More fully, Lord Pearson is Malcolm Everard MacLaren Pearson, Baron Pearson of Rannoch. Those who describe him as English are mistaken, for he is in fact a Scot. I asked him if he took offense at being called English, and he said no, that it didn’t bother him at all. That led us into a discussion about the movement for Scottish independence, which is a topic for another time.
[Post ends here]
33 comments:
If this is the best MP that England has got, whether a Scot or an English, the UK is done. Fork on it please!
I like Pearson a lot but note how he said that “mild Muslims” could help to counter jihadists (Jesus!), and that Christians should collaborate with lesbians and gays: a rather curious demand.
Note how he placed faith in collaborating with feminists, who caused half of the West’s mess (the other half was caused by the stupid politicians who gave the medical technology to the Third World that caused runaway demographics and its epiphenomenon: massive migration into the First World) when only a complete axiological reversal, in some instances to 1950s values; in others, to Victorian values—yes: patriarchal families again!—, may save the Queen.
Oh, and Muslims breeding tenfold as native English… Six to four is too high a school grade. I would give the UK 1 or less.
Pearson said that the BNP is almost a fascist party as if that were wrong. I have said it elsewhere and will repeat it here: we need another dictator in the UK (Cromwell, the first one). We need someone far more ruthless than Nick, if Nick ever gets to power. That’s the only hope to reverse both feminism and the deranged liberal altruism that caused, in the first place, the runaway demographics in the poor countries and the demographic Winter in the rich ones. Not seeing politics this way is intellectual cowardice—pure and simple.
The West is done. A fork on it please.
Chechar --
I'm glad I don't have to work with you in an organizational setting, since you don't seem to understand the nature of tactical maneuvering.
Anyone who is trying to wield political influence and at the same time lays out the exact nature of his ideological beliefs often ends up with few or no allies and a small, marginalized movement.
Under Lord Pearson, who has the skill and capacity to form coalitions, UKIP will likely do better than the BNP in the long run. The popularity of the BNP is largely due to there being no nationalist EU-opposing alternative. A truly mainstream alternative to the BNP -- one that rejects the EU and forcefully opposes Islamization -- would suck massive numbers of votes away from the BNP in an instant.
The quest for ideological purity is a foolish mistake.
As I have often asked: Would you rather be right, or effective?
It is not undemocratic to encourage people who do not agree with our culture and generally hate us to leave and go back where they came from. It is not even against the law if one watches their language
I just did it to one white hating, third-world activist on facebook and will continue to do so whenever I encounter that type of behaviour. If that would be translated into policy I would only welcome that.
@ As I have often asked: Would you rather be right, or effective?
Of course: effective is the answer.
Precisely because effective is the answer, I never talk as I think in political settings. Never. Pericles said that he never spoke out his mind in public, unless the political environment was fairly ready for one of his moves.
@ I'm glad I don't have to work with you in an organizational setting, since you don't seem to understand the nature of tactical maneuvering.
Had I gone to the International Legal Conference on Freedom of Speech and Religion, you would've been surprised to meet me in the real world: an all too politically-correct, all too circumspect, very self-conscious person of what the others might think and say and, how could I put it, a rather timid guy. Yes: there’s a sort of Jekyll-Hyde transformation (a tale from Pearson’s town by the way) from my dealings in the real world, and my furious writing. I never get into trouble in jobs, etc., because I simply don’t speak my mind.
But in an intellectual setting, like the GoV forum, one is supposed to feel free to break some of the PC chains, right? Pericles must be circumspect and self-conscious among his fellow politicians. Don’t expect that coming from Socrates among his fellow thinkers.
@ Baron
How long do you think the Lord will be able able to maneuver like this?
I am not only implying that biological is working against him but the situation as it is calls for much more radical solutions.
I am afraid his PC, inclusive approach which is rather contradictory,-especially in the part where he mentions feminists and gay groups as potential allies and immediately after jumps to breeding-, will lead anywhere.
Tomicek --
Actually, there were conservative gay people present at the conference, people who are just as vehemently opposed to Islamization as you and I are. They also have a personal stake in the outcome, much more so than I do. So including them in political coalitions is meaningful and effective.
The doctrinaire feminists will never get on board, but there is another kind of feminist -- my wife is one -- who is glad that women have achieved equal rights with men under the law, and who do not want to see those rights threatened.
Once again, there were any number of women who fit that description at the conference. They, too, have a personal interest in making sure that Islam does not triumph, and their commitment is just as strong as my own.
Part of my job is to work with these various groups and help coordinate common action among them. This isn't theoretical for me; it's quite real and practical. It's also very difficult.
Those who denigrate what Lord Pearson is doing have probably never attempted to walk the same tightrope that he is now on.
I know that many of you are rooting for civil war and massive bloodshed as the solution for the Counterjihad, but I'm not, because I'm certain that any number of my family members and friends will not survive such a nightmare scenario.
I believe that other solutions are possible, but they will require patience, hard work, flexibility, and compromise. Unfortunately, they, too, include at least some violent confrontations -- at this late stage, I think a completely peaceful solution is no longer available to us -- but we don't have to opt for the apocalypse.
The apocalyptic solution may be more satisfactory (and require less effort), but it's not what I choose. You may be right, and I may be wrong, but I think the alternative political solutions are at least worth a try.
Baron,
Those of us who think it's all to likely to come down to civil war[1], and have some idea of the devastation that would entail[2], greatly appreciate the efforts of people like yourself who are laboring to find a less apocalyptic solution. FWIW.
-----------------
[1] or worse
[2] you can call use Third Conjecturists, if you like :-)
BB,
I know that many of you are rooting for civil war and massive bloodshed as the solution for the Counterjihad
What some people may be feeling now is analogous to the sudden instinct a person gets to jump off of a tall building in order to resolve the tension and nausea they experience from being so high up off the ground.
I believe that other solutions are possible, but they will require patience, hard work, flexibility, and compromise.
Yes. Every possible political and non-violent option needs to be pursued before considering violence which is only the second least worst option save for dissolution.
@ there were conservative gay people present at the conference, people who are just as vehemently opposed to Islamization as you and I are… --BB
Actually, “conservative gays” are the masters of doublethink. Have they rebelled against hate-speech laws, used successfully in Canada and in Europe to silence their critics (cf. the recent GoV video about an elderly English woman, threatened by the police for daring to complain about a gay parade)? Have you read this sort of critique about Bruce Bawer himself? I will only quote a couple of paragraphs of it:
“Another ‘little Euro-fascist’ according to Johnson, Bawer and their ilk, is Brigitte Bardot. In April, the 73-year old French former movie star was tried in court for the sixth time for ‘inciting racial hatred.’ The public prosecutor demands that Bardot be given a two-month suspended prison sentence and a fine of €15,000 ($23,000) because she wrote in a letter that she is ‘fed up with being under the thumb of this population [of Muslim immigrants] which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its habits.’ In Europe, it is a criminal offence to hold such opinions.”
I don’t remember double-thinker Bawer’s mentioning of Bardot in his book, presumably because, like Oriana Fallaci, she doesn’t subscribe to his homo agenda?
“…Muslim bullies, who, like the gays, have also been granted special rights not available to other Europeans: the right not to be offended, the right to automatic respect, and the right to offend—and silence—any person or group that dares to object. In fact, the two situations illustrate one and the same phenomenon, which occurs when Westerners are no longer prepared to defend their traditional values.”
If homosexuals don’t defend *vehemently* free speech, they are not our friends. It’s just that simple.
Chechar, with all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Bawer is hardly representative. He is a Famous Person, and consequently sees the issues through his own celebrity perspective.
The gays I'm talking about are ordinary fellows, quite conservative politically, and they do all they can to speak out. Some of them are bloggers, and some are active in other ways.
You don't see them because the media will never, ever cover them. It's unfortunate, but true.
But I happen to know some of them personally, and it is insulting to see them dismissed so casually.
Sean O'Brian said...I believe that other solutions are possible, but they will require patience
Indeed yes.
Lord Pearson's statements are couched in diplospeak. I'm sure he knows though that only a separation from Muslims will save the West. As Lord pearson notes, we cannot send them away or even ask them to leave. Therefore we have to arrange a situation when Muslims leave of their own free will.
Chechar: This is the real world and you cooperate with people if you have overlapping interests, even if you don't agree on everything. It's very simple really. Since I've known him for a few years I know that the Baron is very good at networking. I do hope he's right that there is a reasonable solution to this because frankly, I fear that several Western countries, including the USA, could be facing a civil war in the future.
DP111: It was interesting, though not surprising, to hear Andrew Neather openly admit that the Labour Party has been promoting mass immigration to flood Britain with aliens and permanently change its demographic character. The fact that he feels free to say this shows that the elites believe the natives to have been defeated already. I hope they're wrong and arrogant like their Muslim allies.
We need a legal process against these traitors after the fall of Multiculturalism. We didn't have that after the Cold War with Marxism and it was a huge mistake. Western Leftists need to be squashed, plain and simple. Maybe that sounds harsh, but we cannot continue and expect to prevail if we have to fight our external enemies while our internal enemies continuously stab us in the back.
Another group who has a strong vested interest in djihad's failure is Muslim women in the West. Provided they are unambiguously on our side, of course.
It is not always easy to know. Witness Fadela Amara, the French cabinet minister. She strongly supports women's rights, and frequently opposes Muslim hardliners on this. But she still claims her Muslim faith. Where does that leave her ?
Nevertheless, culturally Muslim women in the West stand the most to lose. They know Islam from the inside. They know what they owe to the West. And, somewhat sadly, their voices carry more weight, because they cannot be suspected of "racism".
Baron and Fjordman,
Again: I have my Pericles face (“Jekyll”) when dealing with people who happen to have overlapping interests and my Socrates face (for Greek standards of beauty, he was pretty ugly—“Hyde”) when trying to communicate my legit fury with intellectuals like you. I would never talk to Bawer personally or in an international conference the way I do in my blog. No: I would praise his valiant work.
Are you sure Baron that the homosexuals you met would fight for my right to say that gay parades are unhealthy for our beloved children to see?
@ We need a legal process against these traitors after the fall of Multiculturalism. We didn't have that after the Cold War with Marxism and it was a huge mistake. --Fj
Absolutely. In his Gulag Solzhenitsyn complains a lot that the Russians never had their own equivalent to the Nüremberg trials. Whether we like it or not, in payback times blood must be shed. I also have very young relatives, Baron, but it’s precisely because I love them that I look forward for a little bloodshed. ☺
Anyway, this is my 4th and last permitted post in this thread…
Since we're discussing UK, let me say how disappointed I was of seeing Boris Johnson's abject grovelling in front of Muslims these days.
Here we had a free-spirited, conservative politician, unafraid of political correctness, witty and ready to push for some common-sense policies.
He gets elected mayor of London, and now he's telling us how swell and dandy it would be, for us non-Muslims, to fast a bit during Ramadan, in order to show some respect and understanding to that great religion.
He fires one of his top staffers in a matter of hours because, allegedly, he uttered the N-word during a meeting -- without allowing him to present his defense.
He, obviously, said very nasty things about the BNP when Nick Griffin went to speak on the BBC.
He's all "vibrant" this and "diverse" that over his city of London -- and I suppose this must be taken to mean that London is no longer British, as the school attendance figures show.
Very, very sad, really. A poignant testimony of the perverse way democracy has of yielding to electoral pressure, even when it comes from such an evil ideology as Islam.
I think that there will always be a sizeable Muslim population in Europe and the America. To those who think that Europe will once again be ethnically white, get over it, it’s not going to happen. The immigration has gone on for too long for any western government to try and reverse the situation, or to try and enact some type of forced repatriation of every single Muslim in the west (voluntary repatriation would not be accepted by the Muslims themselves). Many of those Muslims, and a large percentage of the radical Muslims, are actually born here, and their citizenships rights are guaranteed by birthrights.
The western governments would also realize the catastrophic consequences of trying to enact a policy of forced repatriations of Muslims; it would leave their societies in complete ruins. One only has to study the two most recent cases of Iraq and Afghanistan to realize this. The scenario for Europe would be ten times worse, if something similar were to happen there.
I also think that we will see a much stricter immigration policy for Europe be introduced in the next twenty to thirty years, were the screening processes of potential immigrants will be a lot more thorough; some ethnical and religious groups will probably be discouraged, and many radical foreign born radical Muslims will be deported.
I also think that the governments will take a lot more proactive role in ensuring that radical Islam is not allowed to grow any stronger in Europe. This could be in the form of limiting freedom of speech, enforcing a tougher policy on so-called hate speech, from both Muslims and right wing groups.
I also believe that the population explosion will have a big impact on the way we live our lives, and on the policies that are influencing our lives. At some stage there will be war like hostilities between those who wants to live in the west (poor African/Asian immigrants) and the western societies. The immigration to the western world can’t go on forever; sooner or later something will have to give.
kritisk_borger: Most of the Muslims need to be expelled. Period. If we allow them to stay our civilization is dead. Whites have the right to resist colonization and expel intruders just as much as everybody else does. This is out continent. Those people have no business being here and never did.
@ Fjordman
Most of the Muslims need to be expelled.
Under the rule of law we can't do that. Besides it would create international wars and the Northern Europeans don't have sufficent defense forces to pull that off and make it stick.
If we allow them to stay our civilization is dead.
Not necessarily. The laws re assimilialtion, learning the language, being gainfully employed, etc., would have to change. This would have to be a grassroots, bottom-up resistance.
The socialists who believe in a welfare state have created this mess. In a polity in which people were expected to learn "the culture and the code" and to contribute their share to maintaining the commonweal, the problems would be greatly diminished.
The personal sense of productivity is a great healer.
As it is, the lethal combination of socialist permissiveness and the deliberately cultivated underclass sense of grievance & entitlement have resulted in a cultural sink. The worst example is Palestine, but Palestine-like sinks could easily be recreated elsewhere.
It couldn't have happened without the original permission from elites, just as our problems with our underclass, black and white, could not have happened without the advent of the welfare state in the 60s. We've had a devil of a time pushing it back. Obama's ascent has made it that much harder so I consider his reign an unfortunate interruption.
But we will regain lost ground. Even now the people in the US identifying themselves as conservative (among all races) has passed those who consider themselves moderate or liberal.
Fjordman
The question is how to achieve separation? Civil war or a general conventional war.
Civil war is too awful to contemplate. That leaves conventional war. We are moving along quite nicely in that direction.
Pres Obama may not like it, but the logic of what Pres Bush set in motion cannot be easily stopped.
Dymphna,
Most of the Muslims need to be expelled.
Under the rule of law we can't do that.
Hugh Fitzgerald has often cited the Beneš Decree as a precedent for deporting a hostile population. Although the Lisbon Treaty may render the Czech Republic vulnerable to potential lawsuits from the descendants of the Sudeten Germans I've never heard it claimed that the Beneš Decree went against the rule of law as such.
Hugh | August 29, 2007 1:21 PM
"The Benes Decree has been adduced as an example of the way in which not merely such regimes as those of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Morocco, Algeria, and Libya, have expelled the nationals, but so too has a modern, advanced, tolerant, Western state, Czechoslovakia, when its tolerant and civilized leaders, Jan Masaryk and Eduard Benes, and many other Czechs, drew from the Czech experience just before and during World War II with the Sudeten Germans living inside Czechoslovakia, who for the most part, under their leader Henlein, willingly allowed themselves to be used by Hitler to promote his own war aims and demands on Czechoslovakia, and then after Czechoslovakia was occupied by German troops, those Sudeten Germs received the same rations as German soldiers, which was much better than what the Czechs and Slovaks received, and otherwise received special treatment (as did Volksdeutsche elsewhere, as in Poland), and many collaborated with their fellow ethnic Germans."
Lord Pearson states that the U.K. political elite and media has been complacent, on this he is wrong they have been complicit. Lord Pearson is from the same political elite that replaced indigenous Scots with sheep during the Highland Clearances.
Lord Pearson states "we have to contain that anger" @2:32 sounds more like control and exploit that anger on behalf of UKIP and the political elite. The social tremors in the U.K. are well below Lord Pearson's strata of the elite, tremors that have not yet manifested political shade or preference.
Lord Pearson @3:03 does not even class Irish Catholics as christian, in his elite world "moderate muslims" are preferable to Continental Europeans and Catholics. He is a political opportunist manipulating the anti-jihad movement.
Fjordman said;
“Most of the Muslims need to be expelled. Period. If we allow them to stay our civilization is dead. Whites have the right to resist colonization and expel intruders just as much as everybody else does. This is out continent. Those people have no business being here and never did.”
Ok, so the west should start the forcible repatriation of ‘most’ Muslims from the western world. How do the governments, who for the most part hail from the left side of the political scale, go about implementing such a policy? How many Muslims are there in Europe at the moment, twenty, thirty, or perhaps even forty million?
These people aren’t just going to give up without a fight. No way, we’ve seen how easily they resort to violence when they don’t get their way. They will use any means, and by that I mean absolutely any means, to be able to remain here.
And it’s not just going to be Muslims vs non Muslims, it’s also going to be non Muslims vs non Muslims. A conflict on this scale would also lead to an influx of jihadists from every corner of the globe. Those who think that the violence after the invasion of Iraq was bad will be horrified to see an even more violent and bloody conflict take place in Europe. It’s also worth mentioning that this war could not be fought in a traditional military manner, as most of the fighting would take place in urban areas. In many ways it would resemble the war fought in Iraq against the insurgents, with huge losses of civilian lives.
It’s not even given that the various armies in Europe would manage to avoid serious infightings within its own ranks, over such a controversial mission, let alone the different countries in Europe. Just because Denmark was willing to forcibly expel the Muslim from Europe, doesn’t necessarily mean that France would agree to do so. France could even decide to invade Denmark as a result of the Danish decision to go to this drastic step.
Is it really an option to risk the completely and utter destruction of Europe, in order to rid the continent of its Muslim population, and is it even a feasible task?
Nor would the decision makers in the west allow such a scenario to ever take place, and if it came down to it, they would do everything in their power to remain in power. This would of course also mean the use of very undemocratic methods.
I think a more plausible option is that the various Governments of Europe would introduce stricter laws regulating individual’s rights to spread extreme religious hatred and for practitioners to assemble and practice their religion. De-radicalization programs on a massive scale could also be an option if push really came to shove, along with forcible internment of radical Muslims, and in the form of a demographic destruction of Muslim ghettos in the big cities of Europe. Needless to say, a memorandum on future Muslim immigration to the continent would have to be put in place.
kritisk_borger: No sizable amount of Muslims can be allowed to remain on the European continent or in the Western world as a whole. The only thing we should be debating is how to achieve this goal in the least messy and bloody manner possible. If Asians can say "Asia for Asians" and Africans can say "Africa for Africans" then surely Europeans can say "Europe for Europeans."
Re : deporting Muslims from Europe.
There are plenty of possibilities apart from a massive, forceful movement of population, which would anyway suppose the existence of a fascist state. (How do you recognise a Muslim ? There's no such legal category.)
First of all, a lot of Muslims who have a European passport retain the citizenship of their country of origin. If they break the law, it's possible to strip them of their European citizenship and deport them. This would probably require a new law in some cases, but it would still be within usual constitutional limits.
(I don't consider European laws, treaties, and "declarations of rights" as being part of those limits. They would have to be ignored. Nothing is possible if one takes European legal constraints for granted. This would be entirely legitimate, since it's obvious by now that the European institutions are illegitimate.)
Second, do not underestimate the possibility of a large number of people chosing to return to their country of origin on their own free will, given the appropriate disincentives.
We already have anecdotal evidence of this. Kofi Yamgnane, the first French black mayor, and former socialist junior minister under Mitterrand, has just let go of his French citizenship, in order to run for president in his native Togo.
I've read about black African nannies, who are very happy to work for wealthy families in Paris and consider they are getting a very good deal, but who are still planning to retire in their country of origin, because they'd rather spend their old age over there, among their own.
Many Arab youngsters, who had a French university education but cannot get a job, are thinking of emigrating to Canada. Or Abu Dhabi.
And that's without any disincentives to speak of, yet.
Just imagine if there was a significant cut on the amount of public money which is showered upon immigrants, in the form of social allowances, almost free housing, free health care, subsidised non-jobs, fake training sessions with a salary attached, free holidays, etc.
Given the level of public debt, it's more a question of when than if.
If the native population made it clear that Islam is not welcome (and such a feeling is indeed rising), it could also persuade the more religious-minded to emigrate to Muslim countries. I've already read such thoughts publicly aired by fundamentalists.
During the history of the United States, there were periods when such disincentives resulted in a significant number of immigrants returning to where they came from.
Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that our own societies are so perfect that they are irresistible to outsiders. They are attractive if we make them so, notably through the welfare state. We could also make them deliberately unattractive by pushing on the right buttons.
"Fjordman: Most of the Muslims need to be expelled.
Dymphna: Under the rule of law we can't do that. Besides it would create international wars and the Northern Europeans don't have sufficent defense forces to pull that off and make it stick."
It used to be so in the U.S. that your naturalization was conditional. If you behaved in a non-patriotic or hostile manner, your citizenship could be stripped. Now I can no longer find the text that says this. They must have removed this passage some time in the 90ies. But they could bring it back.
My point is that even in the U.S. citizenship used to be conditional. It makes sense to me. The people granted it. The people can take it back.
"These people aren’t just going to give up without a fight. No way, we’ve seen how easily they resort to violence when they don’t get their way. They will use any means, and by that I mean absolutely any means, to be able to remain here. "
First, you remove the trouble-makers and ring-leaders. So to speak, cut off the head of the hydra.
Fjordman: "No sizable amount of Muslims can be allowed to remain on the European continent or in the Western world as a whole. The only thing we should be debating is how to achieve this goal in the least messy and bloody manner possible. If Asians can say "Asia for Asians" and Africans can say "Africa for Africans" then surely Europeans can say "Europe for Europeans.""
I concur. Keeping the European character of Europe IS NOT AN OPTION. It is a non-negotiable given. It's like sacrificing my children is not an option. If I decide that my children must live. then my next step would be to decide how to achieve it. It's the same with Europe. Europeans are the indigenous population of Europe. Europeans must be preserved, period. It is an absolute moral imperative - it is not a choice. If Europeans, as an ethnic family and civilization, no longer exist, then the whole world might as well not exist, for all I care.
First things first, in my last post I wrote memorandum, instead of moratorium. Apologies for this mistake.
It’s okay to dream, but if dreams are to become a reality, they should at least have some element of realism about them.
To anyone that thinks that the Muslims would somehow just pack up and leave, because the Governments would encourage them to do so, wake up! Maybe some of them would take up this offer, but the great majority of them would stay. Millions of people, and many of them Muslims, go to extreme lengths to reach Europe each year, why would they then just pack up and leave once they have arrived? What about all the forced marriages, anchor children etc
I also thought that there was a planned Muslim colonization of the continent, Eurabia, remember? Would the Muslims simply give up on this plan if we asked them nicely to do so? I don’t think so. My point is that Europe would be in ruins if such an attempt ever were to be undertaken.
And what about the white enclaves in the Americas, Australasia Asia and Africa? Are these enclaves also supposed to be ethnically cleansed? That would only be fair wouldn’t it? An eye for an eye etc.
KB: If a large number of Muslims are allowed to remain here, European civilization will be finished. Since this is a totally unacceptable result they must be removed. I didn't say that this would be easy, I merely said that it is necessary.
OK I have only made it through half this thread so far, but I feel that I must commit premature articulation.
If one looks carefully at the case of The Reverend Stephen Boison, the Canadian pastor who published harsh opinions about homosexuals in Canada and was charged under section XIII of the human rights act, you should be able to discover that many gay websites and magazines and similar publications republished the complete text of the Boison letter with a challenge to the HRC's to charge them as well. TO be clear, many large gay groups in fact did republish the material specifically because they felt that freedom of speech, the very freedom that won them equal rights in Canada in all fields and some would argue special rights, was far more important than their right to not be offended by a column by a minor charachter who writes for a tiny church newspaper in Red Deer Alberta, a town which when I was there last in 07, did not even have a single Tim Hortons.
Lastly on this subject, I have had dinner with Bruce Bawer. We would be hard pressed to find a better ally than he, a scholar, a gentleman, one who is better versed in American history and its value as well as classical civilization than most. It was a pleasure to work with him when Free Thinking Films brought him to Ottawa to speak.
On another matter, some brilliant insight on the quasi-secret inner desire some of us may have for a melee. Yes I agree that the fantasy of a war we can actually understand is cathartic somewhat akin to jumping off the building to level out the tension. But after what I read about the bar in New York, where an Imam threatened to destroy it if they did not stop serving alcohol I realized that we will not get that catharsis. It will be a gradual submitting to a kind of mafia like religiously motivated extortion racket, one the police can do nothing about yet they can do something about any retaliation to it.
So we had better all work three shifts for a political solution. We are not gonna get a chance to fight our side of a war even if it does come.
As the Muslim population in the West continues to increase, so will demands for sharia. As our leaders know from experience, and they have been taught that lesson, they will acquiesce to those demands.
Sooner or later there will be civil unrest and even civil war. If Muslim win, we are finished. If they lose, then ethnic cleansing begins. The best option is partition. If no one wins, then it is partition, which again means that we lose.
I agree with Fjordman that there is no way except to start to diminish the Muslim population in Western countries. However, it must be done in a manner that does not destroy our civilisation in the process of saving it. We do not have to start mass repatriation - that is unjust. Just stop Muslim immigration, and then slowly start to reduce the numbers. A negative growth rate in itself stops the Jihad, demoralises the fighters of Islamic Jihad, as well as we know, that in the fullness of time, Muslim numbers will be so small, that they no longer pose a threat. We can even start to consider hijabs etc as "charming" in a quaint sort of way.
How do we get to this state of affairs? Well, the groundwork is already in place. If all goes well, in the next 5 to 10 years, we should start to see Muslims voluntarily leaving the West, even though we ask them to stay. Muslim immigration would by then have stopped of its qown accord.
Post a Comment