Islam: A Higher Religion?

 Is Islam one of the higher religions?  Perhaps it is but it manifests as one that is totalising, that cannot share space with any other in its ideal form.  The tenets declare they must control all the organs of life and government.  There is nothing that is outside its writ.  Obviously this makes it very difficult for any society that has a mixture of religious affiliation.  

Their view of Western women is that they are fair game and no better than prostitutes.  Pakistani Muslim rape gangs are notorious.  Can Western democracies accept the ever-growing phenomenon of parallel societies with absolutely contrary mores.  They don’t wish to assimilate and have no respect for the host culture.  It’s a major problem and one incapable of being tackled by a liberal multicultural world view.  You can be as accepting as you like, they will never accept you.

Contra culture as the incarnation of religion as T.S. Eliot says in his ‘Notes towards the Definition of Culture’ many of the physical manifestations of Islam in music, architecture and poetry are of the highest order.  If Eliot was right its concrete incarnations ought to be derivative and repetitive.  Sufism presents a different picture despite what invidious epithets we may apply to the founder of the faith and its revelations.  Needless to say the stern upholders of orthodoxy reject the ameliorating influence of the Sufi path.  Clearly the innate reaching after the absolute transcends the overtly held doctrine with its anger and smiting.

I might be prepared to leave it there if that were the only consideration but when the masses of unreconstructed Muslims reach the shores of Europe freed from the control of the tyranny which they are accustomed to, we are confronted with tumult and disorder.  Islamic immigration must be severely restricted.

Swedish 'lycka'

Is the ‘luck of the Swedes’ a rationalisation of envy (cf. Previous post). The migrants want what they have without the history that the Swedes have put into it. One thinks of the golfer who remarked ‘ I’m lucky and the more I practice the luckier I get’. There has been a long process which has culminated in a democracy which gives the most in foreign aid as a percentage of its G.N.I.

Out of the DAC countries, Sweden was the most generous – it was the first to meet the 0.7% target in 1974 – donating 1.1% of its GNI to foreign aid, which works out at about $6.2bn. Next came Luxembourg, at 1.07%, then Norway at 0.99% and Denmark at 0.85%. The UK was fifth, higher than Germany at 0.41%, France at 0.36% and Switzerland at 0.49%. In total the UK spent $19bn on foreign aid last year, compared to $16bn from Germany and $10bn from France.

So they do a lot for the ‘Chadian’ who is working on his luck at home but the ‘Chadian’ who is unskilled and is taken in often ends up S.O. Swede Luck. Just Google ‘migrant problems in Sweden’ to get a general idea of how sudden mass low-skilled immigration creates problems for the host country no matter how well meaning they are. You might say that the final stage of envy namely destroying that which you cannot achieve, has been attained.

Those Lucky Old Swedes

When you read this you realise why philosopher kings are such a very bad idea. The deviation towards ‘wokeness’ works like an iron mountain on their nous compass. In their little plane they can’t clear its height. Slightly scathed they emerge from the wreck and in their helpful piping voices continue to explain, explain, explain.

The staggering levels of international inequality would not be so objectionable if the typical Swede had done something to deserve a better life than the typical Chadian, for instance, but the truth, of course, is that Swedes were merely lucky to have been born in Sweden rather than Chad. And given this, what justification could the Swedes have for putting guns at their borders to deter Chadians from trying to move north and take advantage of the preferable social, political and economic environment? In the eyes of cosmopolitan egalitarians, they have none. As Joseph Carens puts it, “Citizenship in Western liberal democracies is the modern equivalent to feudal privilege—an inherited status that greatly enhances one’s life chances. Like feudal birthrights privileges, restrictive citizenship is hard to justify when one thinks about it closely.” (Carens 1987: 252)

(from Immigration entry Stanford Ency. Phil.)