Transcript of Civilization Jihad Awareness interview with Andrew Jones.
(My apologies to Andrew Jones. The previous transcript was poor. I learned a valuable lesson about checking how a transcriptionist does work now, this one used a computer program. I also am guilty of not reading it thoroughly. Again, my apologies to Andrew Jones.)
(My apologies to Andrew Jones. The previous transcript was poor. I learned a valuable lesson about checking how a transcriptionist does work now, this one used a computer program. I also am guilty of not reading it thoroughly. Again, my apologies to Andrew Jones.)
Andrew Jones is an academic and journalist living and working in
Europe. He has written for JihadWatch, Gatestone Institute and American Thinker.
Welcome to Civilization Jihad Awareness.
Hello Paul, thank you for having me.
Your article for Jihad Watch was "
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 UK . 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 the
problem of mass migration of Muslims which is also known as the hijra... how
bad it is in the Protestant Church .
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? UK
Well, mass immigration to the
UK began after the 1945 Labour government (the leftwing
party in )
passed what’s called the Nationalities Act in 1948. In this case, Commonwealth
subjects (so that’s people from the ex Empire) were granted residency status in
the Britain ,
although this policy was later modified in the 1960s. So although the issue is
debatable as the UK UK like is a
representative democracy, what I mean by "no democratic mandate" is
that this piece of very important legislation 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, a steady but digestible flow of immigration
continued into the America
and there were many positive contributions to British life from this. But,
began by Tony Blair, net migration tripled in 1998 and has continued at
historic highs to the present day. 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. UK
So that's 400,000 to 650,000 per year?
And 43% of that being Muslim immigration. So, what you have then is Blair's government 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 Neather, it was done to quote, “Rub the [political] Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.” So in other words, Blair was aiming to permanently transform the
through mass immigration, deliberately swinging demographics in the left's
favor as immigrants and immigrant descendant communities, they overwhelmingly
vote Labour like Democrat in the . 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 Labour's election manifestos. This
tremendous transformation of British culture has happened without anyone really
being asked. United States
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
of this mass
Well, I think a lot of people would agree in
that there were many positives to the pre-Blair era immigration. You know,
you're talking about a digestible level of diversity, as it were. But since the
Blair era, really the immigration has been too great an intensity for 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 Britain ,
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 for the political left mass
immigration provides them with new voters and it's ideologically
internationalist. So, it kind of breaks down the society they’re sort of
revolutionarily set against. And for the center-right, in America you call them
RINOs I believe, 'Republicans in name only'; right? America
For them flooding the labor market drives down labor costs and this, in a way, recreates the conditions of 19th-century capitalism, which were 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 capital's 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
population in a medium migration scenario, it's going to reach 16.7% by 2050
and that’s probably an underestimation. And UK
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 the 1990s 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. Oxford University
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.
I think it’s the vested interests in the country which have pushed it in that direction, and I believe you have similar patterns in the
Not this drastic yet. Thank God for that. Andrew, you have an astounding statistic of an increase of Muslims through mass migration in the
between 2001 and 2011; 75%. How are they integrating if at all, into English
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 immigration, 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 group for 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.
Yes, they are the Muslim Brotherhood, that's exactly right.
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
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, a kind of family. And that alienation is added
to by many of the more recent Muslim immigrants coming from highly “Shariaized”
countries like UK .
Pakistan, in the last 20-30 years, it's Islamized, whereas the first generation
of Muslim immigrants from Pakistan, they came from, 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 petro-dollars [oil money]. Pakistan
And we have a lot of problems with that here with the Saudis funding a whole bunch of areas and
funding things, especially
that have to do with education. Can you outline some of the specifics on this
lack of integration? Qatar
Okay, so the context in
the second and third generation, and the recent arrival Muslims, find
themselves in, is one where between half and two-thirds of British mosques
could reasonably be called extremist. You've 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 Britain are the same sect as the
Wow! 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 Engagement and Development and the various Islamic charities. There is no government oversight or regulation of mosques, mosque schools or Islamic centres. So on an institutional level, Islam in the
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. UK
Perhaps they won't admit to it because the rise of Islamic extremism and anti-integrationism is partly their fault. Successive governments have permitted uncontrolled mass immigration which leads to the phenomenon of large immigrant enclaves that make integration impossible. Successive governments have also failed to enforce the law with elements of the Muslim community, most glaringly and shamefully with the largely Muslim rape gang epidemic. And governments have also failed to aggressively pursue Jihadis living in the UK, on the understanding that these terrorists, they fight their Jihad abroad -- often in concert with British geopolitical interests, like you know, using jihadis to topple Gaddafi in Libya, for example. Now, a large part of this problematic appeasement is that all the major British political parties, they're different shades of liberal. It's the same liberal dish served with 3 slightly different sauces, 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 simply does not require integration of British Muslims, so why should they? Why should they integrate?
How is the
adapting to this influx, this
push of Muslims versus the Muslims adapting to their new homeland? UK
Okay, so the
adapting to Islam versus Islam adapting to . There is a tendency for
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 over-toleration. This is
what's driving the Islamization of Britain. So let’s think of a few examples.
Female Genital Mutilation [FGM] is a largely but not exclusively Muslim
practice. This has seen zero prosecutions since it was made illegal in UK Britain in 1985, with thousands of cases of
female genital mutilation every year in , as many as 1 a day, and
there have been no prosecutions since it was made illegal in 1985. Staggering! Britain
So, you also have Halal slaughtered meat having been bulk-bought by British schools and fed to unsuspecting non-Muslim children.
Jihadis returning to the
UK after fighting in Syria
-- they've been allowed back into the country and many of them roam free
without security service monitoring. Iraq
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
culture. And the argument I'm making is that appeasement, it is mutating into
collusion. Without wishing to be alarmist, due to the Britain UK's radically altering demographics and the
growing power of a Muslim voting bloc, politicians in ,
they're increasingly going along with the demands of Islamic activists. And the
wider British population faces losing control of its political fate in the
not-too-distant future. We're seeing the Labour Party directly collude with
extremist Muslim organizations, for example, Muslim Engagement and Development.
The Conservative Party is kind of ineffectively 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 Britain by doing
this is arguably adapting itself out of existence as a cultural entity with
this appeasement. It's a growing problem and it's going to come home to roost
at some point I think. UK
One of the things I noticed under President Obama's rule here in the
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 United
immigration policy changed too. Can you give examples to the listeners of how
that is happening in U.S. Europe?
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
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.
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
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 to ask the next question.
I was amazed that no one in the United States
government seems to be able to find a reason to shut the Muslim Council of Britain's
doors. When I read your reference to 2009 after former MCB Secretary General Daud
Abdullah signed the Istanbul Declaration which calls for violence against UK
Armed Forces. Would you please tell us about the Istanbul Declaration? UK
Okay, the Istanbul Declaration was a 2009 response by Muslim scholars and activists to the Israeli operation in
at the time;
Operation Cast Lead. British Naval Forces as allies of Gaza Israel participated in the sea blockade of Gaza, so stopping things going in and out of by sea route. This
declaration said that there was quote “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
continued, and Theresa May has now renewed and strengthened these ties. We can
see from this failed attempt by the British government to assert itself, and
the impulse to appease winning through, that a large, growing politicized UK
Muslim population is going to be influencing British foreign policy decisions
in the years ahead. And sadly, the Gaza UK
under the bus is something we're going to see a lot more of. Israel
Wow! Any time I see a country that goes against
I see its demise. But well, why has the Israel 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? UK
Well I mean, the returning Jihadis is a slightly separate issue to the Muslim Council of Britain.
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
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. UK
Since the Istanbul Declaration, the Muslim Council of Britain, they've toned down their rhetoric. They have presented themselves as moderates, and that's been part of it worming its way back into government circles. So, they now speak out against terrorism, but, 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 its 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 the Pakistani Christian, Asia Bibi, asylum; that was done because the public order implications of her coming to
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 utterly reprehensible. But this is
the situation that the British government faces. In a way, they're being hard-balled
into going along with this stuff because the possibility of serious trouble is
really quite significant. So if this is what the British government is up to, it'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. Britain
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, a non-Muslim government abiding by this covenant ultimately faces either conflict 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 effectively playing the British government along these lines, snaring it into collusion. But the basic British government 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.
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
. 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? UK
The Jenkin’s Report was done in 2014. It was ordered by David Cameron's government at the time, and is also known as the Muslim Brotherhood Review. Sir John Jenkins; he was the British ambassador to
and the Saudis are currently not keen on the Brotherhood. So make of that what
you will. The review was commissioned by Cameron to establish the precise
nature of the Muslim Brotherhood's subversive activities in the Saudi Arabia and how they
facilitate the growth of extremism and terrorism. So basically it was an
examination of what are these people are up to, what they are doing. And the
review; there's access to an abridged and censored version of the review
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 date back to the First World War and Lawrence
of Arabia, and obviously 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 its content.
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. UK
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.
It is possible that the British government may be seeing Trump as kind of an unfortunate blip, and they are continuing with effectively the Obama doctrine, which is to try to kind of shear-off the nonviolent extremists and get them on board, and separate out the violent extremists from the non-violent. And therefore trying to take the wind out of the sails of the violent extremists.
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.
Maybe they do see it and it's short-term political expediency. Because what you're talking about is the cosying-up of liberal governments to the non-violent extremists and kicking the can of the problem down the line, so it becomes appeasement.
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….
Thinking in terms of the election cycle.
Yes, that is the sad truth. You talk about crossing the line from appeasement to collusion; what do you mean by this?
What I mean is that doing as a bully 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 threat of violence coded into it; because if Muslims are the victims of discrimination and persecution, then, if pushed, they will be justified in using violence to counter their supposed oppression. So, something is being set up here 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; it diffuses a very uncomfortable confrontation in which the British government, or any government for that matter, would undoubtedly be cast as the persecutor 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. Doing as the bully says to appease, is a hair's breadth away from being on the bully's side, being his sidekick.
That's a bit abstract, so to give you a tangible example, the entire Western European political and media elites 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 caved-in to the Islamic injunction not to depict Muhammad. Of course they dressed-up this cowardice as tolerance, it was appeasement due to the threat of violence. But not depicting Muhammad is not simply appeasement. It’s simultaneously sharia-compliant. So the global liberal media was checkmated into colluding with the Islamization of the West, and politicians are falling into this same trap.
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
legislation. This is beyond my ability to comprehend; I don't get this. Can you
tell our listeners a little bit more about this? UK
Okay, I don't see the former archbishop as doing anything that’s any different from the rest of
'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 for 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 Britain,
is accommodating enough. As you point out though, these hopes ignore the facts,
and therefore seem to be rationalizations underpinned by fear and the fear may
well be that Islam won't integrate and that Britain , therefore, has an
insoluble problem on his hands. I can't believe that a highly intelligent man
like Rowan Williams doesn't see this. So his statement is perhaps a blend of
wishful thinking and psychological denial. Britain
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?
The Islamic Society of
kind of dress themselves up as progressive, but they are influenced by this
extremist strain within Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood people like Qutb. For
example, the ISB has a member who 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're playing. Britain
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 misapplied to justify appeasement, you know, turning the other cheek and so on. But to reiterate though, I see Archbishop Williams and Welby and almost the entire British political and media elite as being gripped by a combination of fear, denial and this liberal group-think. This generation of liberals has taken the
in a very 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 become the
great unmentionable in the UK
and perhaps for good reason. Because calling-out the lies that are being spun, this
may set in motion 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. UK
Can you elaborate on that?
Okay, just imagine this as a hypothetical scenario now. Imagine if the
government and the media; they one day suddenly stopped lying about the extent of
Islamic extremism in the .
They begin telling the truth about the Muslim Council of Britain, the other advocacy
groups and what's taught in a huge number of British 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 took a
gradual “salami slice,” or “toothpaste tube” approach, 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 (contrary
to human rights legislation) thousands of jihadists. So in the UK UK, there are 3,000 or so jihadists on the
immediate terror watch list…. and them being arrested, the government would
then have a situation where the further 20 to 30,0000 potential jihadis in the
UK (security services are aware 20-30,000 persons of interest out there,
potential jihadis) -- these people, with a crackdown being activated, they would
be radicalized by that. You add to that mix a combat-hardened core of a few
hundred Isis and Al-Nusra front fighters, they've returned undetected from Syria and . Then you've got up two-thirds
of mosques and madrassas, the mosques schools. They would be lined-up 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 would come into play and then violent resistance would be
justified; sooner or later, the call to jihad would rise up. Now, the doomsday
scenario would then be that foreign fighters travel to the Iraq to “defend
the 6 million [sic. 6%] Muslims.” Just as with any other conflict involving
Muslims since the Afghan war against the Soviets in the ‘80s. Internationally,
all Muslim nations would objects to this “persecution.” And the UK Gulf states of Saudi Arabia
and Qatar, they would use
the enormous economic and media leverage they have in the to force
submission. So the British government is in a tight spot and it would find out
just how tight a spot it is if they tried to push back against Islamic
extremism. It's so embedded 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. UK
Wow, that is as we say here in
“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 America UK
when the Church of England is an advocate for the enemies of the ? 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? UK
As things stand, if the
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, if the poisonous nettle of Islamic extremism is
grasped in the short-to-mid-term there is 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 the short-term
and the election cycle and to let "sleeping dogs lie." So the general
tendency is really to allow the problems to mount up for 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 my series of articles in
Jihad Watch. Limited opposition to this Islamization, 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 UKIP -- that's widely smeared as
supposedly "far-right" and there's this 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. UK