a definite declaration of war against the UK which is kind of worse than we
have. We have the Explanatory Memorandum which basically is a declaration of
war, but for some reason, our representatives can’t see it.
Andrew Jones
Since the Istanbul
Declaration, the Muslim Council of Britain, they've turned down their rhetoric.
They have presented themselves with moderates, and that's been part of its kind
of worming its way back into government circles. So, they speak out against
terrorism and of course, they consider the terrorism of Hamas as a legitimate
resistance struggle. Now, that change of tone using, for instance, the moderate
kind of mood music of interfaith dialogue and so on, that's sweet music to the
ears of the British government. The British government sees the Muslim Council
as vital to have on board in his attempt to influence the Muslim community and
to tamp down the potential for terrorism. So roughly speaking, the British
government approach. It may well be something along the lines of, let the
cultural Jihadists get what they want so the violent Jihadists won’t have a
reason to attack us. As in the instance of refusing to grant a Pakistani
Christian as Asia Bibi, asylum, that was done because the public order
implications of her coming to Britain would have been significant. A large
number of politicized British Muslims would have been out on the streets, and
the government really doesn't want that. So they didn't grant her asylum. Which
was morally and utterly reprehensible. But this is the situation that the
British government faces. In a way, they're being hobbled into going along with
this stuff because implications of serious trouble are really quite
significant. So if this is what the British government is up to, that's in line
with this Salafist idea of the aqd Aman, and this is what's known
as a “covenant of security.” So this is an Islamic extremist principle of not
attacking non-Muslim countries which provide Muslims with security. Now, that
may well be the loophole that the British government is trying to kind of
wriggle through, but it's a snare. It’s a snare which will tighten because it
entails creeping Islamization.
Then you know,
further down the line there's the endgame of the Islamists. So given that the
Muslim Brotherhood strategy is to infiltrate and embed itself in a non-Muslim
society, slowly gain strength then finally use violence when necessary, and
non-Muslim government abiding by this covenant ultimately faces either
conflicts or total submission; there's no positive outcome. So the Muslim
Council of Britain which has well documented Brotherhood links, it seems to be
very effective playing the British government along these lines, snaring it
into collusion. But the basic British government's objective is to try to in
some way defuse the situation. And as part of this attempt to defuse the
situation. They are trying to get the Muslim Council of Britain on board, but
that's a dangerous game to be playing.
Paul Sutliff
Wow! it's definitely
a dangerous game. What you're talking about, it seems not so far in the future
here -- which is scary. This is the stuff I've been writing about and warning
about, but it's scary to think that some of this stuff is already that far
ahead in the UK. You talk about your government knowing it is dealing with the
Muslim Brotherhood; in fact, you state that Prime Minister Theresa May knows
exactly who she's dealing with because of the Jenkins report. Could you share
with the listeners what this is?
Andrew Jones
The Jenkin’s Report
was done in 2014. It was ordered by David Cameron's government at the time,
which is of course also known as the Muslim Brotherhood review. So John
Jenkins; he was the British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis are
currently not keen on the Brotherhood. So maybe that won’t be worse. The review
was commissioned by Cameron to establish the precise nature of the Muslim
Brotherhood subversive activities in the UK and how they facilitate the growth
of extremism and terrorism. So basically it was an examination of what are
these people up to, what are they doing? And the review; there's access to an abridged
and censored version of the reviews available online. But the review was and it
remains largely censored, and it was countered by another branch of the British
government; the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. And they wanted a more
favorable view of the Brotherhood. Now, we can only speculate as to why that
might have been, but the Foreign Office has Arabist leanings which dates back
to the first world war and Lawrence of Arabia, and obviously that the British
government has a lot of dealings with the Gulf states. So who knows what's
really going on behind the scenes, but something definitely went on. Now,
Theresa May was Home Secretary at the time of the review, therefore she would
have had access to it, she knows contents. And that means that she knows the
true nature of Islamic activism in the UK, but she has strengthened and
deepened ties with the Muslim Council nonetheless. Make of that what you will.
Paul Sutliff
And that is
surprising. Here, the biggest issue we deal with is a group called CAIR, and
for a while, they were banned, but now I mean they’ve really strengthened their
ties, they solidified everything back with the federal government under Obama,
but things are bad.
Andrew Jones
It is possible that
the British government maybe seeing Trump as a kind of an unfortunate blip, and
they are continuing with effectively the Obama doctrine which is to try to kind
of share of the nonviolent extremists and get them on board, and separate out
the violent extremists from the non-violent. And therefore and trying to take
the wind out of the sails of the violent extremists.
Paul Sutliff
It gives them both
what they want which is Islamization. That's the sad part of it that they both
want the same thing; they both want to transform the country into a Muslim
country. Whether it's here or there, they have the same goals -- the violent
and the nonviolent, and that's the sad thing they don't see it. Andrew, you
called it.
Andrew Jones
Maybe they do see it
and its short-term political expediency. Because what you're talking about is
the closing up of liberal governments to the non-violent extremists in the kind
of, it is kicking the can of the problem down the line, so it becomes
appeasement.
Paul Sutliff
That's a good way to
put it, because politicians, they basically only think of the immediate future,
they don't think long-term because they think about what effects their vote
towards re-election….
Andrew Jones
I think it’s the
election cycle.
Paul Sutliff
Yes, that is the sad
truth. You talk about crossing the line from appeasement to collusion; what do
you mean by this?
Andrew Jones
What I mean is that
at certain points, during what the police says, in other words, appeasement, it
can mutate into becoming basically the bully's sidekick which is collusion.
Now, the situation
the British government faces is that Islamic activists have promulgated this
victim narrative among British Muslims you know, the specter of so-called
Islamophobia. This victim narrative, it has the threatened violence coded into
it, because Muslims are the victims; that discrimination and persecution, then
if pushed they will be justified in using violence to counter their supposed
depression. So something is being set up there to be activated as and when
needed.
Now, it's not easy,
especially for the overly tolerant Western liberal to make a stand against the
bully who's pretending to be a victim. So the easy path is to give the Islamic
activists what they want, and that is appeasement; diffuses a very
uncomfortable confrontation in which the British government or any government
for that matter would undoubtedly be cast as the prosecutor of Muslims, and the
mainstream media would pile in on that. Now, that short-term pseudo-solution of
appeasement. It of course, sets up bigger long-term problems. And one long-term
problem is that if unchecked, appeasement becomes collusion. Dealing if the
bully says to appease, is a hair's breadth away from being on the police side, being
a sidekick.
As a bit of an
abstract, so to give you a tangible example, the entire Western European
political and media leads are currently crossing that line, and the Charlie
Hebdo massacre was perhaps the point at which that began. After that attack,
the global liberal media collectively came into the Islamic injunction not to
depict Muhammad. Look what they dressed up this cowardice and tolerance, a lot
of appeasement due to the threats of violence. But not depicting Muhammad is
not simply appeasement. It’s simultaneously sharia-compliant. So the global
liberal media with checkmated into colluding with the Islamization of the west,
and politicians are falling into this same trap.
Paul Sutliff
Well, the first
thing that shocked me in your article Andrew on the Church of England was this
willingness of an archbishop which is the head of the Church of England
underneath the Queen, to enter into interfaith discussions with Jihadi type
Muslims; you call them the extremists. What made me stop and take notice was
your statement a former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams advocated
the absorption of aspects of Sharia law into the UK legislation. This is beyond
my ability to comprehend; I don't get this. Can you tell our listeners a little
bit more about this?
Andrew Jones
Okay, I don't see
the former archbishop as doing anything that’s any different from the rest of
Britain's liberal elite. He seems to be sticking his head in the sand along
with the rest of them. I mean, he might hope that as fellow theists in the
Abrahamic tradition, Muslims might get on board and integrate if their
religious needs are catered for. For instance, by the official sanctioning of
Sharia Courts or intra-communal Muslim issues like divorce and so on. And he
might also hope that the most moderate version of Islam is going to eventually
prevail in Britain and if Britain is accommodating enough. As you point out
though, these hopes though, ignore the facts, and therefore seem to be
nationalizations underpinned by fear and the fear may well be that Islam
wouldn’t do that and that Britain, therefore, has an insoluble problem on his
hands. I can't believe that a highly intelligent man like Roy Williams doesn't
see this. So his statement is perhaps a blend of wishful thinking and
psychological denial.
Paul Sutliff
I was also shocked
by Archbishop Williams’ willingness to somehow remain ignorant. Like you're
saying, it might be denial but he's excusing willful connections of the ISB to
terrorists influencers. Influencers such as Sayid Qutb, what do you think of
this type of collusion with an enemy organization by a leader of the Church of
England? Does it say to you and others that the head of the C of E is not a
Christian?
Andrew Jones
The Islamic Society
of Britain and they kind of dress themselves up as progressive, but they are
influenced by this extremist strain within Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood
people like Qutb and for example the ISB; as a member of the Islamic society in
Britain. It has a relationship counseling service. But when you look closely,
the relationship counseling service is really a kind of rebranded Sharia Court.
That's the game that they are playing. Now, I don't see it as my place to
comment on the quality of an individual's Christian faith. However, I can see
that Christian teachings could be mistakenly miss applied to justify
appeasement you know turning the other cheek so on. But to reiterate though, I
see Archbishop Williams and will be and almost the entire Britain principle and
media elite and being gripped by a combination of fear, denial and this is
liberal grid thing. This generation of liberals has taken the UK in a fairly
dangerous direction and they now appear to be paddling hard to pretend the dangers
aren't there. Now due to this downward pressure coming from the elite. Islam
has been great unmentionable in the UK and perhaps for a good reason. Because
holing out the lies that are being spun. This month said emotion is something
catastrophic you know, public order problems, and it's no understatement to
suggest that the possibility of serious civil unrest is at the forefront of the
government's considerations. They're trying to avoid that I think at all costs
really.
Paul Sutliff
Can you elaborate on
that?
Andrew Jones
Okay, just imagine
this is a hypothetical scenario now. Imagine if the UK government and the
media; they one day you suddenly stop lying about the extent to many
conspirators in the UK. They begin telling the truth about the Muslim Council
of Britain, the other advocacy groups and when he talks in a huge number of
business mosques. I mean really go to town on that and then make moves to
counter it. So this is our hypothetical scenario. All of a sudden, that
happens. Now, even if the government of a gradual “salami slice,” or
“toothpaste” achieve approach and a slowly cutting away or squeezing out the
extremists. The government would set up for themselves the following. They
would have to arrest and probably intern without trial. They took in human
rights legislation there. That's thousands of jihadists. So in the
UK, there are 3,000 or so jihadists on the immediate terror watch list…. and
then being arrested, the government would then have a situation where the
further 20 to 30,0000 potential jihadis in the UK which security services are
aware 20-30,000 persons of interest out there, potential jihadis. These people
with a crackdown being activated; they will be radicalized by that. They would
kind of start to begin an interaction as it were. You
add to that mix a combat-hardened call or a few hundred Isis and Al-Nusra front
fighters, they've returned under tension in Syria in Iraq. Then you've got up
two-thirds of mosques and madrassas and mosques schools. They would be aligned
for closure with many extremist Imams needing to be deported. So you know human
rights legislation would be shredded in this kind of scenario. And all of that
simply could not be done within the existing liberal paradigm. In this
hypothetical crackdown as the government moves against extremists, the victim
narrative that the Muslim activists have been cultivating in Muslim communities
for years. That will be on top and then violent resistance would then be
justified and sooner or later, the call to jihad would rise up. Now the
doomsday scenario will then be that all responses travel to the UK to “defend
the 6 million Muslims.” Just as with any other conflict involving Muslims since
the Afghan war against Soviet in the ‘80s. Internationally, all Muslim nations
were objects to this “persecution.” In the Gulf states of Saudi Arabia and
Qatar, they would use the enormous economic and media leverage they have in the
UK to force submission. So the British government is in a tight spot and it
would find out just how tight a spot is. Again, they tried to push back against
Islamic extremism. It's so depleted now. There are so many potential jihadists
in the country 20-30,000 that the government if they try and do something about
it, they would find themselves in a very difficult situation.
Paul Sutliff
Wow, that is as we
say here in America, “putting yourself between a rock and a hard place.” It's
still putting off till tomorrow what we have to deal with today, but that's a
tough situation. What do you think the implications are for the UK when the
Church of England is an advocate for the enemies of the UK? It even goes so far
as to hide the enemy status according to your article. Does the UK have a
chance to survive if this continues?
Andrew Jones
As things stand, if
the UK continues on its present course of appeasement, it’s long-term future
seems likely to be or will be very bleak indeed. Culturally and politically, it
will be a slow death. As I just outlined though, the poisonous metal of Islamic
extremism is grasped in the short-mid-term known as the potential for this
doomsday scenario. So frankly the British government is over a barrel either
way and then like I said earlier, the tendency of politicians is to focus on
short-term and the election cycle and to not let "sleeping dogs lie."
So the general tendency is really to allow the problems to mount up to the
long-term and that's going to be bleak. Where the UK is now advocating for the
enemy as you say in the guise of liberal tolerance, this is near ubiquitous
across British public life and that's really the theme of the series of
articles on Jihad Watch. Limited opposition to this normalization, this
appeasement moving into collusion. The limited opposition that there is from
activists or from the non-mainstream political parties, the fringe parties like
the United Kingdom Independence Party known as UK. That's widely smeared but
supposedly far-right and there's the strange almost totalitarian atmosphere in
Britain where people implicitly understand that they should not talk about
Islam. Don't go there. Don't talk about it. Don't mention it. Now that unspoken
is a vacuum and the Islamic extremists are drawn into that vacuum. They depend
upon it and they capitalize on it. They have in a sense created a “no
go zone” in the minds of Western liberals. And from there, they will
continue to push out and take more ground.
___________________
BA Religion and Philosophy from
Roberts Wesleyan College, MSED from Nazareth College of Rochester, and a
Graduate Certificate in Intelligence Analysis from Henley-Putnam School of
Strategic Security at North American University.
No comments:
Post a Comment