Saying the Unsayable

Julius O’Malley is a longtime reader and commenter from Australia. Below is his first guest-essay for Gates of Vienna, on the issue of mass Third-World immigration to the West.

“We want right to enter UK legally”

by Julius O’Malley

So says the crude handmade banner held up by a group of hoodied MENA young men standing in a street in Calais, France.

Of course they do. One is tempted to remark that “I want right to enter USA legally”, but I’m not going to get it. Oddly, I understand and accept that the USA can’t just let in everybody who wants to migrate to the country.

What do these young MENA men have to offer the UK? It is an obvious question that rarely seems to be asked in our era, perhaps because it is now deemed irrelevant. What happened to make this so? It seems pretty fundamental to me that a state admits immigrants based on that state’s needs. If these MENA men were admitted would they become hard-working, law-abiding taxpayers and civil citizen contributors who would add to the social capital of the nation? Or would they just enlarge the largely hostile, pervasively unskilled and resolutely unassimilable horde of parasitic cultural invaders?

Why are there young MENA men congregating on the streets of Calais demanding entry to the UK? They are planning to somehow smuggle themselves via the Channel Tunnel into Britain where they intend to apply for asylum. They camp out on abandoned factory sites or on unused public land. Their tents and sleeping bags are provided by French charities. One new Calais camp, “Jungle 2”, has a central building, the Jules Ferry Centre, a former seaside recreation centre for French schoolchildren, where the small proportion of women and children are accommodated, and hot showers and meals are provided for the men who live in surrounding tents and shanties. They’ve even erected a rudimentary mosque there.

French officialdom tries to persuade them to make asylum application in France. They refuse. And they complain about the poor sanitation facilities provided to them. As you do when you’re an illegal transient using somebody else’s country as a staging point to illegally enter another somebody else’s country.

How did they get into France in the first place? Into Europe? They paid “people smugglers” around €3,000 each to get them across the Mediterranean from Libya to Italy, or into Bulgaria or Rumania from Turkey. That’s quite a lot of money for someone from a Third World country, so its reasonable to assume that the asylum-seekers are not from the poorest stratum of MENA societies. The people smugglers are very often Albanian or South Asian, the former gangsters who’ve diversified from trafficking narcotics and prostitutes-to-be from East to West into a new lucrative industry. The latter have yet to acquire the “mafia” tag, but conduct themselves indistinguishably. Ever noticed in the photographs of the overcrowded boats the passengers are sitting in orderly rows like obedient schoolchildren? That’s because they get shot or thrown overboard by the on-board smugglers if they stand up. Conditions whilst waiting on the Libyan shore are pretty awful too: rape, murder, beatings. It is no accident that Libya is the principal embarkation point and the spike in departures has coincided with the complete breakdown in public order since the glorious “Arab Spring” took place there.

Are they “all in this together” and thus display a camaraderie of desperate people escaping persecution? No fear. In Palermo on April, 15 Muslim asylum seekers from the Ivory Coast, Mali and Senegal were arrested after docking for having thrown 12 Ghanaians and Nigerians overboard in the open sea. They drowned, of course. Why? The latter “had declared themselves Christians”. Many more would have drowned if they hadn’t formed an arms-interlinked human chain which made it impossible for them to be thrown off.

How many more instances have there been where no Christians survived to tell the tale? Or were too frightened to speak up?

Italy is a modern, affluent, stable country with a “very high” Human Development Index of 0.872 — the 26th highest in the world. After France, USA, Spain and China it is the fifth most popularly visited nation on Earth. For decades it was the number 1 or 2 tourist destination in the world. So why don’t they stay in Italy? No one asks why they don’t stay in Romania — it’s impolite — but Romania has a “high” HDI of 0.785, the 54th highest in the world. Its GDP per capita is $20,000, a little over half that of Italy’s; still it is 18 times higher than Eritrea’s and five times that of Sudan’s, so not too shabby. If I were fleeing, say, Somalia, I’d stay there. In fact if I were fleeing any MENA nation I’d be delighted to be settle in Romania.

Only 30% of asylum seekers in Italy actually apply for asylum in Italy; the other 70% move north-west and north. Historically, Italy has been a toughish country in which to gain refugee status/political asylum: the success rate varies dramatically from year to year, but since 2005 has hovered around 40%. Still, one would think that those landing in Italy would at least try in Italy. That more than twice as many don’t than do makes one suspicious that these people are not truly desperate for asylum, but are simply opportunistic economic migrants. Oddly, nobody in France or the UK seems to say to the applying refugees: you were in Italy, why didn’t you apply there?

And they should ask, because international humanitarian law obliges the refugee to seek residency in the closest neighbouring state to their own. And if that one refuses them, the next closest. And so on until they find a country they are able to settle in. This fundamental rule, embedded since 1951, is totally ignored by the refugees and those processing their applications to stay. There should be no MENA refugees at all in the UK. Nobody from Syria or Iraq should get any further than Turkey. Of course Turkey treats its fellow Muslim asylum seekers and refugees from beyond its southern and south-eastern border with a maximum of brutality. Like Indonesia, it funnels them on.

Why do these paying, trafficked, human beings make their way into France, comparable to Italy in every affluence/stability/quality of life indicator, but not want to stay there either? The sayable reason is that asylum applications by the invariably undocumented seekers have a 60-65% success rate in the UK, but only a 30% success rate in France. The unsayable reason is that in the UK, if unsuccessful in gaining asylum, one can easily just disappear off the official radar and stay: there are no identity cards; one can sustain oneself working in the black economy; one can rent housing off the books. One’s children will still get a free education. All these things are much more difficult in France: its ID card is non-compulsory, but try getting a job, a home, a driver’s licence or opening a bank account without one. In the UK, when your asylum application is denied by the tribunal, one would think that the next step is to be escorted by immigration officials to a detention centre in readiness to be officially deported on the next available flight. But no: they just walk out of the building and disappear into the streets.

Standing next to the “We want right to enter UK legally” banner are two men each holding a crude cardboard sign. One reads: “This border breaks our bodies”. Um, no, it doesn’t. The other reads: “The UK has space for us too”. Now that’s an interesting proposition. But first, the mentality of entitlement. Even if the UK had a population of only ten million, why does this young man imagine that he should be permitted to migrate to the UK just because he wants to? Where on earth did he get this notion from? As recently as 1964 a great many, for example, Italians wishing to migrate to the USA could not do so due to the volume restrictions based an annual intake of 2% of the number of Americans of Italian-origin as at the 1890 census. This was despite almost 100 years of Italian immigration to the States, successful assimilation and a notably large contribution of servicemen in World War 2. Most German and Austrians Jews in the late 1930s couldn’t get into the USA, as the Germany quota was massively oversubscribed.

What benefit would this young man bring to the host nation? As he no doubt sees it, that’s not the issue. The UK is a wealthy, advanced, stable, democratic country, and he wants in. It is as simple as that. Regrettably, a growing proportion of unthinking, indigenous Westerners see it that way too.

Does Britain really have space for him? It has a population density of 662 people per square mile. There are suburban areas in the USA, parts of Westchester, Marin and Los Angeles counties, that have lower densities. If Britain can’t say no to him, how can it resist any of the 190 million Pakistanis, 158m Bangladeshis, 184m Nigerians, 71m(!) Congolese or 256m Indonesians who might want to live in Britain?

Yemen is in the throes of a Sunni-Shi’ite civil war. Yemen has a population of 24.5m, up from 5m in 1960. There will be a lot of refugees and displaced people no matter the outcome of the civil war. Under current international humanitarian treaty obligations, Western nations will be obliged to take them in. Sweden, the self-styled “humanitarian super-power” is taking in all Syrians who wish to seek refuge from its civil war. One wishes that the Syrian civil war had taken place in 1980 so that we could all study the consequences to Sweden of its magnanimity. And draw policy conclusions.

Sub-Saharan Africa had a population of 800 million in 2007, has a population of 1.1 billion now and is predicted to have 1.5 billion in 2050 and, by the UN’s Population Division — which recently revised its estimate upwards, due to having previously underestimated the fertility rate by 0.25 — 4.2 billion in 2100. Sub-Saharan African countries top the international fertility lists with 40 of the highest 50, all with a Total Fertility Rate of greater than 4 in 2008. The political and/or economic basket cases of Mali, Niger and Somalia all have a TFR of 7-8 children — the highest in the world. How can Western countries possibly accommodate even a tenth of current Sub-Saharan Africans? And still remain stable, prosperous societies? They cannot.

Every Western nation and every Western voter has to ask and answer some hard questions. Is the current immigration level from MENA and the Third World sustainable in terms of economic and social absorptive capacities? Is it time to revisit international humanitarian treaty obligations as they relate to refugees and asylum seekers? Specifically, should the criteria for defining an asylum seeker and a refugee be tightened up?

Is anyone proposing a referendum on the question?

In Australia we have an archipelago of detention centres in the semi-arid, thinly-populated north and west of the country housing many hundreds of Chinese men who cannot be deported back to China due to Australia’s being a signatory to some international humanitarian convention. These men, who have entered illegally or overstayed their tourist visas, and have been convicted of criminal offences (and served their time in Australian prisons), cannot be deported back to China because they have been convicted of a capital offence there and face the death penalty. So they are kept at taxpayer expense, guarded 24/7 by a population of live-in officials (who are flown in from distant metropolises, 14 days on, 7 days off, from memory), and will be so until the end of their days. Call me harsh, but I fail to see why Australian taxpayers should be saddled with the burden of keeping foreign criminals from the fate that awaits them in China. Naturally, if you know you’re going to be charged with a capital offence in China, it makes a lot of sense to move hell and high water to get yourself to Australia. The odd thing is that once here they routinely commit further criminal offences. One would think they’d keep their heads down and noses clean.

There needs to be some honesty in the public sphere. Honesty which thus far has been lacking. Apart from Socialists and Green Party people, politicians in the West well know there is a huge problem which is only going to grow more serious. Even some on the Left do. They simply don’t have the courage to acknowledge it. Publicly.

Jean Raspail had this to say about French politicians who wrote to him privately admiring his “Camp of the Saints” whilst the book was being roundly excoriated:

“ … all these people—on the left as well as the right, I emphasize — who participate or have participated in the government of the country or opinion-making, practice a double language: one public and proclaimed, the other personal and hidden, as if they have a double conscience, the one they wave like a flag and the one which hides in the underbrush of unmentionable thoughts, which they only express in small groups of trusted friends.”

Our legislative bodies need to have more blunt-talking members like Austria’s Ewald Stadler, who coined the expression “Tolerance romantics”: see YouTube “Austrian Member of Parliament Goes Ballistic on Muslim Hypocrisy”. Or Swiss People’s Party legislator, Oskar Freysinger: see YouTube “Swiss Member of Parliament has had enough!”. People who are unafraid of being demonized by the Left with its gag labels of “Islamophobe”, “Racist” or “Fascist”. People who regard the denunciations of the Nick Lowles of the world, he of “Hope not Hate” infamy, as a badge of honour. People who are unafraid to offend the likes of the infinitely offendable Tariq Ramadan. Now there’s a man who should be relentlessly targeted by the Western commentariat, the Western political establishment. Instead they treat his transparently mendacious spiel as if the man were saying something worth listening to.

Circumstances have rendered normal conventions of politeness as redundant: we must be rude, very rude, to people like Tariq Ramadan. There is no scope for and no point in dialogue with the torch-bearing grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, even if he speaks English like Maurice Chevalier and dresses like a stylish modern Western man.

Some people reading the foregoing concerning MENA immigration and that from Sub-Saharan Africa might say: “This is dog-whistle politics — your real objection is to Muslim immigration!”. Yes, it most certainly is. Does any Westerner want their country to be 20% Muslim, 50% Muslim? Only those who are willfully blind to the ugly impact Islam has on the societies where it reigns, or is practiced even by a 5% minority, could be relaxed about such a scenario. Anybody who has spent any time in an Islamic country would be horrified at the prospect.

So the task before us is to make it possible for there to be a robust and honest public discussion, free from multi-culti pieties and wholly unconcerned about staying within the narrow, constrictive, boundaries of “niceness”. If somebody makes a ludicrous immigration proposal, such as the one to repopulate Detroit with tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, the public discourse should be centred around the question: why should the USA do that? A starting point is to assert unapologetically that, for example, the Syrian Civil War was not caused by the West, not even by the French due to their brief colonial overlordship of Syria some 70 years ago, and it is not the West’s responsibility to deal with the results of it. The West’s responsibility is to protect itself from any ripple effect arising from the conflict. If Sweden wants to be a “humanitarian super-power”, let it: more fools they. Unless you are Swedish and get to vote in that country. Ships lining up along Libya’s coast to traffic people across the sea should be disabled by commandos and if some crew members get hurt, so be it: don’t work for people smugglers.

What can a concerned person do to make such a robust public discussion possible? In practical terms, in the private sphere:

  • Learn. Engage at every opportunity with people who have lived in Muslim countries. The amount of facts and anecdotes one can learn from casual encounters with Nigerian Christians, Indian Sikhs and Malaysian Chinese can be enormous. For example, we all know that consanguineous marriages, i.e. between first cousins, are endemic in the Islamic community: 70% of Pakistanis (and 55% of them in Britain) marry their first cousins; 67% of Saudi Arabians, 64% of Jordanians and Kuwaitis, 63% of Sudanese, etc. However, less well known is that such marriages are always with cousins from the father’s side, never from the mother’s. Makes sense when one thinks about it, given how devalued women are in Islamic society. Engage with Muslims in a non-threatening, non-judgmental way to elicit opinions and information from them that they may not otherwise share. I find the expression of a mildly anti-Jewish sentiment is a marvelous method of getting them to open up. If you’re too squeamish for that, just say something negative about Israel, that’ll do the trick. Unless you are a public figure and/or in a public space, say being interviewed on TV, never genuinely engage with Muslims by offering your honest opinions; there’s absolutely nothing to be gained.
  • Build awareness. Urge people to read, watch and listen sources other than the MSM. Drop casual positive references to people such as Pat Condell or Brigitte Gabriel into conversations and urge people to look them up on YouTube. Mention the name of this website. If you elicit a hostile reaction, stay calm and don’t react in kind. Don’t feel the need to “win” the exchange. It is truly remarkable how PC multi-culti nincompoops are usually satisfied if their voice is the last one to be heard. Just watch Susan Abulhawa on YouTube “Cross Talk: Kerry’s Shuttle” to get the idea. Let it be obvious that you are supremely indifferent to what they think. Regard them as you would a street person spewing incoherent abuse at you. Others watching will observe your equable, self-confident, unfazed temperament and then think twice about what you have said, not the mindless platitudes of the nincompoop. As an exception to the above, do ask your interlocutor if they have spent any time in a Muslim country. If they assert they have, ask if they approve of the society/ies they experienced and leave it there. This doesn’t always work: a fellow who had travelled in Iraq and Syria in the late ’80s stated to me that what struck him was how well the people looked after the poor compared with Western societies! There’s nothing one can do with that. Do urge people travel to a Muslim country: suggest Egypt, Jordan or Morocco.
  • Develop a thick skin. Get accustomed to being denounced/derided as an Islamophobe, a racist, a bigot, etc. On the first, simply respond that the term is a ludicrous neologism invented to suppress discussion of Islam. On the second, simply respond that Islam is not a race. On the third, shrug your shoulders and reply “If you like, in relation to Islam, I am.” It’s a small price to pay to advance the cause of the Counterjihad.

34 thoughts on “Saying the Unsayable

  1. Invaders go where the pickings are best and suckers most numerous.

    The Brits are apparently the soft underbelly for the Ummah’s attack.

    The U.K.s receptiveness to this colonizing force is suicidal.

    As Shakespeare put it:

    A tale told by an idiot…

    • America imports more immigrants than any other country in the world. We sadly lead in absolute numbers, but we’re about third in per capita imports.

      The UK was not receptive. It was a Faustian bargain made by politicians to ensure more votes…while they lied to voters about the “vote” they’d get for the EU Referendum. What a sick joke.

      Immigration is the same reason our extreme Leftist pols push for ever more Muslims…and the Republicans huff along behind, saying “us, too. We love immigrants”.

      Politicians are the Traitor Class, plump, self-satisfied and self-serving, they sold their souls a long time ago. I am beginning to think we should ignore them since it’s the fourth arm of government- The Bureaucrats – that are the permanent Washington DC decision makers. Same goes for England’s pols…re-read Anthony Trollope; it hasn’t changed.

      As for the Muslim push, if you’ve read “Eurabia” – or even if you haven’t – try this essay, available for download:

      Dhimmitude: degradation for peace.(Eurabia: Land of Dhimmitude)(Critical essay): An article from: Midstream

  2. Julius, a very good essay for which many thanks. I don’t think any regular readers of this site will have any arguments with what you have written. The left will, of course, smear you as a fascist but….welcome to the club, we all have to endure that.

  3. During one of his pre-election about-town walkabouts I had the pleasure of confronting my local MP about the immigraion issue. He tried to argue the ‘immigration is good’ line, but it was obvious not even he was convinced by it. Our representatives are on a train to oblivion but for whatever reason they are unwilling/unable to get off.

  4. very good essay. enjoyed reading it. moves along well.
    i think it is too late to be kind to the invaders .. lets start with
    a serious special forces like op against the trafficers ..
    then .. lets get these people back to from where they came.
    if “they” call pull off the gay, black muslim, son of a goat herder
    street pimp barry o’fraud .. obama care presidency along
    with the clinton crime family ..
    i say, somehow, someway, lets get moving pulling this off
    & damn the torpedoes ..
    or .. guess what ??

    also like dmyphna’s replies to most things ..
    i feel she has no sympathy for the devil .. ha ha

  5. Got it in a nutshell Julius! And those of the collective Left are usually very quick to shut down any common sense points being presented, as you have in this article, by throwing out any number of tried, but now, well worn out epithets from their bag of ‘words to be flung out to shut down your opponent’.

    Those of the Left who choose to throw such words out are of course avoiding the questions or opinions that may actually cause them to think outside the box they all inhabit, and by such action, are really exposing their inability to counter the question or comment raised that is directed at them.

    That to me is a signal that they realize or are beginning to realize, that the road they have taken for whatever reason may not be the ‘good’ road that they thought they were on.

    • Sometimes using the “Ransberger Pivot” is helpful in reframing a discussion, or an intellectual (or even emotional) argument. This link ( gives an example vis-a-vis the Social Security situation.

      The first time the Pivot was explained to me, it was in a group setting, in California, and it involved women’s safety and handguns. We were asked to imagine that we were women (it was a mixed group with more men than women) walking down a street at night, alone. What were our feelings?

      Then we were asked, What were our feelings about the (perceived) availability of handguns? Uh-huh; OK; etc. said the moderator. Yes, very sad with accidents involving children; irresponsible parents and/or safety practices.

      NOW, he said, Imagine you are a woman walking down a street at night, alone, *and* you have a (legal!) handgun. How do you feel now? Afraid or confident? Threatened or safe?

      The Pivot allowed those in the room–and our future adversaries in such debates–to understand the importance to women of the access to self-defense. It’s true: some of the men had said, “What is a woman doing walking down the street at night alone?” before the thought exercise….

      I can see all kinds of scenarios re. Islam where this Pivot would be very useful.

      • Thanks for that link. Find common ground and work at it from there – I often forget that simply rule when I should be using it every time I open my mouth.

  6. “This border breaks our bodies”. Um, no, it doesn’t. The other reads: “The UK has space for us too”. Now that’s an interesting proposition. But first, the mentality of entitlement. Even if the UK had a population of only ten million, why does this young man imagine that he should be permitted to migrate to the UK just because he wants to? ‘

    Because he is a Moslem ubermench, demanding from the lowly Kuffar whatever he likes. The Kuffar may not thwart the demands of a Moslem.

    Without legal status in the UK, he can’t suck up welfare hand-outs and will have to work, albeit off the books. Work is a rather unislamic occupation, as 50% of Moslem males and 75% of their females in the UK will not work.

    • I believe you miss the point of the question. Muslims have only been demanding their ‘rights’ and other privileges from the Kaffir larder because of the Collective Left who have been ‘feeding’ them by the bucketful their supposed rights and privileges. Prior to the ascendancy of the Collective Left there were no Muslim ‘rights’ or ‘privileges’ in any Western nation.

  7. When the left and its followers call you a racist, they use it not only as an argument stopper, to shut you up or to disregard what you say, but to cast a blot on you, on your character and makeup. Some use the racist label deceitfully as a means to discredit their opponents purely for strategy. In addition, there are many, probably most, who really believe that a person called a racist is a seriously flawed person, someone who is defective mentally, intellectually, and or morally. They view the racist as one would a pervert or a pedophile, one who has committed a grave sin, a mortal sin, and should be damned. At the very least, the racist should be marked and shunned. Punishment and rehabilitation would be the ideal, if they had their way.

    • Sometimes it is best – and that should be dependant on the situation – to simply ignore the epithets. For example;

      My wife and I were at an evening barbeque with some of our friends and a few acquaintances when the subject came up about immigration in general – was it good for the country, etc. I mentioned the inability for the Muslim to assimilate into Western culture and immediately heard (and from one of my female friends) He’s being racist! I continued on with what I wanted to say while thinking I would ‘front’ my friend at some other time about her remark. However, as I continued to speak I could hear one of my mates ‘putting her in the picture’ so continued on with what I wanted to say.

      Sometimes people repeat things simply from sheer ignorance of the subject they believe and what they believe other people wish to hear and there is no real agenda in trying to shut down what they do not wish to hear.

      • “Sometimes people repeat things simply from sheer ignorance of the subject they believe and what they believe other people wish to hear and there is no real agenda in trying to shut down what they do not wish to hear.”

        I largely agree. Sometimes people say things simply to have something to say, to respond with. They may have nothing solid, nothing relevant, but don’t want a valid point to go unchallenged if it loosely goes against the grain of their world view.

        I was at a dinner party last December and, with Egypt having been mentioned uncontroversially by someone, I calmly and casually referred to the very high rate of female genital mutilation in that country. A female Green Party politician responded: “What about male circumcision! We allow that here.” Being a Green she felt compelled to defend Third World Muslim Egypt from any criticism. “You’re seriously equating male circumcision with clitoridectomy?” She didn’t know what the word meant so I had to explain it to her. Even as a woman herself she resisted conceding the vast difference between the two procedures in terms of impact and countered that male circumcision also affected sexual pleasure. Throw back anything, anything at all, no matter how weak, is the MO. I didn’t bother pressing the matter.

        • So, would the knowledge that ‘she’ was from the Green Party have primed your conversation? And, would her reaction have put you off from speaking the plain honest truth because you consider yourself a gallant man? This is in no way a judgement on you, because in similar circumstances I would probably react as you did. I’m just asking as an interested person because as life advances for me, I just can’t help but reflect on how stupid the Western world has become due to misplaced loyalties.

          • I knew there was something with her name who was a Green Party politician, wasn’t certain it was her, but yes proceeded on the basis it was. The FGM comment was me testing the waters. I spoke the plain honest truth, I just didn’t go the extra step and tell her she was incapable of rational analysis. No gallantry involved on my part, it’s just there is nothing to be gained by telling someone that.

  8. Bravo!
    Indeed, anticipating the characteristic accusations of Islamophobia, racism, bigotry etc, hold your ground with supreme indifference…a marked step up from giving such nincompoops ‘the silent treatment’.
    Ask the offended if they’ve lived in a muhammedan dominated society. I have. When the offended stand in defense of said muhammedan society, I remind them that they make such defenses as they admit they themselves relocated here to the land of liberty.

    • Thank you. I have long given up any sincere engagement with Muslims, so I never get to point out: why are you here if it’s so peachy in Clitoridectomystan? Rather I make the best of a bad situation and amuse myself by drawing Muslims into holding forth freely. I was once told, appropos the subject of dogs, by a Muslim taxi driver that “Mohammed was the first to care about animal rights. It all started with him.” I was utterly amazed that anyone would make such a preposterous claim. No doubt there are former passengers of his mindlessly recycling it. If you’ve ever seen how badly animals are treated in Islamic countries this … well I couldn’t resist musing aloud “Oh really, I always thought dogs were regarded as unclean in Islam?” He changed the subject. As they do.

      • I am always slow on the up take and to make speedy replies to such a taxi driver.

        So the hind most 20/20 would have made up at least an imaginary large black dog that you had rescued from the dog pound, and how you must feel how Mohammad must have felt when he led the way with animal kindness, how long you had to put with the animal pooping every where. Try and draw him into conversation, as you detail the problems you had and how Mohammad must have guided you in training that great black dog and of course turns out to be an ultimate success for you. and how did Mohammad cope with this problem etc,,,

        as you now feel you could really relate to Mohammad being a leader of animal kindness.
        and you remember how an aunty of yours kept a pig, and its great cleanliness and cleverness

        Oh how wonderful that Mohammad would take care of such an animal too.

        Damm my toungue in my cheek to stop laughing and taking on a personna of an old person in all country

  9. Excellent essay, Julius, you covered everything!

    Why, oh why do you suppose our ‘leaders’ are so bereft of foresight? Terrifying that we are headed for absolute catastrophe and the driver is asleep.

  10. Yes, indeed, a very comprehensive essay, as it both diagnoses the malady and offers a remedy. I’d certainly agree with the advice to ‘develop a thick skin’ and a backbone, it’s essential. Of course ‘Islam is not a race’ (it’s an ideology) and neither are Muslims members of a race, however that dogma is fundamental to the useful idiots on the loony left who are so smugly and wilfully ignorant of Islam.

  11. “never genuinely engage with Muslims by offering your honest opinions; there’s absolutely nothing to be gained.”

    Respectfully I disagree. Once in the US, I talked with a Muslim. This being just after one of the Gaza conflicts, the subject of Israel came up, with the inevitable accusations of them trampling on the rights of Palestinians. Replying, I asked how any other country in the region would deal with rockets being lobbed at them every day, for years on end? He agreed they wouldn’t react any more “humanely”, even if he carried on insisting Israel was trampling on human rights etc.

    If a certain number of Muslims do wish to propagate lies and dupe the infidel, by not being confronted, are they not in fact being given a signal that there is no resistance, which in turn may motivate them to go even further? If every discussion with a Muslim touched upon treatment of Kaffirs, denial of rights, Mohammed’s life, etc etc, rather than only talking about the football, could they not eventually get the message, that what’s going on in Muslim societies is unacceptable to infidels? True, some may end up getting “radicalised”. Then again, they might get radicalised anyway… but if our point is not made, how do we expect others to understand it?

    As for the rest – yes, I agree it’s important to speak. Especially so, given the airwaves and TV channels are almost without exception propagating the one-world/multi-kulti/PC/kumbaya lie. Yet there’s certain situations that this may have more damaging consequences – for example, if you’re a newbie in a job surrounded by Guardian-readers ultra-sensitive to “waycism”. Perhaps in such circumstances, it would be prudent to be a little bit diplomatic?

    • Of course you should do as you wish and take your own tack. For me, at my age, life is too short to waste my time arguing with mendacious Muslims.

      For every Muslim who “agreed they [other countries] wouldn’t react any more “humanely [than Israel]” there are 99 who would never agree to anything that disrupted their narrative, on principle. With respect, did that concession of the Muslim’s alter the flow of the discussion at all?

      I’ll never forget the interview I saw in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 with a Cairene former neighbour of Mohammed Atta’s. He was incensed that people were making such a fuss about it. “Two buildings!” he held up two fingers aggressively “Two buildings! The Israelis destroy dozens of buildings in Palestine EVERY DAY!”
      That, in my experience, is the Muslim way of debating an issue. Raise anything that has a scintilla of superficial logical coherence and run with it no matter how substantially ridiculous it is. Of course that speaker knew what a silly proposition he was advancing; the point was to avoid acknowledging the obvious at all costs.

  12. I find it easy to debate and destroy the Left. This is a variation on ‘The Pivot’. I simply ask them why they defend jihad, and which of the doctrines of Islam make them do this:
    1) homophobia?
    2) pedophilia?
    3) misogyny?
    4) racism?
    5) anti-Semitism?
    6) imperialism?
    7) religious fundamentalism?

    The shut up immediately, utterly defeated.

    You see, the Lefties think they are the good guys, that they are standing up for ‘oppressed minorities’ – once you go straight for that unearned sense of assumed moral superiority and point out they are assisting the Bad Guys then they have nothing else to attack with – and you win. Every time.

    With regard to Muslims, most don’t understand their own ideology. That’s why it is so good to point out that Islam does not come from Mohammed, but from Caliph Abd al-Malik long after Mohammed was supposed to have died. I also ask politely about their specific beliefs (are they Sunni or Shia, and which school of jurisprudence they follow and a few other inoffensive questions that show I know *exactly* what Islam really commands).

    Here’s a great video showing how Islam was invented for political purposes and how the orthodox story of its creation if *verifiably* false:
    “An Historical Critique of Islam’s Beginnings – Jay Smith” [72 mins]

    There you go, folks, ammunition against Leftists and Muslims for which they have ZERO arguments to counter. You can win EVERY fight against them, every time.

    To win we don’t need violence (except against active jihadis), we simply need to know how to destroy their arguments quickly.

    • Well, it’s a great video. Jay Smith knows his stuff and is an effective debater and presenter.

      Here is a concern. You can win your debates. I know leftists who simply won’t discuss the matter.

      The Muslims are winning not on theological arguments, but on power manipulations. The clods in the government and the news media simply don’t care what scholarly findings are. Do you think Hillary Clinton, Kerry, Cameron, Obama have any concern whatsoever on historical or actual facts? They simply won’t discuss the issue, just like Hillary will not address the issue of her emails when she faces the press.

      As Muslims gain power, they will do as ISIS does: destroy all historical artifacts, and behead, crucify, or enslave anyone who disputes their perspective.

      Do you think there will be any Koranic analysis once the government enforces sharia law, which seems to be not that far away?

  13. “If a certain number of Muslims do wish to propagate lies and dupe the infidel, by not being confronted, are they not in fact being given a signal that there is no resistance, which in turn may motivate them to go even further?”

    Putting aside the value of confronting Muslims with rational argument for a moment, the West is already giving Muslims plenty of more serious signals that there will be no resistance – mass immigration, generous welfare benefits, special accommodations for religious practices, hate speech laws to shield them from criticism, a media that covers up for their bad behavior.

    As to confronting Muslims with honest arguments, it won’t hurt but it’s not going to help much either. If I’m a Muslim, as long as you keep giving us the red carpet treatment I’ll let you win every rational argument you want. It won’t matter. Because the Muslims are winning where it counts, rapidly rising demographics, special accommodations, pandering infidel politicians, etc.

    If the West won’t put up resistance where it matters it’s not going to do much good to win an academic argument over sharia law with a Muslim cab driver. Once the demographics reach a certain percentage the days of arguing are over.

    • You’re exactly right. You can win academically and lose the war. In Stalinist Russia, the Lysenko geneticists (so to speak) put the real geneticists into the camps, because it was Lysenko who had the ear of Stalin. This resulted in disastrous crops in Russia, but Russia was already thoroughly controlled by Stalin and subsidized by the West, so there was no real consequence.

      Similarly and earlier, Stalin and Trotsky competed for power after Lenin’s death. Trotsky could wipe Stalin up in any debate, but Stalin simply plodded along in the bureaucracy, filling the positions of power with his supporters. When he was ready, Stalin simply had Trotsky shipped out of Russia, and that was that.

  14. Debating most people nowadays on such topics is pointless in my opinion, particularly in a social setting.

    I’ll use what I believe is the composition of the typical BBC ‘Question Time’ audience, as I feel this fairly accurately represents society as a whole, certainly in the UK.

    NB: All figures are my own approx. estimates.

    Group 1 – Around 3% of the audience/panel are what are commonly referred to as Community Activitists or Agitators. Within this group you have 3 sub-categories:

    a. Sociopathic bullies who probably don’t care much for the ideology – certainly most of the people they claim to fight for probably couldn’t stand their company for more than a few seconds. They are simply sadists who get off on watching reasonable people either agree with their totally irrational arguments or get socially condemned for not accepting/challenging them (with the full backing of the law). These are often student reps, teachers, professional campaigners, etc and, as mentioned, are blatant obscurantists.

    b. People seeking moral power (typically politicians on the panel). These individuals will say whatever it takes to appear morally superior to everyone else. This Bono-complex legitimises any power they do hold as a civil servant, elected official or figure of influence and makes them feel ‘special’ – like the savior of humanity.

    c. The client ideologist. These people are the minority group that directly benefit from the proliferation of the ideology and have been taken under the wing of the leftists in a. and b. because they will back there ideas at any costs, no matter how unreasonable they are. This could be Muslim immigrants supporting unlimited Muslim immigration, they could be pedophiles supporting rehabilitation programmes.

    You will not win an debate with any of the above in any circumstances. They all have a significant vested interest in ensuring the argument goes in their favour and will typically resort to ridiculous tactics to win. This will include total histrionics, fact denial and outright lying if necessary. What they’ll do before all of this though – as soon as they’ve identified you as a threat – is 1. label you with a psychological trigger word (e.g. ‘racist’) and 2. commence with personal, ad hominem attacks. This has the effect of immediately stigmatising you in front of everyone else and although any claims may be completely incorrect or irrelevant, a response will be trigger in the second and third category of person whereby they will immediately side against you.

    Group 2 – About 15% of the audience/panel will be die-hard ‘true believers’. These people believe in leftist ideology 100% – they are the useful idiots of the cause. However, they’re not all idiots and can be again broken down into distinct groups:

    a. The unintelligent person. No offence intended to religion, as I have nothing against religion or religious people, but this category of people are often devoutly religious as per the expression “A small mind is easily filled with faith”. These people are often genuinely kind, sweet people but their limited intellect means they will accept just about anything a suitably authoritative figure tells them. Inherently short-signed, they simply won’t be able to comprehend the long term consequences of their position. They are also easily duped into ignoring any negative impact their beliefs actually have on them, such as the elderly lady who lives in a wonderfully diverse, multicultural areas but is regularly burgled. These individuals can be swayed – they could ultimately be swayed by anything – but not in the presence of their current ideological ‘masters’. They are true victims of the leftists in Group 1.

    b. The very intelligent (academic) person. Oddly enough the other type of person I’ve met in this category can often be quite bright, although usually in an academic rather than intellectual way. These people can be successful doctors, lawyers, artists, etc and this makes them a difficult challenge to debate. Despite their academic prowess, the people in this sub-category are always very idealistic. The see the world as being a wonderful place and are genuinely upset by even minor tragedies, preferring to avoid acknowledging them. However, they most likely can’t function in other areas of their life without maintaining this delusion so they defend it rigorously. Challenging someone like this, not matter how tactfully, never ends well. They experience massive cognitive dissonance at the prospect of their worldview being proven incorrect and become very distraught. I have experienced this first hand and the net result is you simply look like a nasty bully as empathetic side of the people around you kicks in and they side with your ‘victim’ by default.

    Group 3 – Around 80% or ‘everyone else’

    This group is the masses, or the sheeple as they’re termed by some, which I actually think is unfair. They are accused by certain people of my own persuasion of being dupes or stupid. They do generally act as a herd but I believe this is simply near-term pragmatism – a survival instinct kicking in. The masses aren’t that stupid, they know who’s in control, who all the rules favour and the consequences of breaking them. This group is very simple. Get one of them alone and in my experience, there is a greater than 90% chance you will get them to side with your position. The vast majority of the time they ‘test the water’ with you and once they know you’re not a leftist quisling, they make it know that they already have the same opinion as you anyway. The real issue for these people is what they believe they stand to lose if they break rank publicly. Walk into the average office, shop or factory in the UK and if they’re are 50 people around you, only 1 is likely to be from Group 1. But that single individual is enough to ensure that the remaining 49 people, who you may already know share your position, won’t openly support any anti-leftist/establishment position. Just one. Because that one person can draw on all kinds of laws and legislation to gag (at minimum) anyone who speaks out. Sure, get them in a private setting such as a restaurant or in their homes and they’ll speak their mind and be open to learning from someone well-informed. But throughout all their public life they heavily moderate their speech to avoid falling foul of the leftist Gestapo. You can’t win a public debate with these people. They’ll usually just sit their and avoid one at all costs or nod and grunt along with whatever the Group 1 representative says. So they can be reasoned with in private but unless they end up wielding significant power and/or succeed in getting certain key acts of parliament repealed, nothing outside of the ‘dining room’ debate scene will ever really change.

    People like myself and those on this forum make up either a remaining 1% (or less) or they are the crypto-haters hidden amongst the regular citizens in Group 3. Eitherway, we simply don’t have the backing to go up against The Cathedral at present so for me, debating is just a waste of valuable time and effort.

    • This matches up rather closely with my experiences. The people I find most aggravating are group 2b because it seems like they should be able to think, but it’s as though they have psychological issues preventing it. (Often it seems to be little more than the belief that if one has a PhD in one narrow area such as computer science then that somehow means that they know everything about everything else too. After all that trouble, they did learn absolutely everything there is to know in school right?)

      Also note that group 2a is not necessarily religious by the traditional definition. I’ve lived in a place that felt like a religious fundamentalist town, yet the fundamentalist “religion” in town was actually (neo-)Marxism combined with the latest “progressive” scientism. Many were “religious” in the same way that communist zealots or members of some sort of materialist cult would be. They’re similar to group 1 but the one thing they’re seeking is the moral credentials provided by 1b or 1c.

      • I agree with your statement about the religious types (2b). What I was trying to convey is that they usually have a religious predisposition, and since leftism is essentially a faith based ideology, they’re happy to buy into it. If they’re selective in the principles they willing to acknowledge, if fits quite neatly alongside Christianity as a victim/suffering oriented religion.

        My breakdown was very high level and it’s possible to drill down even further and disect the beast to identify dozens of categories of leftist. I’ve been working on this on and off for a while as I hope it will enable people of our persuasion to develop working profiles for each category, if they agree with my basic concept. These profiles, or archetypes, should contain information such as the categories typical gender, background, education and so on so they can be better managed in terms counterarguments, etc in order to advance anti-leftist causes.

        What I have come to realise is that the left is a multi-headed hydra. They have representatives in all areas and levels of society and arguing with them on an even footing just isn’t possible. All the ‘heads’ are driven by faith, emotion and outright fear so appeals to reason and Ransberger Pivot approaches just don’t work. They completely own the sphere of public debate and have multiple power bases on their side to make sure it stays that way.

        What I think the anti-left should do is rally around a consistent and agreed set of principles. These need to be very much implicit and ‘not stated’ as collectively they would clearly breach the Overton window as it currently stands. Most right wing or third position people all apply the same thought processes in my experience. There may be some variation over climate change or gay relations but on the whole they all share a common mindset. This makes delivering rational arguments easy as you don’t have to fabricate it, it just comes naturally. The left on the other hand has to use a whole range of deception techniques to argue as their position on anything is usually completely untenable. You can’t argue sincerely for an absurd position.

        Once the common principles have been informally agreed, I believe the anti-leftists need to start using the same techniques the left did to get into power in the first place. These are well documented in books like Alinsky’s 12 Rules and The Naked Communist. These would obviously have to be adjusted so they align with our core principles but over time could help us reverse the progress of the now deeply entrenched leftist ideology.

        I fear this alone won’t be enough and in terms of certain issues such as the one that this site focuses on, Western civilization will be irreparably damaged before we ever make significant headway using these approaches. In many cases massive civil unrest seems inevitable but I think any progress we make in terms of reinfiltrating our own societies using the lefts own techniques will only serve to support our cause if and when that tipping point is finally reached.

  15. Thank you for the essay Julius.

    Thank you to Gates for publishing it.

    I wish that citizens of the UK needed to live in a muslim country to gain experience of it. Unfortunately as is well advertised recently by the innumerable grooming gang scandals – we all should know enough.

    If immigration wishes were reciprocal I would allow the Islamic colonisers entry into Britain if I could emigrate to a nation of my choice, to which I would actually contribute – The immigration clock, which Geert often refers to has probably reached Midnight here in the UK. There is such a level of immigration of muslims here that even if we all voted UKIP at the next election we are likely now doomed to eventually become an Islamic nation over time anyway.

    The only future for Britons is to move away from the densely muslim populated areas and either await the inevitable blood bath or emigrate, probably as an asylum seeker to a non muslim majority nation.

  16. Turkish law on the granting of asylum exclude those arriving from the south and east. Only those from Europe are granted asylum: others are just given humanitarian assistance and temporary refuge. The law was designed to accept muslims arriving from Greece and the Balkans, mostly ethnic Turks, in the population exchanges after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and hasn’t been changed.

  17. These chaps in France wanting into my country are fortune hunters,its a case of what can i get from this country,not what can i give.
    As we see my country becoming more and more diverse,we shall see more and more unrest like the burning of cars,churches,schools and even asylum centres which are provided by our tax payers to shield these people from the elements,and with this mass immigration comes the sexual exploitation of our women and children and some cases in Sweden even men/boys.So Sweden has directly/indirectly forced politicide on its indigenous people,for i truly believe these young girls will be traumatised and not go on to lead fulfilling lives and the indigenous population will slowly shrink until they are the minority and living under the islamic sharia.
    Politicide is now part and parcel of the Europe i now live and we have to deal with that,we are seeing parts of the UK now with a majority of muslims,and with that comes corruption empowering other muslims,i pray its not to late for you guys over the pond

Comments are closed.