45 thoughts on “The Cameron Creature”

1. “What Cameron has done here is make an I proposition; where the subject term is Muslims and the predicate term is peaceful people, Cameron’s assertion is that Some S are P. That is the only proposition that his evidence supports. ”

   His evidence doesn’t even support that. It only supports the proposition that Some S seem to be P. Normally, we take face value for granted, because normally we have good reason to give people the benefit of the doubt. We not only have no such good reason to do so with Muslim people, we have good reason to suspect Muslim people of really being other than whatever data about them seems to suggest they are good or harmless or decent. Until the Counter-Jihad really gets this and adopts it as a part of their core platform in the war of ideas, they will be artfully disagreeing-while-actually-agreeing with the PC MC TMOE Meme that is killing us.

2. The British are too far gone to do anything now! They are too interested in booze, “celebs” and sex. Sorry but UK will be Islamic in a few years and UKIP will not make a happe’th of difference…..

   Sorry but the rot’s too deep.

   Cameron will ensure the economy will pick up just enough. The donkey will vote for him. I gave up on my people last month. They simply don’t care one iota about Rotherham or anything else! Try asking them about these subjects? They look at youas though you are nuts.

   Frankly they fully deserve what’s coming to them.

   They’ll just start growing beards and wearing alien dress like the good dhimmi they alraady are!

   • Does that mean you won’t be voting UKIP? At the very least there is a minority of Brits who fully realize what is happening to Britain – several minor political parties have sprung up just on that realization alone. Despair for what you witness around you will not bring the situation undone – only determination and broadcasting your concerns to Mr. and Mrs. Average will do that! Don’t give up just yet, it is still far too early in the day to be throwing the towel in.

     • And in trying to get your message across to Mr. and Mrs. Average, you have to meet them half-way in the first instance and acknowledge the obvious truth that the little old Muslim lady who lives down the road is not a violent person, or to put it logically, that can be said for some people who call themselves Muslims.

       But.

       You cannot from that make a rash generalisation and say that applies to everyone who is a Muslim. That is what Cameron wants us to accept – but it’s just not on!

       If you’re dealing with Mr. and Mrs. Average, getting them to accept that Cameron is a liar & is trying to deceive them is going to be way easier than getting them to breach the official PC guidelines which they have assimilated into their thinking right away …

       So let’s take a step in their direction … take their hand … and then lead them somewhere they’ve never been before.

       • True it is that the proverbial “little old Muslim lady down the road is not a violent person”. But one doesn’t have to, personally, act violently to support or lend succour to an ideology of violence.

         Does LOLDTR agree with or support or justify FGM/arranged marriages of 15 year olds with their first cousins (always and only ever on their father’s side) from Pakistan/the criminalization of criticism, direct or oblique, of Islam or Mohammed (and the murder of those who engage in such criticism)/notions of the superiority of Islamic culture over all others?

         And if LOLDTR does not agree with or support or justify any of these things, does she ever say so in public or support citizens groups that speak up about these issues?

         I think you’ll find that the vast majority of LOLsDTR are at best passive enablers of the Islamization of the West. And a very high proportion are taqiya-artists doing what is necessary to get along in a majority non-Muslim society. When Sharia comes they won’t be opposing it in any way.

         And there’s your peaceful majority of Muslims in the West.

     • Churchill was up against it too. His was the only voice in the political establishment that spoke out against the creeping tyranny of Nazism that many in the establishment fully supported. And supported to the point where they even plotted to do a separate peace deal with Hitler behind Churchill’s back.

       So the underhandedness and treachery of some within the establishment is nothing new and will continue to recur while ever the establishment is allowed to remain aloof from the laws and moral attitudes that govern the general population.

       The advent of the Islamization of the West may be an agenda that the controlling world’s elite have embraced which makes the agenda all the more horrific in the sense that there could be so many willing to sell out their countries to such barbarism, but the agenda is more open, and in that ‘openness’ the observant few can notice the systematic embracing of such an agenda by all Western countries as compared to what occurred prior to WW2 when Nazism was embraced by only the few – in other words that agenda was almost completely hidden from the public which were really none the wiser to the establishment’s agenda until Churchill became PM.

       And people are more aware today because they no longer trust the establishment.

       My wife and I did a driving tour around the UK in 2008 when most of what we now know since then was still being kept pretty well hidden. There were many I spoke with in struck up conversations in the town and villages we chose to stay at that were then aware of what was occurring. Those people I then spoke with, I have no doubt, have made others aware also of what is occurring whose own insights would be even more aware today especially after 7/7.

       ‘In the age of deceit the telling of truth becomes revolutionary’ George Orwell.

       So, no Your Grace, it is never too late to ring out the warning bell.

   • Have you seen the videos from Rotherham made by interviewers? They ask for people’s reaction.

     There are two women saying “Oooh how terrible!”

     Monty Python is alive and well. The EDL tried to get something done and were blasted by the local population and the Left.

     “What kind of reaction is “Oooh how terrible?”

     Where were the public demands that the criminals in the Police and Social services be arrested and confined? Nothing absolutely nothing.
     The local Labour man was right. He said the local council and Police saw these 1400 girls through the end of a telescope the wrong way round.

     These were young pubescent girls and boys- regarded by the Police and politicians as local scum. The Police even arrested parents that complained and they even assisted the gangs to procure the girls.

     I spoke to a woman who whistle-blowed this stuff ten years ago and she is the one in hiding.

     Nothing will be done, absolutely nothing!

     And John Cleese will appear at a desk saying “And now for something completely different”. No public outrage- nothing and you think the UK can be saved populated by people who have lost all sense of morality and decency?

     • Edit- Why were there no public demands

     • I do not think it can easily be explained to people that are strangers to British society the social divisions and the existence of a native disposable class that are regarded by the Police and politicians as the scum fodder of jihad. That native disposable class holds the residual heritage and values that threaten the establishment’s islamo-brit project.

       An establishment that ultimately would have no difficulty in converting from Christianity to islam to reinvigorate its supremacy and Theo-political social control.

       • Whenever I read or hear the words “class” and “misogyny” I usually roll my eyes. However, a woman writing in the Spectator attributed the Rotherham decade long atrocity and institutional inaction to these two factors. She was unclear as to whether the said misogyny referred to that of the Muslim perpetrators – in which she would be right – or that of the authorities, the police and social services – in which she would be wrong.

         In her putting the finger on “class” as a core factor, however, she was on the money. The Rotherham girls – hailing from the “welfare class” (as “working class” has been a misnomer for decades) – were viewed as expendable dross not of deserving the protection of the laws of Britain; certainly not if it risked offending MultiCulti sensibilities. It is clear that none of the 1400 Rotherham girls came from families where mum and dad were a married couple, who worked for a living and had attended grammar schools. As one of the Rotherham mothers protested regarding the inaction of the police and social workers, I paraphrase: “It wasn’t any of their kids who were the victims … and if it had been it would have all been very different!”

     • I have replied to your comment which is above your comment of November 16.

     • I am very afraid you are right about this.

   • I imagine the average anyone in the U.K. or anywhere else in Europe is well aware of the creepy never do well lazy Muslim lowlife currently in their midst. We also are fully aware that when the clearances start it doesn’t stop until the jobs done. Hitler found that out. Had the west not intervened in the Balkans there would be one islam problem less to deal with today. It was once hoped that the Nazis had failed. Now comes the Godless muslim rabble.

   • It’s really terible and sad, but I’m inclined to agree with you. The same can be said of Norway, where I live, or indeed most other countries in the western world. People, or at least the majority, are idiots really. Aristoteles and other clever greeks concluded as much almost two and a half millennia ago, and things haven’t improved at all in all this time. Now I understand better why the Theognis and other aristocratic greek poets despised the “demos”. And Socialism has, if possible, made peoples minds even softer.

3. The correct term for this class of Muslims is passive , not peaceful. Peaceful is an active word; it takes work and effort to attain. But the word(meme) peaceful has been hollowed out and its inner core replaced with the notion of passivity. I think you can blame the hippie 60’s crowd for this. By equating passive with peaceful, they were able to turn doing nothing into a virture.

   Now, a couple of generations later, the word peaceful has all but lost its original meaning. Unfortunately for society, as a meme it still carries all of the old positive emotive associations. Humpty Dumpty has redefined the word peaceful and when a society looses its language, meaningful and productive discussions become impossible.

   It takes effort and sacrifice to be a person of peace. It’s never an easy path and those who can actually walk that path are often considered saints. Once you return to the word(meme) peaceful its original meaning, then it becomes apparent that there are no “peaceful” Muslims anywhere.

4. I take issue with your venn diagrams. There are no peaceful Muslims. When a person become a Muslim, whether at birth or later in life, he promises to abide by the instructions and example of Mohammed as described in the Koran. The Koran includes a declaration of war on all people who are not muslims and instructions on lying, slave keeping, treachery and various brutal punishments. People who profess this religion have consciously committed to these things and therefore cannot be considered peaceful, whether or not they actively obey the instructions and example.

   • Some S are P – that was Cameron’s assertion nevertheless, and the logical point being made is that from that particular affirmative proposition, one cannot logically reach the corresponding A proposition (All S are P).

     I am taking the view here that the objective is to reach people outwith our own closed circle of veteran CJ people. Doing so will involve ‘matching’ their worldview with the argument being presented to them, so that they start to come along with you, and then, once you have them in agreement with you about one thing …. one of their cherished beliefs, perhaps … you can lay your own argument upon them & start leading them in a direction they were not expecting to go.

     So my approach is to first look at what Cameron said, then analyse it in a logical manner, & then present an argument that might, just possibly, reach someone outside our circle.

     Also, you will be aware that legally speaking, making assertions about whole groups of people can be problematic. The approach I have taken avoids that not insignificant problem.

     There is also the small matter of there actually being people who have been brought up to think of themselves as Muslims who are in fact peaceful, in that they do not physically carry out acts of violence, etc. As far as that goes then, Cameron’s assertion is true.

     I did however open the door to the argument you are making by noting that there were people who have been brought up to think of themselves as Muslims who share some of the beliefs & goals of the Islamic State.

     But examining that properly would be a whole other essay …

     • I make no assertions. I simply remind you of the explicit statements of the Koran which Muslims have committed to follow. Even in academia, I think your “leading them” is unlikely to be successful.

       • You don’t need to convince me, and I don’t need to convince you. My contention is that we both need to try to convince other people. Hence my approach to the problem ..

         Note that in Cameron’s speech he talks about ISIS and the acts perpetrated by them, and contrasts his little old lady from Brum, and his audience, with those violent fellows. Hence my approach …

         That is to say, I wanted to analyse what Cameron’s position was, which meant laying it out logically. You or I may have started from entirely different premises, but that’s neither here nor there.

       • Note also that Cameron’s argument is enthymematic; he quietly links the behaviour of non-violent, hard working, tax paying Muslims in the UK with the religion of Islam.

         By drawing out this unspoken premise of Cameron’s – there is a causal link between Islamic doctrines and the behaviour of Muslims – we can then take the premise that some Muslims do commit violent acts – and draw the obvious conclusion!

         All in good time though …

         • Umm, is there a substantial cohort of hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding (my addition) Muslims existing anywhere in the West? I’ve yet to encounter evidence of it professionally or personally. I’ve meet hard-working Muslims, who were simultaneously welfare cheats and operated their “cash only” businesses, criminal and/or legitimate, without any regard to adhering to the laws of the land.

           One can be certain that the ubiquitous Muslim taxi-driver, found from Oslo to Tucson, isn’t declaring his income to the taxman even if he isn’t engaged in welfare fraud or some other illegality.

           I’ve met Muslims who worked in cushy public-sector jobs who weren’t obviously engaged in any criminal activity, but their jobs were invariably obtained because of their religious identity under positive discrimination policies or their very jobs were in the PC/Multiculti apparatus, ie in service of the Muslim community.

           I suppose Taqiya Ramadan, with his Qatar-funded professorial chair at Oxford, is an exception and he and others like him in the academy form a cohort. But is he or they truly “law-abiding”?

     • Nick’s response is a complex tissue exemplifying the problem of asymptoticism; a test case indeed. I’ll have to analyze it further.

   • wildris,

     Agreed, Islam is a violent religion, unlike Christianity, or Buddhism, it was invented by a bandit leader and his followers, therefore pious Muslims are violent.
     The question is –do the West’s political elites actually believe their multi-culti platitudes?

5. Every single person who played a part in allowing those young girls in Rotherham to be raped by gangs of sexual predators in the name of multiculturalism, for example, should see the inside of a coffin.

   • Well, we all will one day. In the meantime, I’d quite like to see the people who let that happen banged up in a jail cell with a trio of rampant jihadists who spend their time sexually abusing them. Giving them a taste of their own medicine, if you see what I mean. Poetic justice and all that …

     • That is the treatment Cameron meted out to Tommy Robinson.

6. Only the agenda motivated, self-interested and self-delusional would publicly deny the obvious problem that Islam represents to non-Muslims everywhere. There can be no legitimate excuse or reason for elected officials not to be fully aware of what Islam truly represents because the West has been fighting off Islamic expansionism for over 1400 years while the past few decades have borne witness to the real operational procedures and goals of Islam in living color and on a daily basis that even the compromised media can’t ignore.

   So unless there are non-Muslims who do not listen to the radio, watch television, read books and newspapers or have access to the internet or even a Ham radio, there is no logical reason for why there should be just one non-Muslim who has no inkling that there is something inherently wrong about Islam and Muslims.

   Once that assessment can be accepted then it must surely become obvious to most that our political elite are en masse, selling us out deliberately for whatever purpose lies behind their treachery.

   And once that treachery is fully realized by a large number of the citizens, then I predict that the real problems will just begin.

   The UK population has one last chance, as I see it, to begin to put their house back in order, and that is to forgo voting for any of the major political parties next year and seek out those minor parties that are fully cognizant of what now ails Britain and are prepared to do something about it if voted into power.

   Cameron is an example of the agenda in place. I wonder who or what entity is manipulating his strings?

   • Not much wonder actually Nemesis. Islam has proven itself to protect a large body who are very gruesome killing machines lacking any of the West’s guilt for doing so. When one considers how Green advisors such as Jonathon Porritt are never swept aside but seemed tied to the likes of Blair and Brown, I’m sure Cameron hasn’t strayed from that agenda. Porritt, for those who don’t know, looks to half the population of England and call it a good start. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/03/31/british-enviro-official-calls-halving-uk-s-population-us-media-virtually

     • I think we both know from where the Greens originated from. Much of the same kind of thinking runs rampant at the Council on Foreign Relations, especially that totalitarian radical Brzcinski (my spelling).

   • I agree but with the malign power of the main stream media, the education system and oppressive laws against free speech, I very much doubt that is possible. I wish we would wake up and smell the coffee and I will certainly be voting for a smaller patriotic party but alas as I have said most of my fellow countrymen are sheep.

     Maturecheese

     • Those sheep you speak of only require a strong leader to lead them out of the valley of darkness. None too many sheep have yet been herded into the corral with their backs against the wall, but that time will come.

7. “David Cameron has said that although he knows nothing about Islamic doctrines and practices, he believes that Islam is a religion of peace, because he once met a woman from Birmingham who happened to be a Muslim, and he liked the cut of her jib.”

   Isn’t Cameron committing an inductive fallacy in the above statement? He is taking a leap to generalize about a group based on his experience with one member of that group? It is the same as condemning a group, pick whatever group one wants, based on a bad experience one may have had with a member of that group.

   • Quite so, check out my marmalade cat analogy in the original article.

     What I’d like to do is develop the following argument – The multi-cultists say that anyone who points out, for example, that the 9/11 hijackers were Muslims is making a rash generalisation and saying something complimentary about all Muslims. Remember Bill O’Reilly and Whoopi Goldberg?

     Well, that this is exactly what they are doing. That is the error they are making.

     One of them, anyway.

8. Sure – Britain needs a new breed of politicians, who would put the interests of its people first… but how to enable these politicians to get popular, and to get power, before they’re shouted down as “racist”? That is the question…

   One may long for a politician of Churchill’s calibre – yet what would become of Mr Churchill in today’s Britain? Last year, on one occasion after Robert Spencer was banned from entering Britain, I asked a question: “would Winston Churchill today even allowed into Britain?”. This year, Paul Weston’s case has made clear that you can be arrested even for quoting Churchill’s words. So, if Churchill were around today, would his fate be more like that of David Cameron, or could he even be an outcast languishing in a jail cell, like Tommy Robinson, with hardly anyone brave enough to even voice support for him?

   So could the reason for there being no politicians with a backbone, standing up for their country simply be – that nowadays, there are not allowed to be such politicians? That public opinion and discourse has shifted to such an extent, that the majority of people will not consider such politicians acceptable? If so, then before any politician can flourish, this discourse will need to be changed. Possibly not by politicians – but media, TV shows, comedians – and ordinary people in their day-to-day lives, explaining to politically correct friends and colleagues, that being pro-British does not mean that you’re like a Nazi. In fact, it may make you more like the most defiant and outspoken enemy of the Nazis…

   • It’s being a prostitute to group think and being part of the Collective, even if you do not agree with the philosophy, but wish to have the advantages and wealth that come with a privileged position. There are some who take advantage of the parliamentary system, especially in my country, who speak out against what they perceive to be happening to their country – not all of them are correct, but many come close to the truth.

     Those party politicians who do so are still principled enough to reject the status quo, but only to the extent that when their position is threatened by the Collective they usually withdraw or apologize for their ‘errant behaviour’.

     Those politicians who are not tied to any political party (independents) are generally the most principled and who are still able to call a spade a spade under parliamentary privilege – excepting lying of course – and that the truth is often broadcast with their words, but only to those paying attention!

9. There is no confusion with dodgy Dave’s acid-islam logic it is a tool for pushing an agenda, the important question is what are the motivations. Maybe the answer to that is in building a political alliance with Islam where dodgy Dave believes that such a political islamo-brit romance will further the interests of the ruling elite from the cynical British peoples – Theo-political social control.

   The British peoples are slowly but surely being radicalised away form their folklore and christian heritage into submission.

10. I think the big picture here is the decline and fall of the white race. Only Vlad “the hammer” Putin can save the West.

    • Why must you make this about “race”? Islam is not a race.

    • Maybe that was the plan all along?

11. There are several problems with government as presently constituted. In the first place, the last thing we want is a democracy, which is subject to the whims of the crowd at any time. Any successful government is actually a constitutional Republic, with the conditions of limits on the government as vitally important.

    In the second place, both the British and American governments have been made progressively less responsive and responsible through tinkering with the conditions of representation. In the case of the American government, the courts have thoroughly diluted the theory of representation and compromise by requiring “proportional representation” and by allowing systematic gerrymandering, which is probably the largest single threat to a responsive government.

    The British are a bit more raw in their use of political and police power to protect the incumbent politicians. This includes not only the government control of most media, but the use of actual police and prosecution powers to silence and harass potential rivals.

    In any case, the more the conditions of representation are diluted, the less responsive the government, and the more apathetic the electorate. Consider that with the partisans and incumbents in government in control of the electoral process, the media and the mechanisms of police power, the electorate might justifiably feel more energy invested in the political process is wasted.

    • I believe we are witnessing the dying days of Western democracy as a government system. Even the American system with all its checks and balances have failed to live up to that as required in a true Republic. So what is the common denominator within all Western forms of government?

      Political Parties! Political parties give a few complete control over the entire country and its citizenry, especially in a system that is centralized, such as in the UK and many European countries.

      For more info on what could become an alternative form of government which would completely remain in the people’s hands, look up; Restore Australia; website – it is a very interesting alternative to what we all have now.

      • I think you are right. Democracy can not survive. Not the way things now are going. A working democracy is dependent on a enlightened and homogenous population. Trust is the key word. And all that is now dissolving fast.

12. No slip of the political tongue when Cameron calls the likes of ‘Jihadi John’ a “British extremist” and “our British youth” then appeals that they stop putting themselves in “harm’s way”.

13. A good article, however I would point out that although what you say about Churchill is undoubtedly true; he was one of the men responsible for the mire we find now ourselves in.
    In 1948 the Labour government, under Clement Atlee, brought into law the Commonwealth Citizenship Act; which permitted 1 billion people from the Commonwealth and British colonies to come here if they were so inclined. Winston Churchill succeeded Atlee in 1951 and remained in office until 1955, he did nothing to stop the flood of immigrants during this time. There were no restrictions put in place until MacMillan became PM in the 1960’s. Churchill deserves to be revered for his leadership during the War and lauded for his literary talent; but his inaction regarding non-European immigration into Britain, bordered on the criminal.

    • When everyone is able to aspire to the one ideal, such as one nation (not countries as we are all now) one people, the skin color or background will no longer matter. Assimilation can work with all peoples so long as religion and religious/cultural duties can be relegated to individual times and places and away from the interfering of the general population and the influencing of government.

Comments are closed.