Britain over the edge
of London, the “conservative” journalist Boris Johnson, has called on Londoners to observe Ramadan fasting and break the fast at a mosque. Why doesn’t he just tell them to convert to Islam?
The article in the Mail makes plain Britain’s collective psychopathy and doesn’t need my commentary, except for this. Boris Johnson says:
Whether it’s in theatre, comedy, sports, music or politics, Muslims are challenging the traditional stereotypes and showing that they are, and want to be, a part of the mainstream community.
In reality, since a culture, any culture, largely consists
of stereotypes,—that is, of commonly recognized norms, models, ways of being, and ideas of what is acceptable and what isn’t—if Muslims are “challenging traditional stereotypes,” that means that they are challenging the mainstream culture and are seeking to undermine it, not that they are seeking to be a part of it. I would have expected this sort of blatant multicultural doublespeak—“Muslims are challenging the traditional stereotypes and showing that they are, and want to be, a part of the mainstream community,” “We want to destroy you, and we want to be a part of you”—from a professional ethnic spokesman or multiculturalist, or from the “Conservative” Party leader David Cameron. While I knew that Johnson was not a real conservative, I didn’t think he was as far out as this.
But isn’t that, after all, the whole point of the traditionalist critique of liberalism? As I have said over and over, if a person living in modern liberal society does not have consciously held anti-liberal principles, he will inevitably keep moving to the left.
Boris Johnson calls for a day of fasting to ‘help understand Muslims’
—end of initial entry—
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 4:10 PM on 04th September 2009
London Mayor Boris Johnson today encouraged people to undergo a day of fasting to help them gain a better understanding of their ‘Muslim neighbour’.
Speaking during a visit to the East London Mosque and London Muslim Centre he said Muslims in the capital were ‘challenging traditional stereotypes’ to show they wanted to be part of the mainstream.
Mr Johnson’s visit coincided with the holy period of Ramadan in which participating Muslims fast from dawn until sunset.
He said: ‘Whether it’s in theatre, comedy, sports, music or politics, Muslims are challenging the traditional stereotypes and showing that they are, and want to be, a part of the mainstream community.
‘That’s why I urge people, particularly during Ramadan, to find out more about Islam, increase your understanding and learning, even fast for a day with your Muslim neighbour and break your fast at the local mosque.
‘I would be very surprised if you didn’t find that you share more in common than you thought.’
He added: ‘Muslims are at the heart of every aspect of society. Their contribution is something that all Londoners benefit from.
‘Muslim police officers, doctors, scientists and teachers are an essential part of the fabric of London.
‘Islamic finance is contributing to the economy by changing the way Londoners invest, save, borrow and spend.
‘There are valuable lessons that people of all backgrounds can learn from Islam such as the importance of community spirit, family ties, compassion and helping those less fortunate, all of which lie at the heart of the teachings of Ramadan.’
Earlier in the day Mr Johnson got into a spot of bother after calling a radio DJ ‘a great big blubbering jelly of indecision’.
He was being interviewed by Nick Ferrari on London radio station LBC 97.3 over the ongoing row over who runs the Met.
One of his deputies had told The Guardian that the Conservatives in the capital now had their ‘hands on the tiller’ of Britain’s biggest force.
The mayor insisted the quotes had been over-hyped but following repeated questioning from Mr Ferrari about whether he had ‘admonished’ the deputy in question Mr Johnson blurted out his remark.
Mr Johnson had earlier told the programme: ‘Sir Paul Stephenson, as everybody knows is in full operational control of the Met and has been ever since his appointment and does a first class job.’
[end of article]
Philip M., who sent the article, writes:
London mayor wants us all to fast during Ramadan
Well, he would, wouldn’t he? Cue lots of people adding comments to the Daily Mail website complaining that it is political correctness gone mad, that the Tories are stupid, that the country is barmy, that they are at the end of their tether. Then off to watch a few hours of mind-numbing television, go to bed, and repeat the exercize with tomorrow’s dhimmi-of-the-day story until, oh…about 2030 when everyone starts realising they should have been doing something more constructive than moaning. Do we have any hope? Probably not. Nor do we deserve any better than what’s coming to us.
I feel bad for your country. It may be the first major nation in world history to go stark raving mad before the eyes of the world.
(What about Nazi Germany, people will say. But in the 1930s, Nazi Germany was gaining in strength and confidence. It wasn’t disintegrating.)
This won’t last, madness like this shows that the liberalism is breaking down.
Just like Enoch Powell quoted in his famous speech, “He whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad”.
It won’t last forever. But it doesn’t need to last forever. Just long enough to finish us off with no hope of return. Then the Muslims get the corpse. Still, now they can all join the BNP, maybe they will share it with us. Islamo/Neo Fascists together in one big family.
Philip M. writes:
“While I knew that Johnson was not a real conservative, I didn’t think he was as far out as this. ”
Don’t doubt it for a minute. I watched a history documentary written and presented by Boris Johnson, about the history of Islam in Europe. It has to be seen to be believed. All acts of Muslim aggression were explained away, all acts of European self-defence were dismissed as Islamophobia and narrow-mindedness. One King, I cannot remember who, was given a choice by his new Muslim master, to convert or die. Johnson ridiculed his decision to die—something I saw as a noble act—as the attitude of someone lacking in common sense. The Islamic demand was presented as being a reasonable request. The programme was such an unbelievable piece of one-sided ahistorical dhimmitude that I could barely believe what I was seeing—and that is saying something, seeing as it was on the BBC. The programme was on a little before the London elections. I guessed he was chasing Muslim votes, and I guess he still is.
So—this is London’s replacement for Ken the Commie.
Earlier I criticized Johnson’s approval of Muslims for challenging British stereotypes.
The person who has thought most deeply about the issue of “stereotypes” from a non-liberal perspective is Jim Kalb. Below is a brief comment by him, from his Inclusiveness FAQs page. Here are further search results for “stereotypes” at his website. He has an article on ths subject, but I don’t see it at the moment. :
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 09, 2009 08:26 PM | Send
Isn’t discrimination based on overbroad stereotypes that it would be more intelligent to reject?
It is nondiscrimination that insists on the broadest stereotypes. Stereotypes are simply social expectations based on an understanding of what people are like and how the world should be. The stereotype for “good American,” for example, is someone who works for a living, votes, obeys the law, wants to better himself and provide for his family, believes in education, and so on. American law and public policy accept that stereotype and expect us to follow it. They wouldn’t have worked for 7th century B.C. Assyrians.
The nondiscrimination principle is the principle that the same expectations, and thus the same stereotype, should apply to everyone. It thus demands that the treatment of persons be based on the broadest and least illuminating stereotype possible. Thinking is impossible without the use of stereotypes or categories, and one might reasonably ask whether it is really more intelligent to have only the category “human being” than (for example) to supplement it with separate categories for “man” and “woman.” Our society has officially demands the former, but it’s hard to make the decision stick in practice and its justification isn’t clear. It appears rather that requiring us all to ignore pervasive differences that on some level we can’t help but recognize is a recipe for irrationality.