Thursday, May 23

British town agrees not to fly "flag of St. George" for fear of offending...guess who

For those who haven't paid any attention to how Muslims gain control of a society, the experience of a tiny British town may be instructive.

The town is Radstock, population 5600. 

Enter one Eleanor Jackson, a "university lecturer" and--you'll be shocked to learn--hard-leftist.  Ms. Jackson was indignant that when the town's council was considering what flags to fly on its newly-renovated flagpole, it considered a flag with considerable significance in Brit history, the flag of Saint George.

Professor Jackson's complaint about the flag was...well it's hard to translate professor-speak so we'll just quote her and hope for the best:  "My big problem is it is offensive to some Muslims.  But even more that it has been hijacked by the Far Right."

So it's hard to tell which is her bigger concern: "My big problem" or "But even more...."  But definitely worries about the scary "far right."

But let's be sure we don't do anything that could possibly be construed as offending Muslims.

BTW, 16 of the town's residents are Muslim.

So after hearing Ms. Jackson's complaints the town council agreed not to fly St. George's flag.  But the council did agree to fly the flag of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender pride movement "at appropriate times of the year."

No word on whether Ms. Jackson had any input on the latter.  The ever so thoughtful Professor Jackson is shown below:

Concerns: Labour councillor Eleanor Jackson insisted the flag could still cause upset to Muslims

So to summarize: Far-left professor nags socialist town council into making gratuitous gesture of submission to Muslims, voluntarily deleting a piece of British history so as to avoid even the ghost of an appearance of a penumbra of something that could conceivably be construed as offensive to 'em.

Once again, Leftists and Muslims show themselves to be natural allies.

Oh, you say, that's just the U.K, which has a sizeable muz population.  No level of government here in the U.S. would ever be caught dead doing anything so obviously appeasing like that.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!  Just arrived in the country yesterday, didja?

Children, "your" government is already doing much the same here in the U.S.  Federal courts have struck down several state laws that would have barred state courts from considering foreign law--specifically including Sharia law--when arriving at verdicts or other decisions.

Oh, you say, "That's different.  Those decisions by federal judges were based on the clear language of the Constitution, right there in the First Amendment, which reads "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor denying the free exercise thereof."  So it follows--very sound legal thinking, just as our Ivy League profs taught us--that the states aren't allowed to do anything if the federal gummint is barred from doing it.  Right?  Perfectly logical."

"Tenth Amendment?  Never heard of it.  But surely it doesn't have any bearing on what we're talking about here."

Point is that Muslims get their way because the self-styled "elites" in a country preemtively surrender to their demands.  It's not military defeat but purely a surrender by the elites in government and academia.

Stockholm is having riots--30 cars burned in a night--by people the press is too cowed even identify as muslims.  Riots allegedly sparked by cops shooting a guy who rushed them brandishing a machete.  Or maybe because the Swedish gummint didn't increase the free welfare allowance by as much as the unidentified youths wanted.  Hard to know.

Back in the U.K. two Muslim men rammed their car into a pedestrian, jumped out and almost beheaded him.  In the middle of the afternoon.  Witnesses say the two were shouting "Allah akbar" and one woman who spoke with the killers extensively said they told her they wanted to start a war in London "by this evening."

No wonder the pols want to surrender!

Oh, and just FYI:  Saint George is the Patron Saint of England, and has an interesting parable for us.  According to legend dating from the 11th century or so a town--said to be in North Africa--was being "terrorized" by a dragon.  To appease the dragon, each day the townspeople gave it two of their sheep to eat. 

Finally they ran out of sheep, but rather than sucking it up and killing the dragon they began giving it their children, chosen by lottery, to eat.  (Hmm, terrorizing, appeasement, trying to coexist with the terrorizing entity by giving it food, then giving it the innocent children to eat.)

One day the lot fell on the king's daughter.  The grieving king offered the people all he had if they would spare his daughter, but the people--knowing they'd have to offer one of *their* children in her place if the dragon was to be placated--refused, and the daughter was sent out to the lake to be fed to the dragon.

In the legend George killed the dragon and that was that.

Now that I think of it, I can see why Muslims would find this story gravely offensive.  It's a dead ringer for what's happening today.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home