There are many in authority in Britain who see nothing wrong with behaving like ‘Quislings for Islam’. They are at all levels in our society, in politics, the police, local government, social services, the NHS, schools, some private sector entities and in charitable organisations.
The reason that such people behave like ‘Quislings for Islam’ is varied. Some are dyed-in-the-wool ideologues of the Left, who hate British society and wish to use Islam as a means of changing it for what they see as ‘the better’. There are others who are ignorant of the nature of the ideology of Islam and see it as ‘just another religion’, and there are those who go along with Islamic demands because they are frightened of career damage or legal challenge if they did otherwise. It is important to separate those who do not know that what they are doing is wrong, from those who take an active part in promoting the dangerous ideology of Islam.
At some point in the near future, I hope that the British electorate will vote for political entities and parties who are ‘Islamo-sceptic’. If this happens, then attention will need to be turned to those who are currently assisting the ideology of Islam in its rapacious infiltration of British society and British political systems. It would be right and proper that those who have assisted the anti-British and anti-freedom ideology of Islam, should be removed from positions of influence or sanctioned in some way.
When it comes to being ‘Quislings for Islam’ not every Quisling will be, or is, equally culpable. It would go against the concept of natural justice to treat someone like Chris Sims of West Midlands Police, who has allegedly let Islamic areas ‘police themselves’ and whose force has allowed questionable Islamic groups to influence policing policy, with the same level of opprobrium as a lowly council employee who only parrots the phrase ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ because they have been told to do so. There needs to be some measure of culpability, where those are issuing orders are treated more harshly than those who only follow orders.
A real world example of treating the guilty more harshly than the foolish or the misguided would be in education. The senior educationalists who invite dodgy Islamic Da’wa merchants, such as this one, into schools and who order teachers at the chalk-face to allow them into schools, should to my mind, lose their jobs. However, it would be grossly unfair to remove a junior classroom teacher for following orders from a Quisling headteacher, local education authority manager or government Minister or department.
Those at the top, who have facilitated the incursion of Islam into British society, need to be sacked and in some cases prosecuted, or in more minor cases moved into areas where they cannot do any more damage or hamper the fight against the dangerous and violent ideology of Islam. But, and it’s a big but, we should not punish those for whom speaking up against the Islamo-philiacs would have brought danger to them and their families.
The senior police officers, social work managers, educationalists and local and national politicians, who have actively colluded and collaborated with the ideology of Islam, for personal advantage or ideological reasons, need to be treated like the traitors that they obviously are. Those who are doing the ‘grunt’ work, in whatever field and who have kept silent because they fear the consequences of speaking out about the ideology of Islam are a different kettle of fish. It would be wrong to punish a fool as harshly as those who give orders to fools.
There is a historical precedent for my point of view on this matter. Looking back to the times of the great and terrible 20th century dictators such as Stalin and Hitler, there was an obvious need to distinguish between those who actively supported these regimes and those who kept their heads down out of fear. There were many Germans who allowed their children to join the Hitler Youth or Russians who became active in the Communist Party, purely out of fear for what would happen to them and their families if they did not take these actions. It would not be justice to punish those who took no part in atrocities or oppression but it was perfectly right and proper to punish those who acted as informers for the NKVD or the Gestapo. It is especially correct to punish those who actively collaborate with oppressive ideologies for reasons of personal gain and ideological agreement.
There is a world of difference between those who acquiesce to oppressive ideologies out of fear and those who actively collaborate with these ideologies because they agree with their policies and mindset. Any future political action against Britain’s Quislings must take into account the varying levels of guilt.
It should go without saying that dealing with Britain’s ‘Quislings for Islam’ is a matter for the courts, and a future Royal Commission on Islamic infiltration, and Parliament, it is not a matter about which the public should think that they can take the law into their own hands. I would much rather see the Quislings humiliated and punished in a open court or tribunal or Parliamentary committee, than be subjected to ‘mob justice’. The danger with mob justice is it may catch the wrong people. Those who are actively collaborating with Islam may throw their underlings to the wolves and escape justice. There is no justice, for example, in hounding a library assistant who shelves books that lie about the nature of Islam, and letting those senior local government officers, who gave the order for these books to be placed on the shelves, to slip away unpunished. The very great danger with ‘mob justice’ is that the mob will deal harshly with those minor Quislings who they can reach, but will not be able to reach those who are truly guilty of the despicable crime of assisting Islamic conquest.
Links and addenda
About the header picture by Henri Cartier-Bresson ‘Denouncing a Gestapo informer in a displaced persons camp’
The International Military Tribunal, also known as the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials that happened during the post World War II period, is a classic example of a court or tribunal deciding about different levels of guilt in the aftermath of the destruction of an oppressive regime. It was morally right and correct that someone like Julius Streicher, who took an active part in encouraging German anti-Semitism, was hanged because he was in a responsible position as editor of Der Sturmer. On the other hand, the level of guilt of someone like Hans Fritzsche, a relatively lowly functionary in the Nazi Propaganda Ministry, was much less and therefore it was right that he did not hang, although he was later imprisoned for his Nazi activities by the post-war German authorities.
Notorious Nazi collaborators from outside Germany and what happened to them.