Saturday, March 12, 2011

Muslim Immigration into the UK: Part Three

Below is the third installment of a four-part dossier about Muslim immigration written by El Inglés. This series was originally published as a single dossier in pdf format under the pseudonym “Pike Bishop”.

Previously: Part One and Part Two.

Immigrants in Birmingham

A Consideration of Muslim Immigration into the UK: Part Three
By Pike Bishop

V. If We Fail to Act

We venture forth here into a brief but frank discussion of what the future is likely to hold if Muslims continue to flood into Britain, colonize its town and cities, spit on its people and way of life, and suck the blood out of its economy. Few would choose to stare so intently into the crystal ball of ethno-sectarian violence. But that is precisely why we feel we must.

If Muslim immigration, and through it the rate of growth of the Muslim population itself, cannot be brought under control, which is to say stopped in perpetuity, then British towns and cities will continue to undergo a rapid process of colonization by their various Muslim peoples. This process of colonization will have one very unusual characteristic. Normally, technologically and economically more advanced peoples colonize peoples who are less advanced in these regards. This is why, try as they might, the native American Indians could not effectively oppose, much less reverse, the colonization they underwent at the hands of the British and other European peoples. However, in our case, the opposite will be true, as our colonization will be taking place at the hands of technologically and economically inferior peoples who, barring the odd Afghan on the back of a truck, have to be let in by our immigration apparatus to be here at all.

What this means, in a nutshell, is that this colonization will take place only as long as we allow it to, and we will not allow it forever. Eventually we will completely cast aside the various psychological restraints that have been imposed upon us (and without which said colonization could never have occurred at all), resist it, and, at least to some extent, reverse it. There are only two ways this can happen: a) in a relatively orderly and civilized fashion, when a government with the political will to deal with the problem finally comes to power, or b) in an exceptionally violent and brutal fashion, with government playing by no means the only role, and perhaps not even a particularly large one.

It would be asinine to argue that something of this nature could not happen in modern Europe when we have so recently witnessed similar events in the Balkans. And it would be simply absurd to argue it in a country which has only fairly recently emerged from a brutal ethno-sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland, a conflict that featured massive riots, ethnic cleansing of entire neighbourhoods, an alphabet soup of ruthless paramilitaries, shootings of unarmed civilians by security forces, collusion between security forces and paramilitaries, thousands of bombings, hundreds of civilians killed in cold blood, no-go zones policed by masked men brandishing AK-47s, the assassination of government officials, and a bombing that nearly wiped out the entire cabinet of the day.

The war that awaits us is tribal war, and we assure our readers that it does not consist of generals exchanging pleasantries before battle, folk riding forth and shooting at each other a bit, and some backslapping over a glass of port at the end. Rather, it consists of people identifying entire communities as their enemies and more or less indiscriminately killing them off until the threats they are perceived to constitute have been reduced to acceptable levels, whatever those levels may be. It is surely one of the greatest failures in the history of (supposedly) democratic government as an institution that so many otherwise prosperous, peaceful European countries have been deliberately hurling themselves along this path despite the fact that the eventual outcome must have been reasonably obvious from the start, and is painfully so now.

When such tribal conflict breaks out in Britain (and it certainly cannot be avoided without radical changes to immigration and other policies), the only way for it to come to an end will be for the overwhelming majority of the Muslim population of Britain to leave permanently. There will be no Good Friday Agreement to bring it to an end, and, for deep structural reasons, no equivalent agreement can exist. We will be discussing the Troubles in Northern Ireland in considerably more detail in a subsequent document, but feel obliged to explain this preliminary observation here. The civil rights movement in the nationalist community of Northern Ireland in the late 1960s had specific wrongs that it asked the Northern Ireland Parliament at Stormont to address. Most obviously these were: a) the gerrymandering that assured unionist control of councils even in areas in which nationalists outnumbered unionists, b) the consequent inferior access to council housing enjoyed by the nationalist population, and c) anti-nationalist discrimination in the workplace.

These discriminatory measures were themselves a legacy of a bitter history of colonization and conflict which left unionists, after the partition of Ireland, seeing themselves as outnumbered and besieged on the island of Ireland, with a large nationalist population within their own province whose political loyalty was weak at best and whose influence, they felt, had to be curtailed at all costs. This extreme political polarization and lack of a shared identity or shared interests was what led to the Troubles.

The Good Friday Agreement of 1998, which brought an end to the Troubles as commonly understood, essentially resulted in nationalists being granted a fairer share of political power, and unionists being provided with a guarantee that a united Ireland could only be brought about with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. This is how these two different peoples of Northern Ireland have found a way, at least for the last twelve years, of living together in relative peace. But this cannot happen in the event of a conflict between the British and their Muslim fifth column. Indeed, every single part of this compromise in the Good Friday Agreement would be meaningless at best, absurd at worst, in the context of a possible violent conflict of this nature.

As we have already established, the Muslim community of Britain is parasitic with respect to both financial and social capital, criminal and subversive, aggressive and rapidly growing. Its characteristics in these regards are not things it could alter even if it wanted to. Moreover, we cannot grant Muslims the vote, because we have already given them the vote. We cannot give them a fair slice of the economic pie, because they already suck out far more than they put in, consuming wealth created by others with nary a word of thanks. We cannot guarantee them that they will not be incorporated by force into our country, as they are already trying to get every mother’s son in here themselves, by hook or by crook, with the express purpose of being incorporated into it, at least in some sense. And we cannot grant them political influence commensurate with the contributions they make to British society, as their contributions to British society are all severely negative, and the political influence they already have is entirely undeserved and increasingly resented by the indigenous population.

The only way to even try and negotiate a way out of a violent conflict with Muslims would be to give in and grant them some laundry list of demands. But this would simply exacerbate every single one of the problems they already cause, and British anger at them. It is, in large part, this continual retreat in the face of Islamic wrath that has brought us to where we are today. To think that, for example, allowing Muslims in Birmingham to implement full sharia in their neighbourhoods and giving them £50,000 per year for life could somehow solve the problems we would face if they launched a rebellion of some sort would be to tip over in full-blown lunacy. Why not throw in Buckingham Palace as well, and have Anjem Choudary warbling the call for prayer from the roof? It might buy a bit of time with the believers, but is unlikely to go down very well with the natives.

It will be clear to the British people in the case of tribal conflict between them and their Muslim fifth column that defeat will result in the disappearance of their civilization, their way of life, and their existence as a people. Accordingly, they will have to win it, which means they will have to do what needs to be done to win it, which means they will have to do a great many violent and unpleasant things, things that, though quite inconceivable to many at present, will seem right and obvious to most when the nature of the conflict has become sufficiently clear.

We would like to avoid this, but feel that the window of opportunity is closing rather more quickly than some might imagine. Our greatest concern is that, despite the growing anger and alarm on the part of the British people with respect to mass immigration in general and Muslim immigration in particular, these feelings might not give rise to the necessary coalescence of political will on the part of our elected representatives in time to try and prevent the horrendous future that otherwise awaits us. We say again that the only course of action that gives us the slightest chance of avoiding the horrors outlined here is that of shutting down Muslim immigration and refusing to subsidize the higher Muslim fertility that is pushing us towards the brink. If Muslim immigration is shut down, if the cessation of all influxes of Muslims from the ‘old country’ helps Muslims integrate (whatever one understands by the term), and if the Muslim population of the UK stabilizes at a sufficiently low level (whatever that level might be), then there is at least a slight possibility that a British vs. Muslim violent conflict can still be avoided.

However, even this slight possibility will vanish if we do not act quickly, hence the need for immediate action in this regard. For it is crucial to understand here that, the longer we delay in shutting Muslim immigration down, the harder it will become to do so, and the less likely it will be that we can avoid the conflict already described. Though the Muslim population of the UK is about 4%, it is estimated[25] that approximately 11% of all children born in the UK at present are born to Muslims, a figure which suggests the sheer demographic momentum underlying the problem. Furthermore, banning further Muslim immigration will be correctly perceived by the Muslim population of the UK as seriously undermining its interests in a variety of ways. As such, they will most certainly use the votes their British citizenship give them to oppose any such move at the polls, which makes them a barrier to be overcome in this regard if we wish to solve our Muslim problem in a democratic and non-violent fashion.

We see already, across the European continent, people waking up in country after country to the catastrophic futures that await them if they cannot shake off the death grips that their current political and media establishments hold over the political trajectories of their countries. Yet in Britain, the suicidal see-no-Islam, hear-no-Islam, speak-no-Islam paradigm stumbles onwards like a buffalo shot through the heart but still unaware that it is dead. This document is a part of our personal contribution, however small that may be, to bringing the buffalo of Islamization down before, not after, it tramples us to death.

VI. Some Pre-Emptive Responses to Predicted Objections

Aren't you confusing moderate and radical Muslims?

There is no theological or legal distinction in Islam between ‘moderates’ and ‘radicals.’ These terms are part of a Western discourse which seeks to grapple with the alarming possibility that a religion adhered to, more or less strictly, by approximately 20% of the world’s population, is fundamentally antithetical to everything good in our way of life. Trying to define a moderate Muslim is an exercise in futility. Are moderate Muslims those who do not wish to cut off the heads of the Danish Mohammed cartoonists? Or those who would only perform the necessary beheadings if Denmark were under sharia law? Are they perhaps those who think ten years in prison and a sound whipping would have been punishment enough?

Are the Muslims who sign their postal votes over to the local imam to use as they see fit moderates or radicals? Are the Muslims who force their wives to cover their faces in public moderates or radicals? Are the Muslims who beat up journalists investigating electoral fraud moderates or radicals? Are the Muslims who murder their mothers for separating from their fathers moderates or radicals? Are the Muslims who take their 14-year-old daughters out of school to be married off to first cousins in Bangladesh moderates or radicals? Are the Muslims who think the British Army should not parade in Muslim-heavy areas moderates or radicals? And are so many people really so mentally sluggish as to believe that these people can simply be slotted away into one of these two asinine categories, as if we were distinguishing protons from neutrons, or cats from dogs? Is this what it has come to?

As we have already pointed out, there are four characteristics of Muslims that make them particularly problematic as immigrants: they are criminal (terrorism, child rape), they are parasitic (massive welfare dependency and socioeconomic underperformance), they are seditious (calling for attacks on British troops, calling for the implementation of sharia law), and they are subversive (infiltrating the Labour party to further Islamic ends, electoral fraud). It is these aggregate characteristics of Muslims, coupled with the growth dynamics we have already studied in detail, that make it imperative to keep them out of the UK, not their ‘radicalism.’ These four characteristics are smeared across the Muslim population in such a way, and to such an extent, that it is insane for us to have allowed them to develop a foothold in our country, and beyond insane to allow them to further entrench that position through runaway immigration.

In short, the problem with Muslims is not simply that they contain some number of would-be terrorists in their ranks. The problem with Muslims is that they are Muslims, and that they therefore think like Muslims, act like Muslims, and have the characteristics of Muslims. Once one understands this, one has made the crucial cognitive leap. Of course there are decent people amongst the Muslim population of the UK, people who pose us no problems and wish only to live in peace. But similar people will exist in all Muslim countries, including the most horrendously dysfunctional, sharia-infested hellholes, such as Pakistan. The problem is that their numbers are too small for the characteristics of the societies they live in to derive significantly from them, in Pakistan, in Britain, or anywhere else.

Won’t this alienate moderate Muslims?

Putting aside for a moment our stated position on ‘moderates’ and ‘radicals,’ it is entirely possible that this document will alienate what some people would call ‘moderate’ Muslims. But it is very difficult indeed to see why the British should give a fig whether they are alienating such people or not. Despite the accepted wisdom that we must win over such moderate types if we are to prevail in the struggle against radical Islam, extremist Islam, political Islamism, or whatever it is being called this week, victory in this regard will be achieved by the British themselves or not at all.

The prevailing discourse in the UK suggests that we must reach out to the moderates, that we must embolden the moderates, that we must get the moderates on board, that we must enable them to win the ‘civil war within Islam,’ that we must, in other words, do a great many things that have no obvious meaning or utility. If ‘moderates’ are so terribly good at defeating ‘radicals,’ what stops them from doing so in the Muslim world as well? In Afghanistan? In Pakistan? In Saudi Arabia? In Yemen? In Sudan? In Iraq? In Iran? Why don’t the moderates just snap their fingers, work their magic, and summon forth the happy-clappy Islam that always, somehow, just manages to remain around the corner, out of sight, and beyond grasp?

Let us bring some numbers into the discussion to make the point more concretely. The Muslim population of the UK is about 4% of the whole, meaning that Britain is 96% non-Muslim. Let us split Muslims up into two equal groups, ‘radicals,’ who are 2% of the entire population, and ‘moderates,’ who are another 2% of the population. Let us finally assume that we have a problem with the radicals. What should we do about it?

Much as we hate to derail all the tear-jerking cultural outreach that idiot Britons are so inclined to engage in, we must pose a question: what problems exactly do the radical 2% pose us that the moderate 2% are uniquely well-equipped to deal with, but that the remaining 96% of the population are so helpless in the face of? Must we, the 96%, sovereign and only possessors of our island home, cower under the bedsheets whilst the moderate 2% rides out onto the field of battle to defeat the radical 2%? Must we, the shaken but grateful 96%, subsequently prostrate ourselves before our Muslim saviours, weeping tears of gratitude as we stare up into the overpowering radiance of the moderate Muslims who now stand proudly alongside Nelson himself amongst the ranks of the defenders of Albion?

There must be a better way. And there is a better way. It consists of the British reasserting their ownership of their own country, picking up a very large hammer and smashing all the manifestations of the degeneracy, treason, and subversion that accompany Muslims like a trail accompanies a snail, and shutting down, permanently, their ability to come to Britain. The moderates, assuming they actually exist, can observe our actions from the sidelines. If they have any popcorn, that would be a good time to eat it.

Don’t you realize this is legally impossible? Think of the EU, the Human Rights Act, the UN, the International blah blah blah blah blah…

In response to this, we can only reply that laws, treaties, and the like are human constructs and therefore open to being changed by human efforts on the basis of human concerns. And changed they will be, sooner or later. If it disapproves, the EU will just have to invade us and show us the error of our ways.

How is this document going to contribute to community cohesion in Britain?

Anybody who thinks this document is supposed to contribute to community cohesion as usually conceived of needs to read it again, this time with their eyes open. This document is a call for the British people to move to shut down a phenomenon, Muslim immigration, which will thrust them into an existential conflict that they will be able to win only through the application of massive violence to Muslims as Muslims. We are not trying to give anyone warm feelings about themselves or their religion. Nor are we trying to envelop the Muslim population of Britain in a tidal wave of love. Can we be any clearer?

What about the debt we owe our ex-colonial peoples? Pakistan and Bangladesh, at least, were both part of British India.

It must be observed that all real debts have certain characteristics, most obviously principals (initial amounts owed), and interest rates. If one believes that, once upon a time, Britain owed a debt of some sort to recently independent peoples in ex-British Empire territories, then one must give some idea of the size of the debt, the rate at which that debt accrued interest, and the conditions that would have to be satisfied for that debt to have been fully paid off. In the absence of this information, the ‘debt’ becomes nothing more than an instrument of moral intimidation.

In 1953, South Korea was a ruin. Three years of war between Communist forces (North Korean and then Chinese) and the Allied forces had seen Seoul switch hands four times, millions of people killed, millions more forced to flee their homes as refugees, massive infrastructural damage throughout the country, and the entrenchment of a partition line across the Korean peninsula which has split families up to this very day and inflicted unspeakable trauma on the Korean people as a whole. This devastating war started in 1950, only five years after the Korean peninsula (and therefore the whole of what would later become South Korea as well) had been liberated from an exceptionally brutal 35-year Japanese occupation which had inflicted massive violence, oppression, and suffering.

There is no shortage of animosity in South Korea towards the Japanese as a consequence of the occupation mentioned above, but this animosity does not induce the South Koreans to weep, cling to the shirt-tails of the Japanese and wail about the historic debt that the Japanese owe them. Nor does it lead them to argue that they should be allowed to flood into Japan in unending waves. Why not? Because, despite the terrible traumas the South Korean people[26] suffered in the 20th century, they took their country from a sub-Saharan African degree of poverty in the 1950s to an economic and technological powerhouse by the end of that century. They do not need to go and live in Japan. Their country is a success. Indeed, it is one of the great developmental successes of the 20th century.

In contrast, many ex-British territories have either stagnated or gone backwards since the Union Jack ceased to fly over them. Many of their people are desperate to leave them, which means that they are desperate to leave the conditions that they and their people have created. Pakistanis wish to get out of Pakistan because it has the characteristics of a country populated and built by Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis wish to get out of Bangladesh because it has the characteristics of a country populated and built by Bangladeshis. In contrast, South Korea has the characteristics of a country built by South Koreans, which is why its people are, by and large, content to stay there.

If the people of these countries are to flee them and, officially or unofficially, take refuge in a Western country like Britain, then they must, in some fashion, convince the British people to let them in. But given that they already have their own countries, they will have to come up with something especially persuasive. This is the ‘debt.’ None of the people who insist that they should be allowed into Britain because of this supposed debt have ever given the slightest thought to whether or not this debt might already have been paid off, because they have never taken their own argument seriously in the first place. It is simply what these folk say when they feel that access to the UK, for them or their compatriots back home, might be jeopardized. Those who believe that the British owe them something for their colonial past should, at the very least, answer the following questions:

  • How large was the principal of the debt?
  • How quickly does/did the debt accrue interest?
  • How much of the debt have we paid off?
  • How soon will we have paid off the entire amount?
  • How many immigrants, of whatever generation, can we unceremoniously throw out of Britain if we discover we have paid back too much (as appears increasingly likely)?

If posing these questions results merely in a look of stupefaction and/or aggravation, then one knows that one is dealing with a chancer, a scam artist, and a moral blackmailer. If the British Raj had passed into history not in 1947, but in 947, Muslims of South Asian provenance would still be bleating[27] about ‘the debt.’

None of this should be taken to imply that there never was any debt at all. Rather, it means that when this debt mysteriously refuses to go away no matter how many immigrants are allowed in, and no matter how much Britain is demographically transformed, then it has become a fake debt, an instrument used to cudgel the ex-imperial master around the head and induce him to allow the ex-imperial subjects to escape the squalor, corruption, poverty, and violence that, they now realize, tend to ensue when they are left to their own devices.

Our ex-imperial peoples wanted to be independent of us. Now they are, with everything that that implies. We wish them the best of luck in their own countries. But all debts are now paid.

Haven’t you heard that Turkey’s joining the EU? What then?

We should not be in the EU anyway, and will certainly have to leave it if Turkey ever threatens to become a full member. The chances of this happening are virtually nil, and the EU itself is not looking too stable at the moment in any case. We will, however, state for the record that, if Turkey ever becomes a full member of an EU that Britain is still a member of, with the Turks being granted full freedom of movement across all the EU member states, then the British people will simply have to revolt. If this be treason, rest assured we shall make the most of it.

But you just don’t seem to be very nice!

That is correct. We are not very ‘nice,’ and we are prepared to become a good deal less nice if that is what is required to prevent runaway Muslim immigration from destroying our country, our way of life, and our ability to live unmolested in our ancestral lands. If there is any particular reason for the British to allow themselves to be colonized by Muslims, whatever their provenance, now is the time for it to be explained. We are listening…

Next: VII. Conclusions and Demands


25. Ed West Online (original reference is from Reflections from the Revolution in Europe, by Christopher Caldwell)
26. The North Koreans have suffered terrible traumas as well, but we ignore them here as they are not, regrettably, part of the Korean success story of the last 55 years and do not help us make our point here.
27. As would many others, but that is beyond the scope of this essay.

Previous posts by El Inglés:

2007 Nov 28 The Danish Civil War
2008 Apr 24 Surrender, Genocide… or What?
  May 17 Sliding Into Irrelevance
  Jul 5 A Crystal Ball for Britain: Part 1
    6 A Crystal Ball for Britain: Part 2
    8 A Crystal Ball for Britain: Part 3
  Aug 25 Identity, Immigration, and Islam
  Oct 4 The Blackhoods of Antifa
    26 Racists ’R’ Us
  Nov 25 Surrender, Genocide… or What? — An Update
2009 Feb 16 Pick a Tribe, Any Tribe
  Apr 11 Pick A Tribe, Any Tribe — Part II
  May 18 To Push or to Squeeze?
  Nov 2 On the Failure of Law Enforcement — Part 1
  Dec 5 On the Failure of Law Enforcement — Part 2
    7 On the Failure of Law Enforcement — Part 3
2010 Mar 25 The Death of Democracy
    25 Some Fallacies On the Subject of Crime — Part 1
    28 Reflections on the Civil War in Britain
  Apr 1 A Consideration of the Criminal Investigation Process — Part One
    2 A Consideration of the Criminal Investigation Process — Part Two
    5 On Vigilantism — Part One
  Oct 29 Muslim Crime in the UK: Part 1
  Nov 1 Muslim Crime in the UK: Part 2
    4 Muslim Crime in the UK: Part 3
    2 Muslim Crime in the UK: Part 4
2011 Mar 10 Muslim Immigration into the UK: Part One
    11 Muslim Immigration into the UK: Part Two


Zenster said...

Most tiresome of all is the prevailing supposition that a vast majority of Muslims are of the “moderate” stripe. Those who think so need to ask themselves the following questions:

If ‘moderates’ are so terribly good at defeating ‘radicals,’ what stops them from doing so in the Muslim world as well? In Afghanistan? In Pakistan? In Saudi Arabia? In Yemen? In Sudan? In Iraq? In Iran? Why don’t the moderates just snap their fingers, work their magic, and summon forth the happy-clappy Islam that always, somehow, just manages to remain around the corner, out of sight, and beyond grasp?

If “moderate” Muslims were, indeed, in the majority and a more benign Islam was their honest desire, we would already be seeing it. In reality, we are already seeing what form Islam does and will take under the guidance of “moderate” Muslims.

Every bit of the decapitating, amputating, stoning, acid throwing, “honor” killing, homosexual hanging, gang raping, wife beating, bomb vest murdering, car burning and flying of fully loaded passenger jet airliners into occupied skyscrapers that we currently see is a direct result of this supposedly predominant population of supposedly “moderate” Muslims.

PS: "Happy-clappy Islam"; now there's a keeper!

Blogger said...

It's important to keep in mind that women are just as complicit in this whole Islam game as the men. Please don't be deceived into thinking that the women are only waering the veils because the men tell them to! It is far more likely to come from pressure from fellow women, not men. I can tell you that from long term personal experience. In fact, I would even go as far as saying that it is the women who are more religious than the men, and they enforce it on the entire family. And that is why so few rebel.

Anonymous said...

Paradoxically, one of the good things about Muslim immigration to Britain is that it is bankrupting the British state. I estimate the cost of the Muslim presence in Britain at somewhere between £50 and £100 billion per year. It is Muslim colonisation, not the banking crisis, that has created the background to the debt crisis in Europe, although the establishment media never talks about this. How is this good? Because the costs of Muslim colonisation will most likely bring about the economic collapse of European governments long before the Muslims have achieved numerical ascendancy.

At a minimum, economic collapse will force immigration to be brought to an end because we will no longer able to afford building the schools, houses, etc. that it requires. If the collapse is total, law and order may break down too. The police and courts may no longer have the resources required to function. Paradoxically, this may also be good, too, because it will allow the Muslims to be dealt with in an "informal" way. After all, it is only the machinery of the state that prevents pogroms from occurring now.

Of course, these pogroms may be the spark that incites the civil war itself. Whether the "informal action" leads to a civil war or simply the death or flight of the Muslim population probably depends on the relative strength of numbers at the time, and therefore how soon it occurs.

There are two things that need to be thought about in relation to the civil war: supply of armaments and foreign intervention.

The British, like most Europeans, have been deprived of the right to bear arms by their government. Lack of weapons is going to be a serious disadvantage for the Europeans when the civil war breaks out. I have read, anecdotally, that when criminals need access to weapons in major British cities, they approach the Muslims. So the Muslims already seem to have better access to weapons than the indigenous British. Plus they will undoubtedly get more from their jihadi sympathisers abroad.

The British are going to need smuggled shipments of arms when the bullets start flying. America may be the best hope here as weapons are still available reasonable freely (at least in some states) and, presumably, most ordinary Americans would be sympathetic to the plight of the British even if their government is not.

Which brings me on to my last point: foreign intervention. Foreign intervention is the real wild card here. It's conceivable that civil wars will break out all over Europe at the same time, merge together and become some giant, continent-wide apocalypse. The sheer scale of it may deter foreign intervention. But, if not, foreign intervention has the potential to make the fight much harder for the indigenous British.

The foreign intervention will most likely be aimed at creating "peace" rather than favouring one side or the other. In other words their goal will be to stabilise or freeze the status quo (i.e. a large Muslim colonist presence) in place and make it permanent. That is not acceptable, so we will have to fight the foreign intervention force too.

I still think we can win in the long run, even if it is the US military that is doing the intervening, but it will be much harder. It would be better if political mobilisation in the country of origin prevented the intervention from occurring in the first place.

sulber nick said...

Blogger is correct. The burka is a political statement.

Flag Of Freedom said...

I can't ever see our current political establishment ever sorting this problem out.They tend to follow a policy of appeasement.They chant the mantra that the vast majority of muslims are good people and the radicals only form a minority.As your article points out many of the establishment parties have been infiltrated by muslims in a slow process of gradual islamisation.Tower Hamlets in London is now in the control of muslims.This allows them to grant planning applications for mosques,sharia courts and islamic faith schools.Once a whole area becomes muslim then the few Brits left behind have to endure a life of sheer hell.I have met many people in my line of work who have fled London and moved to rural Wiltshire because they can't handle living in islamic hell holes.I met one couple who said they where the last British couple in their neighbourhood and they where hounded out by vandalism of their property and threats to their safety.They didn't get a very good price for their property but where relieved to get out.I'm afraid it will all end up in civil unrest.I've lost faith in politicians being able to sort this problem out and I think it will be left to a few dedicated brave Brits to take matters into their own hands.
British Freedom and Independence

rickl said...

Cheradenine Zakalwe:

I assure you that many, hopefully most, Americans would oppose any "peacekeeping" operation in Europe, especially if it left the Muslims in place.

But you better hope the civil war breaks out after Obama is out of office. I can certainly see him intervening on behalf of the Muslims regardless of public opinion.

Sir Henry Morgan said...

I've just nicked all of this and posted it here:

Hope you don't mind.

Beach Girl said...

Americans would oppose peacekeeping in EU unless we were in on it. One has only to read to Koran or just parts of it to know that being a Muslim requires opposition to our way of life, PERIOD. "Take no Christians or Jews as friends..." Something about killing them too. Islam is incompatible with our way of life. We have one man who is a Muslim in our Congress. He cannot honestly swear to uphold our constitution and practice Islam at the same time. I've been waiting for Britain to get it together. The thing is the UN and the EU force cultural destruction. How many Brits are immigrating to Saudi Arabia with their crosses and Bibles and being welcomed with open arms. It amazes me that the so-called radical Muslims in Britain are there among other reasons because they couldn't get away with their behavior in places such as Saudi Arabia. From my perspective, we need to read to Koran and know what it says to see that it is totally opposed to our way of life. It is also written in the Koran that if Muslims find themselves unwelcome in a nation, they should leave and go to where they are welcome and can practice their ideology. Yep, that's in the Koran.

And don't count on help from our president. But Americans would help in some of the ways you mentioned. On guns, there are more guns in Texas than there are people in the USA and every time the gun-grabbers go on a rage, the sales of guns go up. Of course, we are being clamped down when it comes to ammunition in some places.

The British will handle this when they are forced into dealing with it. I wish you had Henry VIII or Elizabeth I around today.

Great posts, thanks...

Unknown said...

With no irony intended, I would say this prognosis is rather optimistic.

Firstly, it ought by now be fully recognised that the bulk of the British people are totally disenfranchised and powerless to express themselves.

Not only are all parties and institutions controlled by this "elite" minority culture but its total domination of the media prevents any but token scope for ventilation of other viewpoints.The occasional "sraw man" confrontations with folks who dissent, rigged to make the outcome a foregone conclusion, making them seemlike wild eccentrics and dangerous people.

Next, it will be undoubtedly the Muslims who will take to violence first. Actually they already have. Not only at EDL demos when well organised "youths", in reality a militia, appear as if from nowhere and launch carefully scheduled assaults, but in Tower Hamlets which has been declared a "Gay Free Zone" and sharia is enforced by "gangs" (ie, militias) of Bangladeshi "youths".

Next, consider the authority's response to these challenges to the state, law and both majority population and hitherto protected minorities alike: there is none. Moreover, the authorities, particularly the police, are totally preoccupied with preventing dissent and creating space for expression of supremacism by Muslim groups.

When Muslim militias start to use violence to accellerate the ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims from "their" districts, which is already occurring, the victims may then start to organise a resistance. But what will be the reaction of the media and the state. Its a foregone conclusion that the media will depict the violence as caused by those defensive militias who will be portrayed as racist "far right" groups. The state will intervene only to attempt to suppress and criminalise rsistance.

If it does get to the point where military are deployed on our streets (which it seems to me it must, in a decade or two), their job will be represented as being to "protect" the Muslim community from "racist attacks".

Indeed, the Balkans episode is pretty much the pattern of what has already started to happen. The Serbian people had been repatriating Turks for centuries. See what good it ultimately did them. Our media convinced many of us that the Muslims were the victims and paved theway for military intervention in their support. This is whats going to happen in the UK. With Turkey in the EU, you know there will be sections saying that our Muslim communities (probably by then declared as break-away Islamic statelets, as Sarajevo was) need to be "protected" by Muslim "peacekeepers". Where from? Turkey. From then on its all downhill.

History always springs surprises. I never thought I would see an end to the USSR. Who among Western European "realists" ever did? So we dont know what unforseen events may alter the picture. The abrupt influx of a million North African "refugees" would possibly completely upset the applecart. I for one would welcome it for that reason: it would stress the existing monopoly of debate to total collapse. But failing such unforseen events, well, the Balkanisation of Britain IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

Theres no point fantasising about ways of averting it. Even if immigration stopped completely, the demographic reality is that the Muslim percentage of UK population doubles every decade. Its now about 5%. By 2040 it will be 40%.

When if not long before 40% of Britons are Muslim (in less than thirty years at this rate), Balkanisation will occur. To try to avert it is to play King Canute. The only viable game is a long one. Plan for when it occurs and what comes afterwards.

In Hoc Signo Vinces† said...

In hoc signo vinces

The Irish analogy does not fit this subject the only relevance it draws in my mind is which would be better in defence the British State or smaller independent states such as Scotland or even an independent English State such as Yorkshire.

Has the present British State not already demonstrated that it is not fit for purpose in this clash?

Zenster said...

geeha : Next, it will be undoubtedly the Muslims who will take to violence first. Actually they already have. Not only at EDL demos when well organised "youths", in reality a militia, appear as if from nowhere and launch carefully scheduled assaults, but in Tower Hamlets which has been declared a "Gay Free Zone" and sharia is enforced by "gangs" (ie, militias) of Bangladeshi "youths". [emphasis added]

This is an important point and one that merits some careful consideration.

Think of this; how many Palestinian "work accidents" (i.e., prematurely detonated bombs and other incendiary devices), might have been the result of covert Israeli operations?

A strong strategy to oppose Muslim encroachment might involve staging "work accidents" in or near their strongholds. This would have two main effects.

First: It would pose direct but difficult to attribute opposition to typical Islamic colonization and "no go" zones.

Second: Such actions could be painted up as well-expected Muslim recklessness and violence, thereby militating public opinion against them.

There is also a tertiary result of Muslims getting hacked off about the militants appearing to bring down apartment blocks with their improperly stored arms caches.

Overt frontal assaults my do more to galvanize public opinion against indigenous British insurgents. Therefore, a bit of misdirection may be in order.

Consul-At-Arms said...

I've quoted you and linked to you here: