This is a notion getting lots of play amoungst all the Eurabia stuff. I listened to an American (a former speach writer for Bush, I think) making this claim on Radio 4. He offered himself as an example of this intigration. His mother was Polish and having escaped wartime Warsaw had gone to America, married and produced a son and here he was fully intigrated into American society.

The remarkable thing was that the twat supposed that to be an experience exclusive to the US.

I grew up in the unremarkable town of Slough and went to school with children of Polish, Czech, Latvian, French, Belgian, German, Jamaican and even Eskimo parentage. They were all perfectly intigrated into British society. When I went to work in the factories on the trading estate I worked with their parents generation and they were all intigrated into British society too.

Think of people like Boris Johnson, Nigel Lawson, Steven Fry, Peter Serafinowicz and Armando Iannucci and ask yourself if they aren’t intigrated into British society. Of course they are all white but what about Julia Sawalha, Moira Stewart, Lenny Henry or Hardeep Singh Kohli are these people unintigrated outcasts?

The notion is based on two daft assumptions about immigration in Britain. The first is that immigration only started in the 1950’s and the second is that the troubles Britain is having with some of it’s muslim community is representative of it’s experience of immigration in general.

In regard to the first, Sophia asks ‘How many people actually immigrated to England until after WWII?’ The answer is loads of people. From the sixteenth century Britain was a haven for people escaping the religious strife in Europe and throughout the nineteenth century immigrants came to Britain from accross the world. Clearly the numbers weren’t as great as those going to America but America was a vast and largely undeveloped nation whereas Britain was already a densely populated country with heaving cities and little developable land that wasn’t already in ownership. Integration was a much more immediate issue for Britain than it was for the US and it was acheived pretty well.

That’s not to say it was without problems. The Huguenots, Chinese, Yemeni and Jewish people who came here faced prejudice and violence. But it was no different in American with anti- Catholic, anti-German and anti-Chinese riots, amoungst others throughout the nineteenth century.

In Britain we’ve had riots amoungst the black community but the US has had a significant black minority since there has been a US and there have been riots ever since.

On the second issue there is nothing to suggest that the actions of some of the muslim community or that the attitudes of the muslim community as a whole (supposing of course that we can generalise on that) is typical of the behaviour and attitudes of all other immigrant communities in Britain.

There have been terrorist outrages carried out by members of Britains muslim community and that threat continues but is the situation so different in the US. Despite having a smaller and much more dispersed muslim population America has also faced that violence and faces an ongoing threat.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/AmericanAttacks.htm

There’s one more oddity in Sophia’s article. She refers to – ‘people who denied entrance to “Orientals,” i.e. Jews…’

I can’t track any specific ban on ‘Orientals’ in Britains case (and as someone has already mentioned the SS St Louis it’s worth noting that whilst they were turned away by America the Jews on board found havens in Britain, France and Belgium, in the last two sadly not safe haven) but Americas Immigration Act of 1924 did include a ban on Asian immigration continuing up to WWII despite Japans murderous campaign against the Chinese. The act did allow considerable quotas from European countries the biggest quota being Germans so how Sophie gets ‘Oriental’ to mean Jew is odd indeed.

So the answer is what? Claim that modern Islamism started in the 7th century? Blame each and every Muslim for the terror of a few? Since Christian Orthodoxy has spread its murderous poison through Southeastern Europe in the last two decades, and there are still Christian clerics there advocating the murder of others, perhaps we should ban the immigration of people from Orthodox countries. Heck, why not just Christian countries, as making a distinction between Muslims of different persuasions in different parts of the world seems now to be just a self-hating for the mass murder of the Jews and the overthrow of ‘liberal’ values (male sons of the White race only).

Yes, we can distinguish between Islamism and Islam, just the same as we can distinguish between Catholicism and the Inquisition, between Protestantism and the Lord’s Resistance Army and between Hinduism and the terror of the RSS. In all cases the former is given as the rationale for the latter, but we don’t have to tie ourselves in knots; all we need do is learn, find out and make judgements in each case based on fact. I appreciate that for many on this thread, having actually to understand the concepts invovled and think clearly about the evidence without having help from some loon in the blogosphere is a bit of a tall order.

The tone of this article creeps me out and its author seems to miss the vital point – that Geert Wilders is brave enough to say what she and others may think but dare not utter because they are so in thrall to political correctness that it has blinded them. For this I blame successive governments who have bent themselves out of shape to accommodate a minority with a hair trigger sense of grievance, because they are terrified to displease them

Islam breeds Islamism. The two go together. The former is given as the rationale for the latter, yet we continue to tie ourselves in knots when we try to name Islamist hatred of us for what it is.

armaros at 1.41am – brilliant!

Pamela (she of Atlas Shrugs) has done a little more than call the Jewish community a disgrace for failing to support the EDL riots. She has likened the Community Security Trust and the Board of Deputies – the CST more than once – to a Judenrat with a Kapo mentality, thereby implying that they are assisting in and profiting from the mass extermination of British Jewry.

She also views approves of ‘Pro-White’ parties (as described on Stormfront.org) such as the Austrian Freedom Party and the dwindling Vlaams Belang.

Her enthusiasm is not confined to Western Europe: Srdja Trifkovic’s denial of genocide is, apparently, via the denialist Julia ‘Srebrenica Party Weekend’ Gorin, ‘all the context anyone needs to interpret the significance, or lack thereof, of the Karadzic capture.’

Alliances with those who would destroy liberalism given half a chance should ring alarm bells. Galloway’s alliances with all kinds of Islamist are rightly vilified in these columns. It’s about time some posters realized that people who praise parties with fans on Stormfront.org are hostile to liberalism and every bit as dangerous a threat.

“I can completely understand why some people strongly object to any link at all being made between Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. I fully accept that people have done terrible things in the name of Islam. But, to give just one example, girls are spat at for wearing hijab – being punished for the actions of people they have nothing to do with.”

Sarah seems to be completely unaware that non-Muslim girls in mini skirts in Muslim areas get verbally abused. Why doesn’t she mention that? Why is she privileging Muslim victims of harrassment over non-Muslim victims?

Harassment in both cases is wrong. But neither has anything to do with Geert Wilders who believes in a (secular) law based society.