Part One is available here.
A Consideration of Muslim Immigration into the UK: Part Two
By Pike Bishop
III. In Praise of Discrimination
Many readers of this document will agree with some reasonable amount of the cost-benefit analysis in the previous section, but will already be feeling that there is little, if anything, to be done about it. To be sure, Muslims seem to be a hopeless case in every way. But surely there is nothing to be done? After all, it is the 21st century. We are good people. We have moved beyond discrimination. We are nice to small animals. Some of us even keep track of our carbon emissions. Could such a morally elevated people as the British simply keep Muslims out of the UK?
Our answer is that that, or some minor variation upon it, is exactly what needs to be done. We need to keep out Muslims as Muslims, because they are Muslims, and we should make no bones about it. Discriminating against Muslims in this regard is essential if our society is to survive the next few decades in anything even approximating its current form.
Once our cost-benefit analysis has determined that it is actively detrimental to the interests of the British people to allow ever more Muslims into the UK, we are driven to conclude that Muslim immigration needs to shut down by whatever means possible, as soon as possible. However, this will require us to create a conceptual box labelled ‘Muslim,’ decide who fits in it, and essentially bar everyone who is in the ‘Muslim’ box. What this means is that we must discriminate against Muslims on the basis of their religious affiliation, and as we perceive it, not as they describe it.
Having arrived at this conclusion, there are two preliminary discussions to be had: a justification of discrimination of this sort, and a consideration of the analytical difficulty involved in identifying Muslims. Let us address these problems in turn.
What justifies this discrimination?
Given that advocating discrimination against Muslims as Muslims leaves one slightly further outside of polite society than Grendel’s mother, we will need to spend some time here explaining exactly why we feel justified in doing so.
One can insist that any and all discrimination of the sort we advocate would constitute an evil, but one cannot thereby change Muslims into something they are not, or alter the effects their continued influxes will have on Britain and the British. And we insist that to continue to allow vast numbers of Muslims into the UK, to allow them to suck huge amounts of financial and social capital out of the British people, degrade their country, colonize their cities, and turn Britain into a ticking time bomb of mutual sectarian hatred on a scale to dwarf the Troubles, would be a far greater evil than the evil of simply keeping non-British people out of Britain when it is not in our interests for them to be allowed in. In the final analysis, Britain is either the country of the British people, or it is an arbitrary geographical container into which all the people of the world must be allowed to flow, irrespective of the consequences for the people who built the society therein. Those who consider it to be the latter should make their position clear in this regard, so that British patriots who do not wish to see their country disintegrate can react accordingly.
Of course, there will be some who argue that such measures could not be implemented, as they would infringe, in some fashion, on the rights of Muslims inside Britain, outside Britain, or both. In the long term, however, it will avail such people little to make such weak and foolish arguments. If we wish to avert the Islam-induced national implosion that lies along the path we are walking at present, we will have to disrupt the causal chains that threaten to bring this outcome about. If disrupting these chains requires us to do things that the self-appointed moral arbiters of our times decide have crossed some line in the sand that only they, in all their wisdom, can discern, then we will be forced to make a choice. On the one hand, we can choose to respect Muslims’ human rights as formulated and defined by this ‘elite,’ and watch our society descend into murderous tribal violence. On the other hand, we can insist that if the destruction of Britain as we know it is implicit in the ‘rights’ of Muslims, then those supposed rights will simply have to be disregarded, along with the entire pathological discourse that tries to force them down our throats.
Does anyone seriously believe that the British will continue, in perpetuity, to shrug their shoulders and agree to having their towns and cities colonized by Muslim peoples who are criminal and parasitic at best, and treasonous at worst? A wave of anti-Islamic feeling is sweeping Europe, a wave which is a direct, sensible, and entirely appropriate response to the characteristics of Islam and Muslims, and which can only grow taller with time if the problems this despicable religion and its adherents create are not dealt with. Of course, a country led by Little Lord Fauntleroy and His Favourite Joke is clearly rather a long way from generating any political will at all in this regard. However, we must do what we can. The explicitly anti-Islamic, anti-Muslim-immigration waves building around Western Europe in general are bound to crash onto the UK’s shores eventually. We await their approach with bated breath, and hope to hasten their arrival by even a day.
It is worth reminding readers that we already discriminate against or in favour of different groups of foreign nationals on the basis of their country of origin. The French are free to enter Britain without visas, stay as long as they like, and work in any job they can find. The Japanese are free to enter, visa-free, for periods of up to three months at a time, but cannot work during that time. The Nigerians are kept at arm’s length, and must jump through various hoops before being granted any sort of visa at all. Despite the common claim that to discriminate against people over characteristics that they have no control over (such as country of origin) is the greatest moral infringement imaginable in everyday life, our immigration authorities do it every day, and will doubtless continue to do so, for the simple reason that they have no choice in the matter.
Allowing Nigerians into the UK on the same basis as the Japanese would result in a massive flood of Nigerians entering on three-month tourist visas and mysteriously failing to ever leave, unless thrown out by the UK Border Agency. They would mysteriously relocate, and we would mysteriously notice large populations of mysterious Nigerians everywhere we looked. This is too obvious a point to be worth expanding upon, but the lesson we learn from it is of great importance: all governments will discriminate flatly and unapologetically when they realize that they have to. As such, the question is not whether Muslim immigration will eventually be prohibited, or curtailed to a point where it barely takes place at all. We guarantee that this will happen eventually. The question is whether or not our political class comes to its senses and musters the necessary political will before or after the UK Muslim population becomes so large as to render impossible any peaceful resolution to the threat it poses to our country. This point will be expanded upon in a later section, and, indeed, a subsequent document.
Of course, there will be many who believe that banning Muslim immigration outright would be unnecessary. Could we not simply be more selective as to whom exactly we allowed in? Granted, allowing unending streams of primitive South Asian Muslim peasants to colonize the urban UK through family reunion immigration might not be the greatest political innovation of the post-War period. But surely, even if family reunion immigration had to be severely, if not entirely, cut back, there would be no reason to curtail other Muslim influxes? Could we not still allow carefully screened Muslims in on student visas, working visas, or the like?
The answer to this question is no, but understanding why this should be so requires us to abandon certain false and misleading notions of exactly why Islam is a threat to us. Islam is not a threat because some tiny fraction of its adherents are ‘extremists,’ or even ‘violent extremists.’ Islam is a threat because Muslims are over-represented with respect to four pernicious behaviours: they are disproportionately criminal, disproportionately parasitic, disproportionately subversive and disproportionately seditious. Criminal, parasitic, subversive, and seditious people will exist in all potential immigrant populations, but this is not the point. The point is that such people exist in such large concentrations in Muslim populations as to make them unassimilable and unsupportable in the long term. As such, we would need at the very least a decision-making algorithm that allowed us to avoid concentrations of people with these characteristics and focus on the non-problematic part of the potential Muslim immigrant population. However, no such algorithm exists, and no such algorithm can exist.
Unscreened family reunion immigration obviously cannot result in only screened Muslims coming to the UK as it constitutes, by its very nature, an influx of people selected by Muslims in the UK in line with their interests, not by UK immigration authorities in line with the interests of the British people. But what about potential influxes of qualified professionals drawn from the ranks of the Pakistani people? Could a Pakistani electronic engineer not be allowed to come to the UK on a work visa? The answer to this question is no, for the following reason: though it may be possible to screen Muslims for criminality and parasitism, it is not possible to screen them for subversive or seditious tendencies. Qualified electronic engineers are unlikely to engage in much benefit fraud or purse-snatching, but there is no way of determining whether they would like to do away with freedom of speech in the service of Islam, or blow up the Tube if they disapprove of British military participation in Iraq. What are we going to do to determine their positions on these matters? Just ask them, and expect them to tell the truth?
Even if we could perform this task to a satisfactory extent, our difficulties would not have come to an end. If we could gain a sufficiently detailed picture of the psyche of a given prospective Muslim immigrant, we would still not know: a) whether they would retain all of their attitudes in key regards, or b) whether their descendants would be like their parents or, instead, become ‘radicalized’ as young Muslims seem to have such an alarming tendency to do. If we cannot devise an algorithm for determining the current characteristics of a given Muslim, how probable is it that we would be able to devise an equivalent algorithm for what that Muslim would be in ten years’ time, or what their descendants would be in 20, 50, or 100 years’ time?
Of course, we would not be able to devise equivalent screening algorithms for, for example, Sikhs either. But we do not need to be able to devise these algorithms for Sikhs because several decades of Sikh immigration have shown us that Sikhs are a people who can integrate and have integrated into British society without any particular problems for either side. Nothing could be further from the case with Muslims, who have proven the exact opposite. Accordingly, they must all be excluded unless exceptional reasons exist for allowing in exceptional individuals.
Who is a Muslim?
Having explained why we would feel entirely justified in barring Muslims from the UK as Muslims, we must now address some of the practical issues involved in doing so. The notion that Western countries might soon have to simply start keeping Muslims out as Muslims has started to crop up with enough regularity to induce at least some to sally forth in response with their own objections to the very feasibility of the idea. Absurd, they tell us. Keeping out Muslims? How would we do that? Just ask people if they’re Muslims or not? And what if they say no, what then? What would we do with ‘secular’ Muslims, or ‘cultural’ Muslims? What would we do with people from, for example, India? Look at their names? How reliable would that be? What is a Muslim? And so on and so forth.
This confusion is common, but can be cleared up quite easily. It stems from asking philosophical questions where one should be asking practical questions. One need only look at our criminal justice system and the operations of our courts to understand the basic contours of the solution to the problem. Essentially, our court system is a method for trying to identify the guilty as being guilty, and the innocent as being innocent, and trying not to identify the guilty as being innocent or the innocent as being guilty. What that means is that there are four possible outcomes to each trial (ignoring mistrials and other such subtleties):
- True positives (defendant: guilty, verdict: guilty)
- False positives (defendant: innocent, verdict: guilty)
- True negatives (defendant: innocent, verdict: not guilty)
- False negatives (defendant: guilty, verdict: not guilty)
True positive and true negative are correct verdicts, and false positive and false negative are incorrect verdicts. Given that no system of verdicts will be infallible, we must accept that both false types of verdict will be delivered at least some of the time. The crucial point is to understand that there is an inescapable trade-off between the false positives and the false negatives. If we devise our system to make false positives less likely, we will make false negatives more likely, and vice versa. There is no way around this.
We can ensure that no false positive ever arises by insisting that courts always acquit defendants, and that no false negative ever arises by insisting that courts always convict. But if both of these rather unsatisfactory states of affairs are to be avoided, we will have to accept a trade-off between the two types of incorrect verdict. In the British criminal justice system, the onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because we believe that it is better that the guilty should walk free than that the innocent should go to prison. This is another way of saying that we consider false positives to be a greater evil than false negatives.
If we aimed to stop Muslims from coming to the UK, all we would have to do would be to devise a system analogous to (though not, one imagines, operationally similar to) the system our courts utilise in determining guilt or innocence. Our four outcomes would now look like this:
- True positives (defendant: Muslim, verdict: Muslim)
- False positives (defendant: Infidel, verdict: Muslim)
- True negatives (defendant: Infidel, verdict: Infidel)
- False negatives (defendant: Muslim, verdict: Infidel)
Now we have a system analogous to the court process outlined above, where the ‘prosecution’ (immigration officers) is trying to establish that potential visitors to the UK are ‘guilty’ of being Muslim and the defendants (potential visitors) are trying to establish that they are innocent of this heinous offence. How onerous we make the task of proving this simply depends on whether we are more inclined to accept the system spitting out false positives or false negatives. If, as would certainly be the case, we were more worried by the prospect of false negatives (Muslims slipping through the net) than the prospect of false positives (wrongly keeping out people who are not Muslims), then we set only a weak burden of proof on the ‘prosecution.’ It really is that simple.
What evidence would be brought to bear on the matter? Country of origin, name, appearance (clothing, etc.), and direct questioning. If one were to discern after a period of time that, for example, too many Indonesian Muslims pretending to be Christians were slipping through, then regulations with respect to such people would simply be tightened, and deportations of actual Muslims accelerated.
The key point is that our definition of Muslim will be functional, not theological. We do not need to get involved in the interminable and frequently fratricidal Muslim squabbles as to who is a true Muslim and who is not. We only need to employ functionally useful broad-brush definitions that will serve to keep out those peoples who have proven, over multiple generations of immigration into Britain, that they should not be allowed in any more, whilst imposing minimal inconvenience on others. It can hardly be beyond the wit of the entire UK Border Agency to determine with acceptable accuracy who is a Muslim and who is not.
IV. Pakistanis, Positive Feedback, and Alligators
There are certain key dynamics underlying the growth of the Muslim population of the UK, dynamics that must be understood before one can really have the slightest idea of just how serious the problem is. We will use the Pakistani population of the UK as a proxy for the entire UK Muslim population here, so as to avoid having to operate in a purely abstract fashion. Being the largest, longest-established, and most psychopathic Muslim population in the country, it is ideal for our purposes.
It goes without saying that the matters we are about to discuss are extremely delicate, and that all decent and responsible people will treat with them with the very greatest of sensitivity. So, broadsword in hand, woad applied, and bloodthirsty battle cry issuing forth, let us storm the enemy citadel and burn it to the ground, slaying all we chance upon.
Pakistanis originate from a country called Pakistan. Readers may have heard of this country. Contrary to what some may think when they first learn of it, it is not some dystopian fantasy dreamed up by an artful hoaxer testing whether people would actually believe it exists. It does exist. Let us describe it briefly here.
Pakistan, as we understand it today, came into existence in a two-stage process. In 1947, British India was partitioned into three parts, but two countries: India and the Dominion of Pakistan, which consisted of both modern-day Pakistan and modern-day Bangladesh. This process of partition was extremely bloody, resulting as it did in the deaths of up to a million people, many of them in the historic region of the Punjab, which was split between India and Pakistan. Even bloodier was the civil war fought between West Pakistan (i.e. today’s Pakistan) and East Pakistan (i.e. today’s Bangladesh) in 1971 as East Pakistan, ethnically, culturally and linguistically distinct, sought to free itself from an oppressive relationship with its western half. This conflict included what was perhaps the largest genocide since the Holocaust, in which as many as three million people in Bangladesh (mainly Hindus and the Bengali educated classes) were exterminated in cold blood by the army of West Pakistan and associated militias. No one has ever been brought to justice for these events, and, as far as we can discern, there has never been any sense of guilt or contrition amongst the Pakistani public at large for the actions of their country in this regard.
In the forty years since, Pakistan itself has undergone a huge transition. A Muslim hellhole in 1971, it is now a Muslim hellhole with nuclear weapons. Pressing hard on the heels of such distinguished members of the family of nations as Somalia, Chad, and Afghanistan, Pakistan was rated as the 10th most failed state in existence in 2010 by Foreign Policy’s Failed States Index. Despite stiff competition from Haiti (the 11th most failed state) and Ivory Coast (the 12th most failed state), the Pakistanis succeeded in ensuring their country a continued presence in the Top Ten. If the country and its people excel at all, they seem to do so mainly in the fields of political assassination, persecution of religious minorities, disintegration of the rule of law, and general Islamic lunacy. Readers who wish to know more about Pakistan are invited to investigate it further, if they think they can stomach it.
The debate about Muslim integration thunders on around us throughout Europe and beyond, and we do not propose to add much to it here. We take it as given that integration of the Pakistani population of the UK must be considered a severe failure in the aggregate, in every sense of the word integration. Pakistanis in the UK stand out, predictably, for their criminality, violence, socioeconomic underperformance, parasitism, poverty, terrorism, subversion, and ideological hostility to the British state, people, and way of life. If the Pakistani population of the UK could not or would not integrate when it numbered only in the thousands or tens of thousands, back in the 50s and 60s, when Pakistanis were forced, for brute demographic reasons, to effectively swim in a sea of Britons, how can it be expected to integrate now, when it numbers over one million souls, when it has taken over vast swathes of the urban UK, when it has obtained substantial political influence, when Pakistanis can spend their entire lives quite comfortably without having to learn any substantial amount of English, when the authorities fall over themselves to mollify them and other parts of the Muslim population, and when a very significant, and ever-increasing, degree of political polarization, residential segregation, and sectarian hostility now exists between them and the British themselves? Is this a strong foundation for integration, or for mutually enriching coexistence?
We submit that if a man cannot lift a car over his head, then he will certainly not be able to lift two cars over his head, for a task that cannot be completed by a given actor when it is easy will not be found to be possible when it is more difficult. So it is with Muslims and the interminable discussion surrounding their integration―that horse has bolted. Muslim integration is now impossible. The most pressing question for the British people, and, as it happens, for the UK Muslim population itself, is not how to integrate ever-greater numbers of unassimilable, hostile, and unproductive adherents of an inherently seditious religion, but whether there can continue to be a place in this country for any significant number of Muslims at all, even that small fraction of the UK Muslim population that actually deserves to be here. And the answer to this question will depend on how the entire mindless fiasco of Muslim immigration is brought to a halt.
It should go without saying that very many of the people living in a country like Pakistan would rather be somewhere else, which is to say that, having so utterly fouled their own nest, they wish to escape it. Britain is one such potential destination. Pakistanis have been allowed to create a large diaspora in Britain through a) labour immigration in the 50s and 60s, and b) family reunion immigration from 1971, when the Immigration Act 1971 was introduced. This latter mechanism was substantially expanded when Labour came to power in 1997.
If the British state creates, as it has created, a mechanism whereby immigrants to Britain can bring other immigrants to Britain from their countries of origin, then it is effectively signing our long-term demographic future over to those people. This is the crux of the matter. Britain cannot allow the population of a disintegrating canker like Pakistan to continue to pull itself across the world and into Britain by its own bootstraps and expect to avoid an existential crisis as a result. Yet family reunion immigration is a mechanism that allows it to do just that. We must turn our attention to it in slightly more detail now, as it lies at the heart of our dilemma.
The growth of the Muslim community in the UK is largely dependent on two things: a) its higher fertility rates, and b) family reunion immigration. These two phenomena reinforce each other, and, taken together, constitute a clear and present danger to the future of this country.
We understand the basic rationale behind allowing family reunion immigration in some form. Imagine a British man going on a summer holiday to, say, Mongolia, and meeting and falling in love with a Mongolian woman. The relationship blossoms and eventually ends in marriage, and the couple decide to live together in the UK. If there exists no mechanism whereby the Mongolian partner can settle in the UK, then the British partner either has to leave Britain to be with her, or he has to abandon his newfound love. This state of affairs would generally be considered unsatisfactory by all parties, including the British government, and it is for this reason that family reunion immigration exists in Britain, and presumably every other normal country as well (excluding places like North Korea, which are outside the scope of this essay).
Now this is all well and good, and no one but the most zealous ethnic nationalist would oppose it on the grounds of wanting to keep out ‘Mongolian blood.’ But the reason we can be relatively unconcerned about this type of family reunion immigration is that its effects will constitute a diffusion of people into Britain which has two characteristics: a) it is slow, and b) it is essentially random. If it loses these characteristics, to wit, if it becomes a) rapid, and b) dominated by hostile and unassimilable groups, then it becomes a fast-track to civil war. Muslim family reunion immigration has both of these characteristics, and therefore constitutes an existential threat to the continued existence of any country worthy of still being called Britain. We must stop pretending that a white British man applying for his Bolivian wife to be allowed into the UK and a second-generation Pakistani man applying for his Pakistani first-cousin bride to be allowed into the UK are essentially two variations on the same theme. They are not. The former is what family reunion immigration was formulated to accommodate, whereas the latter is simply a facilitator of the Pakistani colonization of Britain. To rephrase, family reunion immigration, in the context of ‘our’ Pakistani population, is akin to a one-way trans-dimensional wormhole via which Pakistanis, in effect, stumble across into our universe, where, by and large, they retain the cultural characteristics and general mindset they had in Pakistan. In essence, it is a mechanism for recreating Pakistan in microcosm up, down and across the UK with a very high degree of fidelity.
The key dynamics underlying this slow-motion catastrophe for the British people are not difficult to understand. A presentation of the key facts can be found at the website of Migration Watch, the last truly sane organization in Britain. According to Migration Watch:
As late as 2001, it was estimated that 60% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi marriages in Bradford were with a spouse from the country of origin. The percentages in Manchester and Birmingham are likely to be similar. This therefore increases the rate of household formation and the size of families and thus creates a very rapid change in the composition of the population of the areas in which they live.
And we have the following with respect to fertility rates amongst these populations:
But, in addition, there has been continued migration from Pakistan and the fertility rates of women born in Pakistan are high. In 1991 for the UK-born population as a whole it was 1.8 in comparison with 4.8 for Pakistan- born mothers. In 2001 the corresponding rates were 1.6 and 4.7.
Migration Watch also mentions that:
This may explain why, in 2002, the Home Secretary called for ‘a discussion to be had within these communities [from the Indian Sub-Continent] that continue the practice of arranged marriages as to whether more of these could be undertaken within the settled community here’
Behold your tax revenues at work. If ‘these communities’ were interested in undertaking more of these marriages within the settled community, would they not already be doing so? Did the Home Secretary of the time (David Blunkett) not have the wit to see that there was no way on Earth these communities would willingly do so? Could he not imagine just what a status difference there must be back in Pakistan or Bangladesh if one’s son or daughter is a British citizen and therefore constitutes a stepping stone to the UK for any potential spouse? Could he not see that Pakistanis and Bangladeshis might think that the more rapid the growth of their respective communities in the UK, the greater their political influence in Britain, and the better served their interests? Did he also ask murderers to stop murdering people, and drug dealers to stop dealing drugs?
Suggesting that people refrain from engaging in activities that they are freely allowed to engage in and that are massively in their interests is the province of fools. If family reunion immigration on the part of Muslims is to be reduced, it will have to be reduced via legislation making it impossible, and it would strain credulity to breaking point to suggest that the Muslim populations thereby affected would do anything but oppose the legislation in question. This is a tribal conflict of interests between the British and their thoroughly unwanted accumulations of Muslims.
Bad though all of this is, it is made worse by the fact that Pakistani- or Bangladeshi-born mothers have, as was alluded to above, much higher fertility rates than anyone else in the UK, including British-born Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. The at-least partial convergence of fertility rates that would be expected between the native British on the one hand and British-born Pakistanis/Bangladeshis on the other is thus substantially reduced. In other words, fertility rates for these communities remain, on balance, substantially higher than for the native British. This, acting in concert with the artificially elevated rate of household formation brought about by family reunion immigration, pushes the growth rate of the Muslim population up to its current suicidal and unsustainable level.
This demographic takeover of our country has been underway for decades, is taking place right now, and will continue until it is stopped. According to an article in The Times in January 2009:
The Muslim population in Britain has grown by more than 500,000 to 2.4 million in just four years, according to official research collated for The Times.
The population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics reveals. In the same period the number of Christians in the country fell by more than 2 million.
Experts said that the increase was attributable to immigration, a higher birthrate and conversions to Islam during the period of 2004-2008, when the data was gathered. They said that it also suggested a growing willingness among believers to describe themselves as Muslims because the western reaction to war and terrorism had strengthened their sense of identity.
To top off the madness, we are steadily extending the franchise to most of these people! As the scale of the disaster that is Muslim immigration slowly dawns on us in Britain, and among other European peoples as well, so too does our ability to address it via democratic politics decline in direct proportion to the fraction of the electorate that becomes Muslim. For there is no way that Muslims can be expected to support policies that reduce their ability and the ability of their extended tribes to suck as much blood out of Britain as is humanly possible. Are people so hopelessly tribal as to marry their children off to their nephews and nieces expected to have such a strong sense of civic loyalty to Britain that they will a) recognize the degrading and destructive influence they are within it, and b) move to shut down further influxes of people just like them, to whose interests they attach an overwhelming tribal importance? Extending voting rights to hostile aliens with no concern for Britain or the British is a stupidity we will come to rue all the more with every passing year.
The above analysis will not be everyone’s cup of tea, number-heavy as it is. So let us make the point slightly differently for the benefit of those who prefer explanations that contain strong visual imagery. The Pakistani community of the UK is akin to an alligator that we flushed down the toilet back in the 1970s, an alligator we shall call Ali. Ali the alligator had been fun while he was small and cute, but we all grow up eventually, so down the toilet he went when we felt we had grown out of him. For us, out of sight, out of mind. But not for Ali. No, Ali had his own plans, deep down there in his ickle-wickle alligator brain. Unnoticed by the human world, he eked out an existence in the sewer, and, more to the point, he grew, and grew, and grew some more.
Now Ali has started chewing people up, and we, the hapless protagonists of this drama, are trying to figure out what is happening. Examining one set of rotting remains after another, a hypothesis forms. Disbelieving at first, we edge towards the truth whilst scarcely believing it ourselves. Eventually the evidence is incontrovertible. It is Ali that is reducing the life expectancy of sewage maintenance personnel so dramatically, and we are going to have to deal with him somehow. The problem is that, by the time we get around to realizing this, he has grown so big that ‘dealing’ with him is a grotesquely violent process for all concerned, particularly for Ali, who ends up having a stick of dynamite inserted up each nostril and being blown to smithereens.
In other European countries, brave men and women concerned about the welfare of their peoples and the survival of their societies have enjoyed great successes of late in challenging the multicultural political consensus that has prevailed over the last few decades. This consensus, a consensus amongst political and media elites only, has held, implicitly, that the conversion of prosperous, peaceful European countries into ticking time-bombs of ethno-sectarian hatred through the mass importation of indigestible Muslims is an unprecedented historical achievement. In fact, it is the ruin of our civilization in embryonic form, and must be driven back one way or another. To be completely clear: we are subsidizing the takeover of our countries by hostile Muslim peoples. The rate at which their populations grow is something we extend no control over at present in any deep structural sense, limited as it is only by the rate at which they can import family members with whom to procreate. In what sense could it be argued that this is an immigration system rooted in the interests of the British people?
Niccolo Machiavelli said in The Prince:
And what physicians say about disease is applicable here: that at the beginning a disease is easy to cure but difficult to diagnose; but as time passes, not having been treated or recognized at the outset, it becomes easy to diagnose but difficult to cure. The same thing occurs in affairs of state; for by recognizing from afar the diseases that are spreading in the state (which is a gift given only to a prudent ruler), they can be cured quickly; but when they are not recognized and are left to grow to the extent that everyone recognizes them, there is no longer any cure.
While agreeing with the underlying notion here, we must express our disagreement in one key regard. There will always be a cure for the ills wrought upon Britain and its people by Muslim immigration. Whether it will be to anyone’s liking or not is, however, another matter entirely.
Next: V. If We Fail to Act and VI. Some Pre-Emptive Responses to Predicted Objections
|18.||We ignore for simplicity’s sake the way in which Islam tends to attract criminal, confused people to it as converts, such as Richard Reid the shoebomber. This is indeed another pernicious effect of Islam that is impossible to predict or control, but the point can be made well enough without reference to what is still a fairly limited phenomenon.|
|19.||Strictly speaking, our courts deliver a verdict of ‘not guilty’ rather than one of ‘innocent,’ but we can ignore that subtlety here.|
|20.||Estimates of the death toll vary widely, but a death toll somewhere in the millions looks overwhelmingly probable. Given that the genocide was committed over a period of approximately nine months, the rate of killing almost certainly exceeds even that of the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide.|
|21.||Though General Musharraf did issue an apology on a visit to Bangladesh in 2002.|
|23.||Migration Watch UK|
Previous posts by El Inglés: