Multiculturalism

Why should we trust your cut and paste? You admit he is a questionable character, but expect us to take what he says at face value? He is more than a questionable liar, he is a habitual liar for neo-conservatism.

I just checked out Ferguson, I like the guy, what's so questionable about him?

Well, his habit of being, y'know, grossly wrong, means we probably shouldn't take his word for stuff.

Wrong about what?

Did you bother to read the article I linked to.

The quote is just a bunch of percentages and lists of Islamic organizations. If you think there's something amiss with any of it, bring in some percentages and lists to counter.But nitpicking on someone's character doesn't accomplish anything. As I said myself, I also think rather lowly of him, but I'm willing to trust he knows how to make a list.

Well, I'd read some of it, but I can only take so much of the lefty polemics of Salon and didn't finish it. Just for you, dear Theodupic, however, I did go back and read it to the end and even followed its links. Yup, such a screaming lefty smear piece I have no reason to take it seriously. Many assertions of wrongdoing by Ferguson, but not much that's trustworthy. The guy certainly has enough credentials to justify Jon's trusting what he posted, however. Let me know when you have a reasoned factual report on the man. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The salon article was full of facts. Read my signature.

You presented him. You need to show he is correct. What are his sources? Show he us interpreting them correctly. He has shown himself to be a liar and racist. You show me why this should be any different.

The Salon article was nothing but a smear piece.

Anybody who is called a "racist" by the left probably has his finger on a truth the Left wants to discredit. Same with calling someone a "liar," another familiar lefty smear tactic. Even if he was a racist, that doesn't make him wrong about facts.

Let's Laugh at Islam - Daniel Greenfield / Sultan Knish articles Two excerpts from a long blog:

The true war against Islam is not a military war, it is a cultural war. For Islam it is a religious conflict by an empire intent on transforming every aspect of life into one defined by Islam. For us it is about preserving our way of life. The cartoon controversy woke many Europeans to the fact that free speech and many of the other attributes of democracy that they take for granted are incompatible with Islam. Under the relentless pressure of multi-culturalism, they and we are increasingly deciding that our way of life has to bow to theirs.

​

...

​

The way to defeat Islam is never to coddle it, to enable its rages or its conquest of our lands. It is to stand up to it over and over again. It's to laugh at it. Yes laugh it and ridicule it. America is a collection of immigrants with the humorous traditions of dozens of cultures, Irish, Jews, Italians, Scots, Russians, Asians. We're not just the reservoir of the world's talent but its humor too and humor is the ultimate weapon against the balloon that is Islam. Islam can only expand by force. It can't leverage any real military force against us. Instead it expands by intimidation, by conformity, by deception, by political correctness. It has no defense against laughter. Men who are so insecure they would kill over a stray word here or there, can't stand up to being laughed at, to being ridiculed, to have their cherished values transformed into a laughingstock.

Is there a difference between lower-case left and upper-case Left? I consider myself left-of-center but I don't have a membership card.

His sources? For the percentages he gives the following in the endnote:Just looking at Wiki (Islam in the UK), I see a roughly 4% increase between 2001 and 2011. I'm not inclined to dig through the nearly-impossible-to-navigate UK statistics site. The figures seem to check, though, and I doubt the ONS will disagree with his 2004—2008 figures.That's the percentages. As far as the organizations listed, are you questioning the existence of any of them?

But who is "Islam" in this context?Is it all muslims? Most? Some....? How many does it need to be in order to legitimise the comment that "For Islam it is a religious conflict by an empire intent on transforming every aspect of life into one defined by Islam"?Of the world religions at the moment Islam certainly seems to have more than it's fair share of nutters and is certainly giving rise to more than it's fair share of religiously inspired violence. I am not quibbling that.But what religion doesn't have it's violent nutter brigade and on what basis do we tar all followers of a religion with that brush?Christianity has it's crazy-wing who want to impose a form of theocracy on the world and who are prepared to kill in the name of God (personally I'd put GW Bush in that category - but let's no fixate on specific individuals here) - Does this mean we can say that because these individuals exist we can say that "For Christianity it is a religious conflict by an empire intent on transforming every aspect of life into one defined by Christianity"?Or would that be a sweeping generalisation too far?