Indescribable dhimmitude or brilliant satire?

In a quite extraordinary article in Time Out magazine, Michael Hodges has suggested that Islamification would improve London beyond all recognition. Now, it appears to me that Hodges is writing in all seriousness, in which case we are dealing with a psychologically and morally sick cretin on a par with Madeleine Bunting. On the other hand, the article is so extreme that we could be witnessing the emergence of the greatest satirist since Swift. But for now, I'm sticking with psychologically and morally sick cretin.

As well as describing Islam as being "based on noble traditions and compassionate principles", Hodges dismisses fears that an Islamic Britain might end up like, well, every single Islamic country on Earth, as "a hysterical, right-wing nightmare". He then goes on to suggest that in every conceivable way, Britain would be better off under Islam. When the facts don't fit his model, such as when his assertion that we would all be more educated if Muslims were to take over is somewhat undermined by the low levels of education common among Muslims, in Britain as elsewhere, he simply dismisses this as being caused by undefined "social factors", which will easily disappear under the coming Caliphate. After all, there's no poverty or ignorance in Iran or Saudi Arabia, is there?

The sheer mind-boggling idiocy of the man is beyond all mortal power of expression, and I would advise readers to go over and see the article for themselves: if it's not satire, then it has anthropological value as an insight into the mindset of that curious creature, the modern liberal. But, I will give you just one quote, which pretty much sums up the entire piece:

it is reasonable to assume that under the guiding hand of Islam a civilised accommodation could be made among faith groups in London.

And now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go. A pig just flew in at the window, and he's breaking into my fridge.

Hat-tip: Brussels Journal