Against the Murdering, Thieving Hordes of Pakistanis (Part 1)

Those who hope to read more from the diabolical El Ingles are encouraged to make a contribution to his social welfare fund. Alas, he is no longer in a situation that would allow him to write such long, involved pieces without some sort of financial remuneration. If any of his past writings have been of value to you, please consider showing your appreciation via PayPal, using the button below.

 

The following essay by El Inglés is the first of a three-part report on the Pakistanis. It is being posted this week to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the publication of Surrender, Genocide… or What?, which caused the ejection of Gates of Vienna from Pajamas Media. For more on the memorable events of 2008, see this post.

Against the Murdering, Thieving Hordes of Pakistanis

by El Inglés

Introduction

It will not have escaped the attention of anyone likely to read this essay that the last few years have seen a sharp increase in the severity of the problems created in European countries by Muslims. Developments have, we feel, reached a point where we need to commit the unforgivable offence of stating the obvious: certain populations currently resident in certain European countries need to leave. Given that they will not leave willingly, they will have to be forced out.

Of course, we are not so arrogant as to make any concrete suggestions as to who exactly these peoples might be in European countries other than our own. This is a matter for the respective peoples of those countries to decide for themselves: the Dutch in the Netherlands, the French in France, the Germans in Germany. Being British, we will limit ourselves to considering courses of action that should be taken by the British people. In this particular document, we advocate more specifically the driving out of the Pakistani Muslim diaspora of the United Kingdom. Readers should note that this term includes all people of Pakistani Muslim origin in the UK, irrespective of the citizenship they might hold.

We will start by looking at the country of Pakistan itself, in an attempt to root it more firmly in our minds. Here, we apologize in advance for any psychological damage inflicted upon our unsuspecting readers by this sudden, up-close-and-personal exposure to the horrors of this deeply unpleasant country. Spoiler alert: it is precisely the type of place one would expect, given the assiduously pestilential and malevolent diaspora it has bestowed upon us.

Having given the reader some sort of grounding in what Pakistan actually is, we will draw out certain key themes to demonstrate the cultural, religious and psychic continuity of Pakistanis in Pakistan and the Pakistani Muslim diaspora in the United Kingdom. This will allow us to illustrate what a damaging and contaminating presence they are. It is worth pointing out here that a small fraction of the population of Pakistan consists of non-Muslim groups such as Christians, Sikhs, and Hindus. These people are not the focus of our analysis; the term Pakistani should not be taken as referring to them unless specified; and, for what little it is worth, we extend to them our heartfelt sympathies that they should be exposed, day in, day out, to the tender mercies of Pakistani Muslims.

Next, we will lay out in some detail just what sort of policies we believe a future British government could and should implement in order to force out the Pakistani diaspora of the UK. Let us be clear — we are not engaging in some sort of blue-sky thinking about what the government could do in principle to achieve this objective. We are explicitly advocating everything we discuss in the section in question, unless we specify to the contrary. This point will become clearer during the relevant discussion.

Welcome to Pakistan

Such are the horrors and madness it encompasses that one must occasionally, as one reads about Pakistan and its multifarious peoples, stop and remind oneself that the country is, in fact, real; that it does, in fact, exist. It is not a satirical construct created to warn us of the dangers of certain courses of action, or modes of thought. Nor is it a light-hearted alien world dreamt up by the creators of a piece of science fiction. We know that it is real for two reasons: a) its people increasingly infest our own country, the United Kingdom, and logic dictates that they must have originated somewhere; and b) the current author actually read a book on Pakistan by way of basic research for this essay — Pakistan, A Hard Country.

Yes, reader! Lest you convince yourself that we writers are an effete and weak-willed bunch, we would point out that this particular writer read the best part of an entire book on the subject of this nasty, depressing dirthole. Such is his dedication to the cause of learning and reflection. Admittedly, he skipped most of the section on Balochistan, which was even more disturbing and depressing than the rest of the country. Nonetheless, the reader should not conclude on this basis that this author’s commitment to excellence in research is anything less than total.

Here I must apologize to the author of this reference work, one Anatol Lieven. He would doubtless be dismayed to discover that the fruit of his labours was to be used as fuel for the arguments of those who believe that the Pakistani population of the UK is a fifth column that deserves only to be driven out with all haste. This is, nonetheless, a pressing matter, and his sensibilities will not lead us to refrain from looking at Pakistan and its diaspora in the UK with a sceptical eye and rendering such judgement as we deem appropriate.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Let us then throw together a brief and eclectic country summary for Pakistan, a sort of through-the-looking-glass travel guide for those with an interest in the country. Pakistan came into existence in 1947, when British India was partitioned to create two new countries: India and Pakistan. That the two countries grew out of British imperial history has allowed the denizens of the Indian sub-continent to blame the white man for every affliction they have suffered in the last 70 years, even when the affliction in question consists of their murdering each other, with no obvious reluctance, over such things as: their freely-chosen religions; a cow; a pig or part thereof; damage inflicted upon a book; conflicting interpretations of the mutterings of a mad 7th-century Arab; illicit love between boy and girl; or, in extreme cases, illicit love between boy and livestock (though this last occurs relatively seldom and is usually hushed up before it hits Instagram). Verily, the powers of the white man are all-encompassing!

The proud new country of Pakistan consisted of modern-day Pakistan (then West Pakistan) and modern-day Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) as well. What, precisely, these two groups of people saw in each other that should have led them into this unhappy union remains a profound mystery. Regardless, the new country disintegrated in 1971 as the Bangladeshis (which is to say, the East Pakistanis) rose up against Pakistani (which is to say, West Pakistani) rule, were horribly brutalized, and were then rescued by the Indians. East Pakistan thus became Bangladesh, a country afflicted to this very day by two apparently insoluble problems: firstly, the country was built in the middle of a river; and secondly, it is full of Bangladeshis. Bangladesh and its UK diaspora will be subjected to analysis in future works. Here, we must satisfy ourselves with the observation that the country is not on our bucket list.

West Pakistan had now been shorn of its Bangladeshi ballast by an Indian Army that, though no match for the inscrutable Orientals on the other side of the Himalayas, could still at the very least give the bally Pakis what for. Before this second great partition of India, East and West Pakistan together had constituted a desperate, pre-modern, sectarian, tribal, Muslim hellhole that had a disconcerting tendency to be devastated by floodwaters coming down from the Tibetan plateau. Radically transformed by the war of 1971, West Pakistan (henceforth simply Pakistan) now stood ready to embrace a brighter future as a desperate, pre-modern, sectarian, tribal, Muslim hellhole that had a disconcerting tendency to be devastated by floodwaters coming down from the Tibetan plateau. Only one thing stood in its way: it was soon discovered that the country was full of Pakis, and therefore doomed.

The official languages of Pakistan are Urdu and English. The latter is the language of a now-despised group of ex-colonial overlords known to history as the British. The former is an Indian language brought to Pakistan around the time of Partition in 1947 by the northern Indian Muslim elites who, in a huff over not being granted what they saw as equal rights in what would have been a united India, engineered the creation of Pakistan itself. These people, referred to collectively as the Mohajirs, settled largely in the city of Karachi, which is the capital city of the state of Sindh. The Mohajirs, coming from India, are some of the truest believers in the political project that is Pakistan. Reader, one’s belief in the political project that is Pakistan must be profound indeed if one is actually motivated to go and live there; all the people who are already there want to live in Bradford.

Despite being the capital of Sindh, Karachi has few Sindhis in it, as it was largely overwhelmed by said Mohajirs. These people have come to be despised as invaders and oppressors by the Sindhis, who are numerically dominant in Sindh outside of Karachi. This means that both official languages of Pakistan are the languages of peoples despised as invaders by a substantial fraction of the population. Imagine Chinese having two official languages, English and Japanese, and you will be on the right lines.

The other main group of people in Karachi is the Pathans, whose generally florid and pleasant nature quickly reveals itself to those who peruse the news coming out of the Afghan-Pakistani border area. Other Pakistanis love the Pathans when they, the Pathans, are killing Americans in Afghanistan, and despise and fear them at all other times, viewing them as sensible Western peoples tend to view Pakistanis more generally: primitive, barbaric, fanatical, rapidly-reproducing savages with whom some sort of Ragnarok-style battle will eventually be inevitable. The Pathans are convinced they are an inoffensive, decent people who are inexplicably loathed despite their contribution to the vibrant, multicultural tapestries that are Karachi and Quetta.

The Pathans are flooding into Karachi as they flee both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border area, gradually overwhelming the Mohajirs, the people who overwhelmed it after Partition. This ecstatic coming-together of peoples does much to explain Karachi’s status as a must-see destination on the international jet-setting circuit. The reader should think of Dubrovnik, but with cheaper espresso and more blood, screeching, and Pakistanis.

The Balochis, who hail from the conveniently-named Balochistan, which makes up 44% of the country, want independence from Pakistan. However, their capital city, Quetta, which lies astride one of the old invasion routes to India that so concerned British officials during the days of the Great Game, is gradually filling up with — wait for it — Pathans from Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Punjabis are convinced that they ‘are’ Pakistan, and, being the majority group, are often accused of having nothing but scorn for the other peoples of Pakistan. They of course consider themselves to be the only thing holding the project together. Our impression is that they are probably a tad more civilized than the other peoples of Pakistan, if we might be allowed to damn them with faint praise. The Punjab is, nonetheless, ground zero for most of the astonishingly brutal Sunni-Shia violence that has roiled Pakistan on and off since the Islamic Revolution in 1979 and the consequent heightening of Sunni-Shia tensions in that part of the world.

We often hear it claimed, at least by a certain type of dunderheaded, pot-smoking type, that inter-group hostility is based on fear of the unknown and can therefore be defused through greater exposure and understanding. This dynamic, doubtful at the best of times, appears to be in complete abeyance in Pakistan. Living cheek by jowl in some of the world’s foulest cities, everybody in Pakistan seems to hate every group they themselves do not belong to, a position we consider entirely reasonable, with the one caveat that they should go a step further and hate themselves as well. This would represent a full convergence of Pakistani opinion and the obvious truth about this experiment in South Asian self-rule: that Pakistan is a hateful toilet full of Pakistanis. Some would consider this position uncharitable, but who are we to place our own, tendentious intuitions above the Pakistanis’ own beliefs as to their own aggregate hatefulness.

Geographically speaking, we see that the appellation dirthole is more than accurate insofar as it is used to describe Pakistan. Pakistan is essentially the Indus river valley as it winds its way down out of the Himalayan mountain range, plus the previously-mentioned stretch of dirt called Balochistan, over which the Pakistanis retain control out of a conviction that Pakistan sans Balochistan would be insufficiently depressing. One might think that the Indus river valley would have been better off being located in India itself, given that the words India, Hindu, Hindi, and Hindustani, all derive from it. Unaccountably, the decision was made a very long time ago to put it in Pakistan instead, and the greatest minds of the sub-continent have yet to devise a way of shifting it.

The narrow smudge of green one sees in satellite pictures of Pakistan is the central portion of the Indus valley. Meltwater from the Tibetan plateau sloshes down this valley largely as and when it sees fit, resulting in frequent catastrophic floods when heavy winter snows are followed by fierce spring sunshine. Nevertheless, the river is the country’s lifeline, and the proper management of its waters will be crucial to its future efforts to create a gigantic-enough population surplus to rape every underage white girl in Britain. It is to these efforts that we now shift our focus.

The Problem

Our further exploration of Pakistan and its diaspora in the UK will proceed as follows. We will examine two themes that we consider important in establishing that the Pakistanis are an enemy population that represents a grave threat to the British people. Each of these themes will be examined first in the context of Pakistan, then in the context of the UK, to demonstrate a broad psychological and cultural continuity between Pakistanis in Pakistan and Pakistanis in the UK.

The reader should note that, unless indicated otherwise, the word ‘Pakistani’ is used in this essay to refer to all Muslim people of Pakistani origin. The word ‘Paki’ is synonymous with the word Pakistani, but constitutes a more open expression of contempt.

Women and Girls — Pakistan

Even the most committed defender of the Pakistanis, be he Pakistani or deranged white person, will likely acknowledge that there are some issues with the way this group of people thinks about and interacts with women and girls. This is not an anthropological tract, and we do not intend to engage in some profound psychological analysis as to why the Pakistanis are the way they are. For our purposes, it will suffice to illustrate certain aspects of Pakistani culture. We acknowledge the obvious cultural complexity of the country, but insist nonetheless that it is meaningful and legitimate to make observations about the country as a whole.

Honour Killing of Farzana Parveen Iqbal

Farzana Parveen Iqbal was murdered on May 27th, 2014. She was beaten to death by a group of approximately twelve family members outside a court in Lahore, in the Punjab.

Farzana had committed the cardinal sin of getting married to the man she wanted to marry rather than being farmed off as breeding stock to whichever member of the extended family was next in line for his very own chapatti-cook/sex slave. In Pakistan, this tends to result in your family murdering you in as grisly a manner as possible. As her father, arrested by the Pakistani police, put it, “I killed my daughter as she had insulted all of our family by marrying a man without our consent, and I have no regret over it”.

Incredibly, and readers might want to pinch themselves here, the bereaved husband of the unfortunate Farzana had already murdered his own ex-wife to make possible his second marriage to Farzana. He had then contrived to be ‘forgiven’ for this offence by her next of kin, which is to say, their mutual son.

Muhammad Iqbal, the bereaved husband, can be seen in photographs on the Internet holding up photographs of his deceased wife, Farzana. Though I have some sympathy for her, I am less willing to sympathize with a man who believes that it is wrong to murder his wives unless he is the one who happens to be murdering them.

Honour killings are, of course, fairly normal in Pakistan. It is estimated that many hundreds of honour killings, of both men and women, take place in Pakistan every year, although the true number cannot be known with confidence. The Pakistani government has recently closed the loophole whereby people can be pardoned for this crime by the family members of the deceased. Whether this is likely to do much to reduce the frequency of such murders is another question entirely. At the very least, we commend the Pakistani government for its efforts to drag the country, kicking and screaming, into the 9th century.

Gang Rape of Mukhtar Mai

Mukhtar Mai was gang-raped in June 2002, by four evil Pakistani pieces of dirt, or, in an alternative formulation, by four Britons-to-be who had simply not yet sneaked into Britain on the back of a truck and hung around long enough to claim their British passports. The story of how this came to pass is not clear in every detail, but a broad-brush picture can be painted here. Readers who simply do not believe that any of this could be true are invited to do their own research. They will quickly encounter the same sources we ourselves based this account on.

Mukhtar, whom we commend here as being a formidable individual of remarkable psychological fortitude, had a significantly younger brother who was gang-raped by a group of local Pakistani men. When the police were called over this crime, the men apparently defended themselves on the basis of a claim that this 12-year-old boy had entered into an illicit relationship with a woman in the family of the rapists, who would have been in her late twenties at the time.

This rather implausible claim as to a relationship between a 12-year old boy and a grown woman notwithstanding, it was decided by a tribal ‘jurga’, or, translated into English, a bunch of slavering madmen, that punishment must be inflicted on the family of the gang-raped boy who had supposedly defiled the honour of the 20-something. Hence the rape of his sister. Said rape was conducted by four men from the family of the 20-something, whilst another ten men apparently stood around and watched. Punitive gang rape seems to be a spectator sport in Pakistan.

Having been raped and depraved by these men for the crime of having done precisely nothing whatsoever, Mukhtar was then paraded around naked in front of the village, which the expectation being that she would then commit suicide from the shame of it all. But this she refused to do. Instead, she went to the police and reported the rape. Six men were eventually found guilty of her rape, most of whom were sentenced to death. After a long and tortuous legal process, most or all of them seem to have been acquitted on appeal.

President Musharraf made efforts to restrict Mai’s attempts to travel abroad, concerned as he was that the case was casting Pakistan in a poor light. Perish the thought, old chap, perish the thought.

Honour Killing of Samia Shahid

Samia Shahid was a member of the Pakistani diaspora in the UK who was raped and murdered by family members in Pakistan in 2016. Though there are some uncertainties as to what exactly happened in this grisly case, much is reasonably clear.

Samia was found dead in Punjab, on July 20, 2016. Being a fairly typical ‘British’ Pakistani, she had married her cousin, Muhammad Shakeel, in an arranged marriage. In 2014, she divorced him and remarried a man called Syed Mukhtar Khan, with whom she went to live in Dubai.

In 2016, she was enticed back to Pakistan by suggestions that her father, resident in that country, was gravely ill. Her mother and sister are said to have been instrumental in these efforts, and are both apparently wanted in Pakistan for colluding in her murder. Despite initial suggestions that she had died of a heart attack, the police eventually arrived at the conclusion that she had been murdered. Apparently the strangulation marks around her throat were a bit of a giveaway.

Her first husband and father were arrested for her murder. Though her father was eventually released on bail, a Pakistani police report apparently concluded that, after her husband had raped her, her father helped hold her down while her cousin/ex-husband throttled her. Her father denied both that he was involved in any violence against her, and that she had been murdered at all. He claimed that the marks around her neck were caused by a heavy necklace she used to wear. The plausibility of this claim is left to the reader to evaluate.

Her father died recently and will therefore obviously never stand trial for her murder. Her ex-husband is apparently still in custody. He has allegedly acknowledged having killed her, though the details are not clear. The second husband of the deceased, Mr. Khan, has suggested that his wife was killed not only for having divorced her first husband, but also for having converted to Shia Islam, he himself being a Shia.

It is startling to bear in mind that Samia had a very strong sense that going to Pakistan could well result in her own death, and went nonetheless.

The reader is asked also to bear in mind that if her first husband and father had been able to persuade her to return to that first relationship, it is quite possible that the alleged evil, raping, murdering piece of dog dirt that was her first husband would eventually have made his way to the UK and obtained British citizenship.

This would have meant that refusing to consider this piece of Pakistani offal British, as British as any Briton who ever lived, would have qualified one as a racist and a bigot, if not worse. Fortunately for us, but unfortunately for Samia, this is not how things worked out. Shakeel revealed himself to be just another alleged psychopathic Pakistani dirtbag, rather than the ‘British’ version thereof.

Kidnapping of Maryam Mushtaq

It is often held that the national sport in Pakistan is cricket. In fact, there are two national sports in Pakistan, and only cricket, the more benign of the two, can be blamed on the white man. The second national sport is kidnapping Christian women and girls, raping them, ‘marrying’ them and forcibly converting them to Islam. The police often aid the process by turning up at the door of the family of the abductee, displaying a marriage certificate and ‘explaining’ that the girl or woman will not be coming back as she is now in a legal Islamic marriage. This overwhelming and unimaginable evil has been busy pumping its population out into the historically Christian UK for generations. The reader should bear this in mind the next time they are being lectured on the cultural benefits of immigration from Muslim latrines like Pakistan.

Being kidnapped, raped and enslaved in the name of the religion of peace then, is an occupational hazard for Christian women in Pakistan. Maryam Mushtaq discovered this to her cost in Lahore in May, 2016. Lahore is the capital of the Punjab, and often considered one of the most civilized places in the country, just as Lava Vent No. 27, Southern Badlands, Mordor West is widely considered one of the coolest and most fragrant areas of that lovely land.

Maryam, a Pakistani Christian, was walking home with her 11-year-old brother when she was abducted in broad daylight. The police, upon looking into the abduction, reported back to her traumatized family that the abducting party, who had clearly been easily identified, had shown them a marriage certificate ‘proving’ that Maryam had converted to Islam and was now married to him. And that, apparently, was that.

We have struggled to find any updates on this particular case, as nothing seems to be available in English. Apparently cases like this do not usually result in any police action at all, but the brazen, daylight abduction meant that the police had to register it as a crime in this case.

An estimated 1,000 girls, Christian and Hindu both, are abducted, forcibly converted to Islam and married against their will every year in Pakistan. Most of them are very young, in their teens. The attentive reader will note the obvious parallel between this behaviour and the behaviour of the child-raping Pakistani horde of Britain, the main difference lying in the fact that the British state is not yet so inert as to actually allow the outright abduction and forced marriage of 12-year-old white girls.

Coming up in Part 2: Pakistanis in the UK

For previous posts by El Inglés, see the El Inglés Archives.

67 thoughts on “Against the Murdering, Thieving Hordes of Pakistanis (Part 1)

  1. In 1980 I visited Pakistan, and remember specifically our city guide in Lahore pointing out a tall tower and saying, “That’s a monument to Independence Day, a most unfortunately day in my opinion.”
    Thinking this was a rather strange comment from a Pakistani, I asked him about it later. He replied, “We were much better governed and disciplined prior to independence.”
    I wonder how many of the older generation share that view. Later, I heard him say to an English couple: “The Australians and New Zealanders did the right thing: they took the cream of Pakistani society. Britain has taken the dregs. They are polluting the English society.”

    • Many “cream” type Pakistanis here in Canada as well.
      No problem with them.

      Unfortunately, we have some of the dregs, as well. A Pakistani immigration consultant once explained to me how easy it was for them to come, pre-9/11. The way it was done is that they’d get a visitor visa to the USA (which were handed out relatively easily, but where it was difficult to make a successful refugee claim), then cross the border into Canada and make a refugee claim (where it was/is easy to do, unlike getting a visitor visa). That scam seems to have gone on for quite some time before being shut down post-9/11.

      Pakistani Christians and Hindus – now we’re talking refugee groups I’d happily see arriving. All the ones I’ve come across have integrated just fine.

      • Integration is not enough. Immigrants should be aiming at assimilation – otherwise they are not really immigrants, and the more of them there are the more unlikely that assimilation will take place

  2. So, you are opposing the Pakistani muslim their God given right to capture the girls for pleasure and marry the enemies of Allah and his profet?
    You should contact a Sunni mosque and their imam will explain why this is a good and mandatory way to build a muslim society.

  3. “…riots prompted by the movie “Innocence of Muslims”” is the caption of the photograph at the top. A useful dictum needs to be remembered.
    :
    RIOTS IN ISLAM ARE NOT SPONTANEOUS

    “It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision:” Koran 33:36

    These riots are instructed by the mosques. Anyone who does not obey is beaten up.

    See “And Take Their Wives As War Booty” at Liberty GB
    https://libertygb.org.uk/news/and-take-their-wives-war-booty

    • Notice that I didn’t say “spontaneous”, just “prompted”. As in when the actor hears his cue, and takes the stage to play his part.

  4. Shafilea Ahmed, 17, born in Britain to “ultra-conservative” [code for observant muslim] Pakistani parents, wanted to have a Western career, but because of that was frequently beaten and confined to home. On a [forced marriage] trip to Pakistan she drank bleach rather than be married off to an older cousin. As “damaged goods” she had sullied her father’s male ownership supremacy.

    Back in England she was murdered by her parents. They suffocated her with a plastic bag in front of her younger siblings “as a warning”.

    “What a fantastic contribution muslims make to this country!” said David Cameron.

  5. The saddest part of it is that everything written by El Ingles is completely true. Have been working with educated Pakistani (physicians, bachelor degree allied health professionals etc) for 15 years now and I am sorry to say those people are malignant even when apparently in good relations with you. Islam makes them believe they are superior and some sort of a chosen people, hence they are arrogant at times, cunning at others but always paranoic and ill-willing regarding the “infidel”. More or less the same I have heard from Arab Muslims, who visited Pakistan for business or some training.

  6. “It is worth pointing out here that a small fraction of the population of Pakistan consists of non-Muslim groups such as Christians, Sikhs, and Hindus. These people are not the focus of our analysis; the term Pakistani should not be taken as referring to them unless specified; and, for what little it is worth, we extend to them our heartfelt sympathies that they should be exposed, day in, day out, to the tender mercies of Pakistani Muslims.”

    They are the valid benefactors of our asylum legislation and I consider it the epitome of perversion that we lure them here with a promise of security while at the same time import their persecutors in droves only to expose them to one another yet again. There are no words for the utter sense of despair these people must feel after finding out that there truly is nowhere to go. Can we ever excuse ourselves for being so naive in the West, or can we find out who the sadists are that are enjoying this and remove them from power? And the gall to accuse us of racism for exposing murderers and torturers and wanting to protect only their victims. It is truly sickening.

    • The non-Muslim groups you mention should be in Britain only if their intention is assimilation – and then only in numbers that make their presence irrelevant. Otherwise, in the long run, they can only harm the British people.

  7. One thing left unmentioned. Following the bloody partition of 1948, Pakistan was left with a population that was about 80% Muslim and 20% non-Muslim.

    The non Muslim percentage has dropped to less than 1% today, and remnant continue to suffer from genocidal policies that are tacitly supported by the Pakistani government.

    In contrast, at the time of partition India had a Muslim population of between 10%-15%. That percentage has grown to somewhere between 20%-25%.

    Another thing I’m a bit wary about is that I don’t believe that Pakistan’s Muslims are any better or worse than Muslims from any other Islamic state. They have all been raised on the same evil doctrines of pure hate.

    There is no prospect of Britain, or any of a dozen or more other western countries, being able to solve this problem any time soon especially with current system of governance based on the principle of elective dictatorship which allows well organised lunatics to easily take full control of such polities. Even a series of military takeovers would only provide a temporary relief.

    We need a system of government that obeys the will of the people. For this to happen, it would need to be based on sortition, in contrast to the current system which allows for the election of politicians who are representatives in name only.

    All current constitutions should be scrapped, including the over venerated, but actually quite worthless, American constitution, which has been put on display as some kind of holy relic in Washington. The emotional attachment to this document might present some problems as the people of all elective dictatorships, not just the USA, truly believe they have political power.

    As for the future, I see nothing but a long series of Trudeaus, Mays, Macrons, Merkels, and whatever deranged buffoons govern the rest of Western Europe. I derive no comfort from Hungary or Poland. Sooner or later they will be replaced by a leftist-Islamic alliance.

    I regret at having lost an old military history book that contained a charming little vignette. In World War I a Scottish infantry regiment was ordered to advance against German forces in yet another idiotic attack. As they advanced, the soldiers spontaneously came up with the perfect war cry to suit the occasion. It was the chant of:

    “Marmalade forever! Marmalade forever!”

    I often quietly chant that war cry to myself whenever I see the likes of the clownish Western political leaders mentioned above as they mumble their responses to the TV cameras in the wake of yet another bloody Islamic atrocity.

    • Might I remark that the original US Constitution was a superb job of balancing popular interests, regional interests, elite interests, and the inevitable political ambitions of almost anyone who enters political life.

      I think there is a case to be made to simply scrap most amendments and adopt the original constitution, plus jettison most of the court-driven adjustments to it. Granted, individual rights would suffer, as we now think of them. The situation could be handled as the framers originally intended: if you don’t like the way a state conducts its business and frames its laws, move to another state.

      • The original US constitution was as much a piece of trash from its inception as it is now. Having said that, it is no worse than any other constitution supposedly followed by all of the so called “democracies”.

        The so called ‘Founding Fathers’ hated the very idea of the people’s will and deliberately designed a constitution that gave the people, whom they regarded as complete dolts, the illusion of power but no real power at all.

        The USA was an elective dictatorship from the get go and was always intended to be an elective dictatorship by the ‘Founding Fathers’.

        • The Constitution was, indeed, designed as a constitutional republic with independent checks and balances, and recognition of regional and class differences. The original Constitution was designed to correct the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, which was, as Cross Ware alluded to earlier, an association of basically sovereign states. There were, indeed, opponents of the Constitution, whose arguments are in the anti-Federalist papers.
          http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-anti-federalist-papers/

          What you are proposing is not functional in any regional unit larger than, say, the boundaries of the city state in ancient Greece. And the Greeks themselves came to distrust the pure democracies as inefficient and erratic.

  8. I was in Pakistan three times in the 1990s and can vouch for the veracity of the content of El Inglise’ essay. I have written about Pakistan on this website a number of times and just thinking about what muslims in that country get away with still makes my blood boil. They are unemployable and have no interest in contributing to any European country where they have been allowed to settle. Instead, they take anything that is going, sit around and procreate. As for Pakistan, there is nothing there that cannot be improved by a nuclear holocaust – and Pakistanis have the means to achieve one.

    • Looked for comments… But I’d forgotten, the Telegraph doesn’t allow comments does it? More head in the sand behaviour from the establishment.

  9. …” the Pakistani population of the UK is a fifth column that deserves only to be driven out with all haste :…
    Strong.. but uncompromised and justified opinion .in which I totally agree..
    It’s time for everyone in Europe to put aside historical grievances and focus on rooting out Islamic Evil…

  10. Thanks, and you should do a like piece about the Somalians. They’re on a par with the Pakistanis. Murdering, thieving, hordes. …now spread in the U.S.

    • Here in Canada, Somalis generally have a very bad reputation.
      Not Pakistanis (though there are problematic ones).

      The difference? The Somalis were almost exclusively the product of a misguided “refugee” program, i.e., at best a random selection.

      Most are in Ottawa, a very left-Liberal town. It always amazes me how left-Liberal types there have every politically correct opinion as their own, except as concerns Somalis. On that topic, they make us look soft-hearted and pro-refugee generally, on here, by comparison.

  11. One would think that honor killings would have such a horrendous survival disadvantage that they would not be adopted by a population.

    After all, mans’ peculiar survival strategy on the savanna for 200,000 years was to figure out how to care for his delicate offspring during our many vulnerable years when our brains were slowly developing. Six year old kids are not going to survive without a strong instinct in the parents to protect them.

    How the people of Medina bought this anti-biological ideology is a mystery. A strong threat of death must have been used from the beginning.

    • Not that many get killed – it’s an effect of “pour encourager les autres”. It keeps the others “in the kitchen”, producing kids on command (etc). As such, it’s demographically advantageous and evolutionary.

      This is the problem with anti-women cultures: they’re actually demographically advantaged… ONCE they have the benefit of Western medicine. Why it worked before that is a mystery, I agree.

    • It can be misleading to take an off-the-top-of-the-head evolutionary argument and assume a population defies evolutionary principles. The off-the-head argument I heard was that survival in a Muslim society is very much tribe and neighbor-based. There is a very weak framework of general legal protection.

      Therefore, survival depends on one’s reputation with one’s family and tribe. And that rests on your ‘honor’, or ability to keep your family in line. Having your daughter seen as rebellious or out of your control, threatens your status in the tribe, and hence the protection of the tribe. Therefore, the sacrifice of a daughter or two, among many, is a price worth paying.

      • survival in a Muslim society is very much tribe and neighbor-based. There is a very weak framework of general legal protection.

        Therefore, survival depends on one’s reputation with one’s family and tribe. And that rests on your ‘honor’, or ability to keep your family in line.

        Agreed. This is what makes the foundational documents which Islam uses to prove itself so alien to Western thought. As long as there are tribal societies with global supremacist beliefs, there will be “clashes” with other civilizations, i.e., Western civilizations; the latter has long since abandoned tribal ways of life.

        • Anthropologist Philip Carl Salzman has studied tribalism in the Middle East and has written some fascinating works on the subject. He holds that tribalism spread out of Arabia hand-in-hand with the spread of Islam and has taken hold in formerly non-tribal cultures. He says that “women’s reproductive capacity was needed for lineage strength.” Hence the selective allocation of women ensured strong alliances within or between groups. Non-compliance would weaken the tribe and one’s individual standing within it. From this, honour-based societies developed.

          The origins of the grotesque and violent honour crimes so common in Muslim societies— Pakistan, for example—can be traced back to this tribal way of life, spread via Islam, so that now tribalism and Islam have melded to become indistinguishable.

          • I haven’t read Mr (Professor?) Salzman, but his theory falls flat when you consider how many tribal cultures there are, among people who’ve historically had little or no contact with Islam or arabs.

  12. ‘Pakistani’ is a nationality not an ideology or a belief system and while it is quite in order to criticize and even ridicule an ideology or belief system it is not in order to accuse a whole nationality of being thieving murderers. That line of rhetoric is unwarranted, reprihensible and leads to very dark places. It is also not in order to demand the rounding up and mass deportation of people based on their nationality. For anyone who wants to gain an understanding of where this line of reasoning leads I recommend the film “Schindler’s List.”

    • There are vast, overwhelming differences between the Jews and the Pakistanis in their respective diasporas. In order of significance:

      (1) Judaism is not an aggressive, expansionist political ideology whose core texts require it to propagate itself violently all over the globe. Islam, as practiced by the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis, is exactly that.

      (2) Jews didn’t (and don’t) subsist primarily on massive welfare transfers from the host countries in their diaspora. Pakistanis in Britain do exactly that.

      (3) Jews didn’t (and don’t) prey on vulnerable underage girls and turn them into sex slaves in an organized fashion. Pakistanis in Britain do exactly that.

      (4) The Jews in their diaspora did not massively outbreed their host population in the 1930s, and were not on track to become a majority anwhere in Europe in just a few short decades. At their current rate of replication, Pakistanis will be the majority in Britain by about 2050 — just 32 years from now.

      I think it can be safely said that any analogy between Pakistanis in Britain and the Jews in 1939 does not hold up under scrutiny, and has no real bearing on current circumstances in the UK.

      • “Pakistani” isn’t an aggressive, expansionist political ideology whose core texts require it to propagate itself violently all over the globe either.

        Islam an aggressive, expansionist political ideology whose core texts require it to propagate itself violently all over the globe and Islam is a major problem.

        As well as the Islamic dimension there is a lot that is seriously wrong and unacceptable with much in Pakistani culture and it is a big mistake to allow large scale immigration from such a culture into the UK, or anywhere else.

        But although there is a correlation between the nationality, the religion and the undesireable elements of Pakistani culture it is wrong to attribute all negative aspects that can be found in the culture correlating with that nationality to all who hold that nationality or that national origin.

        Be critical of the religion and the culture because they are beliefs and value systems that people can adopt or leave as they choose. They are voluntary positions people can take while nationality is not and not all people who fall under the same nationality umbrella adopt and display all negative aspects of the culture correlated with that nationality. This is an important distinction.

        • Only one of my four criteria concerned Islam. The other three were about Pakistanis as PAKISTANIS; their culture, their behavior as a group, and the obvious danger they pose to any society they immigrate to in significant numbers.

          Those three points are quite enough to establish the inappropriateness of any comparison with the Jews.

          However, I would even take exception to #1 being solely about Islam. It is about Islam as it is practiced by PAKISTANIS, which is in the aggregate quite different from the Islam practiced in, say, Malaysia. The latter is on balance less violent and dangerous (although it is Islam, so it’s still vile stuff).

          The Pakistani brand of Islam, like the Somali, turns out hordes of depraved, violent, dangerous young men and exports them to the rest of the world.

          • My objection is in branding all holders of a nationality with negative cultural attributes. It is wrong to say: “Murdering, Thieving Hordes of (insert nationality of choice here)”. Although it is quite true that negative cultural attributes are more strongly correlated with some nationalities than others and large scale immigration of those nationalities is definitely a very bad idea.

            The problem with Islam is Islam, the religion, the belief system. There are Muslims who are reasonable people and how reasonable they are is directly proportional to how far from the religion and belief system they are. The less like a Muslim that a Muslim is the better he is and is best of all when he is no longer a Muslim.

          • Unfortunately, we Westerners are rapidly approaching the point when we will no longer be able to judge people as individuals any longer, at least not all the time. We just won’t have that luxury anymore. Given the size of the Pakistani population now resident in the UK, testing each individual to determine how “reasonable” or how “radical” he is has now become impossible. Any meaningful decisions that are made — and it is unlikely that they will be made; the country will almost certainly continue careening along in its lemming-like rush over the paki-cliff — will have to be made on the basis of whether people are Pakistanis or not (or Somalis, or Afghans, etc.), and not by examining difficult-to-discern individual character traits.

            It’s ugly and unfortunate, but there isn’t any real choice. It doesn’t mean there has to be genocide, but it means that the customary politically correct way of cognizing the situation will have to be abandoned.

            El Inglés started talking about these difficult issues more than ten years ago, when it was still theoretically possible to avoid the dire pass we have come to. But nothing in the political culture has changed significantly in the interim, so it’s too late now. We have passed the point when we can employ the traditional liberal Weltanschauung to grapple with these dreadful issues.

          • In the final analysis, Islam’s juridical system is at odds with Western culture. At every intersection of the two, you find deep abhorrence of the former by the latter – quotes by Mark Twain and Winston Churchill come to mind. Not to mention America’s unhappy experience with the pirates on the Barbary Coast, to wit:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

            I’ve written previously about the beginnings of the U.S. Navy and the birth of the U.S. Marines as forces to contend with due to the predations of the Barbary pirates on the fledgling American commerce. Europe, for the most part, preferred to continue paying tribute to the Tripoli, et al, but the US couldn’t afford to do so. America’s experience as a new nation proved to be emblematic of her future.

            From the very start of our political life/strife there were divisions and collisions and collusions.

    • I am dismayed that El Ingles should so spectacularly pick the wrong target and even more dismayed that only one commenter here appears to disagree with him. However I also think Svenne is wrong to bring up the Jewish parallel for the reasons that BB outlines (Godwin’s Law and all that…).

      1. If the Pakistanis why not the Somalis or the Afghans? Why not West Indians who are also over-represented in many negative activities (crime, drugs, gangs, knifings, mental illness, unemployment…and rap)? Come to that, why not Guardian readers who massively subscribe to the attitudes which have led us to this position?

      2. In order to force out the entire population of Muslim Pakistanis would require draconian powers. The principles of equality before the law and the proscription on group punishment would have to be suspended for one group, the majority of whom are British citizens. There is only one word for such an approach…totalitarian. Do people here only object to totalitarianism when it’s the other side doing it? Rounding up families at gunpoint (which is what it would require) and holding them in detention centres until something could be done with them would rightly be called ethnic cleansing.

      3. Where would these British citizens be sent? Are you going to force Pakistan, a nuclear power, to take them?

      4. There are something like 4 or 5 million ethnic Pakistanis in Britain. Would the government, with only about 60,000 soldiers now, about 10% of whom are apparently unfit for duty, even be able to do it?

      5. It would likely kick off civil war. I happen to think we are drifting almost inevitably towards either subjugation or civil war any way, but that is some way down the line and if it happens I would rather it be a last resort, not one precipitated by our side on grounds that would unite the majority of the population on the Pakistanis’ side.

      6. I think that eventually we will probably have to accept that Islam is our enemy. We knew that for 1350 years and have recently forgotten it in our foolishness. When things get bad enough and obvious enough even for our doltish elites we will have to respond or go under. I suggest that the correct course of action would be to proscribe certain actions, teachings and books with the understanding that those who can’t accept such limits must voluntarily leave or be removed from our society as a danger to us.

      I disagree with BB that it is too late to distinguish between Muslims who are a danger to us (in my view those who follow the example of Mohammed most closely) and those who are not (cultural Muslims etc). The criteria would not have to be too finely drawn. Using a Hilali Khan translation (aka the Wahhabi Koran) would suffice. So would praying for “victory over the kuffar”, or having anything to do with the Muslim Brotherhood or Hizb ut-Tahrir, or wearing a niqab, or attempting to control symbolic public spaces like Speakers Corner, or displaying 7th century attitudes to Jews or Kaffir girls. I don’t give a damn about the personal parts of sharia like which foot someone enters the toilet with but would it be too difficult to make it clear that any sharia based action which contravenes the law or any attempt to impose sharia on the rest of us means you’re out?

      That still leaves the problem of what to do with such people but I suggest it would be less of a problem over time than trying to offload millions of people all at once. Perhaps we could cut a deal with Sudan or the newly impoverished Saudi Arabia when the oil runs out.

      Conversely there are agreements which people have proposed that Muslims should be required to sign with penalties for not keeping to them. The latest leader of UKIP, Gerard Batten has supported a long complicated one written by an ex-Muslim cleric whose name escapes me (Sam Solomon, Sam Shimoun?). Harry Richardson has proposed a Declaration of Peaceful Intent. I seem to remember Geert Wilders came up with something similar.

      In short I agree with Svenne that the problem with Islam is Islam, or at least that the core problem with Islam is Islam, and we should go to the part which really concerns us, sharia, rather than pick on particular groups of Muslims. After all there are Pakistanis who are not a danger to us, and Somalis (and Malaysians and even ginger headed Brits) who are.

      • Perhaps Britain could apply the same partitioning scheme to itself that it did to India in the 40s before it decamped. That move created Pakistan in the first case, and it worked so well. Why not try it again at home?

      • @ECAW:

        The criteria would not have to be too finely drawn. Using a Hilali Khan translation (aka the Wahhabi Koran) would suffice. So would praying for “victory over the kuffar”, or having anything to do with the Muslim Brotherhood or Hizb ut-Tahrir…

        OK, let’s accept that as our premise. But think about the practicalities of it — if an imam preaches “you must kill infidels”, and there are 250 in his congregation, do you deport them all? What about the ones who never pay attention to the sermons (probably most of them)? Or the ones who listen but disagree? It would be unjust to round them up along with the true believers.

        No, in order to separate the sheep from the goats, every single one of them would have to be brought in for an interview with plod, who would have a questionnaire in front of him and a checklist to go through to determine their ideological stance, before any legal action could be taken against them.

        With millions of Muslims in the country who attend mosques where such things are preached, it would never be practicable to do what I outlined above. It just couldn’t be done.

        And that doesn’t even take into account the thorny problem of Muslims’ being trained to lie. None of the answers in those interviews could be considered totally reliable.

        As for which translation is used, that’s not even relevant to a lot of ordinary Muslims, who are mostly functionally illiterate.

        We’ve seen so many cases where no one would have guessed that a guy was a “radical” until the moment he drove his car up over the curb into the pedestrians while shouting “Allahu Akhbar!”

        At this point there are no longer any outcomes to this mess that don’t involve violence and bloodshed and suffering. And there are no outcomes in which we, the infidels, actually prevail without throwing our away the Marquess of Queensbury rulebook.

        “Totalitarianism” is already on its way. It can’t be avoided. The only choices we will have will be in how we might mitigate that totalitarian regime to some extent whilst not allowing our civilization to be destroyed. That’s the best we can do.

        There is simply no endgame any longer that allows Britain to retain its (formerly) customary civil liberties and rule of law. Those are already gone, anyway, as the native Britons are being oppressed. Do you really think those civilized rules can somehow be restored for everybody, without accepting sharia as the legal norm?

        • ..” But think about the practicalities of it — if an imam preaches “you must kill infidels”, and there are 250 in his congregation, do you deport them all? What about the ones who never pay attention to the sermons (probably most of them)? “…
          Semantic Thinking,Historically proven as a wrong..
          Best example Germany and Germans during 1936-1945 period..
          That lack of paying attention and passivity to Hitler preaching from beginning ,resulted in Auschwitz etc..

        • Baron – I hardly recognise my comment from your response to it. I will try to clarify my view from a different angle.

          In the blog post I linked to above I listed what I saw as the full list of possible outcomes from here on with estimates of the likelihood of each actually coming to pass. Only three are relevant to this discussion:

          2. Sensible Curbs – 20 to 1.
          4. Civil War – 2 to 1.
          5. Eventual Swamping and Subjugation – Evens.

          I would put my suggestions under the heading Sensible Curbs whereas I would have to set up a new heading for El Ingles’ proposal:

          2a. Non-Sensible Curbs – Go straight to no. 4.

          What would happen immediately after an announcement that all Pakistani Muslims (and their dependents) were to be rounded up and deported? All other Muslims would side with their co-religionists, partly because they will have more allegiance to their religion than to their host country and partly because they would realise that they would likely be next. Leftists would join them, eager to bring down Western civilisation at any price and a great many others, either indoctrinated by our education system or offended at the unfairness, would support them. Any government seriously attempting to follow through would then find themselves with more committed opposition than they could handle without military force. Bingo…civil war.

          On the other hand my proposal, which would only ever be brought up after the current trickles of jihad inspired blood have become rivulets and a majority of the population had started to realise what genuine Islam – Mohammed’s Islam – really means, with Sweden or Belgium probably gone under, would at least stand a chance of majority support.

          To take your example with the mosque:

          Firstly you say “Do you deport them all?” Well even if that were the case it would be no worse than El Ingles’ proposal but no, the imam would be deported in the first instance and, if it kept happening, the mosque would be closed down. Those who opposed that would show themselves to be on the wrong side and also deported or sent to somewhere offshore where they could do no harm.

          After a great many imams were sent packing and a great many mosques were closed down perhaps the remaining Muslims, particularly those who do not own a copy of the Koran and pay no attention during sermons, would come to believe that a quietist version of Islam is okay with Allah if there is no other option. That’s how the Muslim population were in 1980 before their numbers grew to a significant percentage.

          I do not think this approach is likely to work though! As you see I gave it odds of 20 to 1. But I think it is our last hope before having to decide between civil war and subjugation, and I think it is worth a shot.

          You are quite wrong thinking I have a Pollyanaish optimism about the survival of our accustomed civil liberties. I see our future as nasty or nastier but I see El Ingles’ proposals as even nastier and less likely to produce the required results than my counter-proposals.

          (I look forward to part 3 in which I believe he goes into the practical details)

          • @ECAW

            Actually, I consider your suggestions as reasonable, practical ways of dealing with the issue. If they were to be implemented, then we would have a chance of getting out of this mess without rending the civil fabric of the West more than is absolutely necessary.

            But here’s the problem: Time. In order to have any hope of success, these new policies would have to be implemented, like, NOW. If another ten years goes by, not only is there no chance of their succeeding, but there would be no chance that they could even be attempted.

            Really, though, such policies should have been implemented a decade or so ago. We discussed similar things here back in those days, and the basic conclusion was that they needed to happen very soon, within a few years at most, or it would be too late.

            Well, those few years have come and gone, and nothing has changed. Or rather, things got worse: Muslims are now allowed more latitude, and have been given more concessions and special privileges, than was the case in 2008. More schools are fully halal. More police forces have made hijab part of the uniform. More countries punish people for any offensive utterances about “a religion”. We are farther away than ever from being able to implement even the mildest measures against the spread of Islamization and the sharia.

            The political will to do anything — or even to describe the problem in terms that include the words “Islam” and “sharia” — is simply absent. My assumption is that this is because the Muslim vote now swings elections at the margin — all across the major cities of Western Europe, any candidate who wishes to be elected must carry the Muslim vote. Those who gain the endorsement of the imams — Muslims tend to vote as a bloc, with the imams pointing the way to the halal candidate — win the election. Thus there is no chance that any serious measures against Islam will ever make it to the floor of the legislature or to the table of the borough council.

            The only thing that could change this discouraging situation would be for white people to also vote as a bloc, in their own ethnic interests. And how likely is that? We honkies splinter into our different factions based on important issues such as animal rights or transgender bathrooms, and then one faction or another (usually the more Progressive one) allies with the Muslim bloc to prevail.

            The Muslims understand this process well, and cynically exploit it. They’re experts in playing the kuffar. Their ideology counsels patience, and a decades- or centuries-long time frame for their success. They’ve been using the divide-and-conquer strategy successfully against us for 1,400 years. Think of the disinterest of the Venetian mercantile oligarchs in giving any support to the beleaguered Byzantine Empire during the decades of warfare ending in the fall of Constantinople.

            So we are actually making a mistake when we discuss the nuts and bolts of what might work to reverse the current disastrous trajectory of Western Civilization. It doesn’t matter exactly what we think up to move us in that direction, because it cannot be implemented.

            That is the core problem: how to create a large enough constituency for a general anti-Islamization program to be able to implement it in a democratic fashion. We, the white people formerly known as Christians, have the majority. We could do it if the political will existed. But it doesn’t: creating a viable Crusader coalition is not possible at this time, and has not been possible during the entire fifteen years that I’ve been paying close attention. People do not care enough about Islamization, if they are even aware of it, and would rather engage in fratricidal political struggles around entirely different issues.

            I can’t see any sign that this will change before a general economic collapse. When the fiat money system finally implodes and the welfare state falls apart, millions of white people will join the “nothing left to lose” brigade, and change will then be possible. However, at that point circumstances will be so dire that a traditional democratic solution will no longer be in the cards. We will have either anarchy — the War of All Against All — or some form of tyranny, maybe regional warlords, or a dystopian mass surveillance state à la Blade Runner, or — the most likely outcome, in my opinion — clusters of sharia-based hellholes ruled by local emirs in constant warfare with pockets of the destitute and sickly remnants of European civilization.

            I can’t see any other outcome at this point, unfortunately. We are headed in that direction, and we are headed there fast. Over the past decade and half I’ve seen no sign that our direction might be changing, notwithstanding the election of Donald Trump.

          • Baron – Thanks for your long reply. I will just make a few points:

            1. If you think my proposals impracticable because of the time constraints then I suspect that you must think the same applies to El Ingles’s.

            2. Why do you make it a White thing? I make it a Kuffar thing. The people who have influenced me most are not white (or not very white)…Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq etc. I think any effective counter movement in Britain would have to include Sikhs, Hindus and African Christians, all of whom know about Islam.

            3. I think we are agreed that we are sleep walking to disaster, whatever form it takes, and there is little that we can do about it at the moment. I suspect that things will have to get very much worse before there is even a chance of what El Ingles calls a discontinuity. I am fairly convinced that we face only two realistic options, civil war or subjugation, and looking around at my fellow Europeans my money is on the latter. Bernard Lewis thought that by the end of this century Europe would be part of the Maghreb didn’t he?

            I expect to be gone before the eventual denouement but my grand children won’t be. I wish them luck but oddly enough I think more about my grandparents and their grandparents who struggled so to pass on to us what we’ve got. If by any chance there is an afterlife I don’t want to have to tell them I was one of those who ****ed it away.

          • I’ll just answer #2.

            In extreme times, people cluster together by ethnicity, and provide support for those who are most like themselves. This is true of all races, and only whites (that is, people of mostly European genetic heritage) have tried to “overcome” this instinctual behavior. However, when extreme times arrive, whites will revert, and behave like other ethnic groups.

            Most blacks in the USA vote for a black candidate, if there is one. This is a pervasive behavioral trait. It doesn’t matter what the candidate’s politics is; they vote with race as the single deciding characteristic. I assume that other non-white groups behave similarly in their own cultural areas. Only whites do differently.

            In the long run, NOT showing solidarity with one’s own genetic group is self-destructive to that group. If whites don’t revert to the ancient way of doing things fairly soon, they will disappear, and their culture will disappear with them. I don’t want that to happen.

            This does not mean whites should refuse to ally with Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, or any other compatible ethnic groups. Co-operating with other groups who share common interests is the most logical and most prudent course.

            But not to take race into account as one of the most important characteristics in group cohesion is to make a crucial error.

            Race matters. It matters instinctively. We have tried to override that instinct, but when the environment becomes sufficiently adverse, we will revert. At that point race will matter again, even to white people — or white people will be no more.

      • I fail to see how your solutions are any less draconian than the imposition of total separation or removal. Instead of removing Muslims wholesale, you would give the government the right to determine the sympathies of virtually everyone, with the power to deport anyone it chose, to a place of its choosing. You refer to signing an agreement, or “voluntarily” leaving. I fail to see the “voluntary’ part of that solution.

        The Spaniards tried a variant of your solution after the reconquest of 1492. Muslims were require to renounce Islam in order to remain, like Jews with Judaism. What happened is that the Spaniards found that the Muslims retained their practices in secret, and carried out subversive activities, until finally the Spanish government was forced to eject the entire community of people who were descended from the Muslims.

        The founding fathers of the US believed that a representative government based on individual rights could only exist in a relatively homogeneous, largely Christian society. Once a country imports significant numbers of Muslims, representative government based on rights simply doesn’t work anymore. The same may hold for other peoples, not necessarily Muslim.

        One of Aldo’s tapes included the observation that the peaceful Muslims took their inspiration from the same source as the fanatic Muslims: the Koran. Therefore, all the mosques in Muslim countries were monitored by police who themselves were Muslim and knew the Koran. If an imam even began preaching from the war passages, the police would arrest him on the spot, without even waiting for the sermon to conclude.

        Western countries are simply not set up to successfully govern Muslims.

        • RonaldB – I assume you are replying to my first comment above.

          Just to be clear, you are mixing up two parts of the comment:

          “I suggest that the correct course of action would be to proscribe certain actions, teachings and books with the understanding that those who can’t accept such limits must voluntarily leave or be removed from our society as a danger to us.”

          and

          “Conversely there are agreements which people have proposed that Muslims should be required to sign with penalties for not keeping to them.”

          Yes, my proposal is draconian but I contend it is less draconian than El Ingles’. I believe there are no nice solutions ahead, just more or less nasty ones. I claim that it is less draconian to proscribe certain books, actions and teachings which the government has determined to be unavoidably seditious than proscribing being a member of an ethnic group over which you have no control. It is currently illegal in Britain to be found in possession of material likely to be of use to a terrorist. Would it be a difference in kind or only a difference in degree to extend that definition to include, say, the Hilali Khan translation which clearly states that jihad is expected from Muslims today rather than being limited to Mo’s campaigns in the Mecca/Medina area in the 7th century?

          I claim that it is also less draconian because (probably) it would affect many fewer people.

          Yes, the government would have the power to determine the sympathies of anyone (according to evidence, the usual checks and balances etc) but I think that is less draconian than deporting everyone subject to a particular accident of birth, some of whom – many I suspect – pose no threat to the country.

          I accept that you may well be right about the Spanish experience but then I presume you are advocating deporting all Muslims and members of Muslim majority ethnic groups rather than just Pakistani Muslims. Am I right?

          I also accept that your founding fathers may well have been correct in their views. I suspect we are about to find out.

          Who is Aldo? I cannot find anything about Aldo’s tapes on Google.

  13. I’m gratified to see another posting by El Ingles, who post what, to my mind, was the author of one of the most seminal series to appear in GoV, “Ethno-Religious Diversity and the Limits of Democracy”. This is an argument against immigration much more powerful than most you will see anywhere else: it develops the thesis, using graph arguments, that a democracy or republic can become ungovernable through diversity.

    He begins this essay with the thesis that Pakistani Muslims must be removed from Britain and goes on to recount the horror of the Pakistani culture. My feeling is that Ingles would strengthen his argument by alluding to the theorem he developed that any disparate population is not governable through the means of popular opinion. Actually, the horrors of the Pakistani culture is immaterial to that thesis. The counter to the description of horrors is that the immigrants will assimilate, or their influence will be marginal. I only mention that because Ingles theoretical work refutes those claims.

    Again, Ingles attributes the intergroup hostility in Pakistan to the mutual repugnance of the different groups that hate each other; but taking Ingles own work, they would still not be able to work with each other, even if not so repugnant, if their values were appreciably different.

    “It is worth pointing out here that a small fraction of the population of Pakistan consists of non-Muslim groups such as Christians, Sikhs, and Hindus. These people are not the focus of our analysis; the term Pakistani should not be taken as referring to them unless specified; and, for what little it is worth, we extend to them our heartfelt sympathies that they should be exposed, day in, day out, to the tender mercies of Pakistani Muslims.”

    Might I note that the fact that these people are relatively crime free and work productively does not automatically make it beneficial to import them to England. Again, taking Ingles seminal analysis of diversity and governability, it depends on the match between the immigrant populations and the native populations. It is not the responsibility of a country to sacrifice itself for even worthy peoples.

  14. “Of course, we are not so arrogant as to make any concrete suggestions as to who exactly these peoples might be in European countries other than our own. This is a matter for the respective peoples of those countries to decide for themselves: the Dutch in the Netherlands, the French in France, the Germans in Germany.”

    Who are the respective people of these “democracies” ? In real democracies it should be the majority of the voters. What are the demographic models forecasting as next future in most of the EU countries ? Never mind, not all EU countries are the best example of true democracies. Maybe the EU itself is just a bank union or financial technocracy with no soul, ruled by GDP algorithms and economic models which already went wrong.

    Could it not be that the people, maybe leaving one day from Belgium, for example, would be the french and the dutch together ? Or maybe this kind of relocation has it already happened in many part of the capital cities of EU ?

  15. The British Pakistani Christian Association graphically catalogues the horrors visited upon Christians as normal life in that terrible country. We only know a fraction of it. Perhaps the BPCA knows the end of the story about Maryam.

  16. There is no reason, per se, that a civilization, or peoples of a state or place, or a culture can’t have such a high percentage of evil-doers that the West has to treat them en masse as unwanted…. just because it has to generalize in order to get anything done. We don’t know if everyone on Goaribari Island in Melanesia was a headhunter but 10,000 skulls were found in a community longhouse there in 1901 and it would probably be better to refuse them passports and visas.

  17. My former Pakistani colleague’s 20 years old daughter was raped by her cousins while visiting her family in Pakistan from England. It took my ex-colleague months to find out what happened to her daughter upon their return to London as she was withdrawn, depressed, sleepwalking…

  18. It seems that Pakistan is in such a lamentable state not only because it is a Muslim country, but also because of its tradition of cousin marriages. The children of such incestuous marriages are often intellectually underdeveloped.

  19. One tremendous problem in the Pakistani community is the massive incidence of birth defects, both physical and intellectual, due to the custom of cousins marrying each other. This is a problem that needs to be openly discussed and tackled despite the risk of being howled down as a “racist” by so called “progressives.”

  20. Nobody wants to state the obvious. There’s only one way out of this, but it’s a route no Western nation can morally take. That’s our loss, b/c the first moral good is ‘survival’. The West will NOT survive if we continue pretending this hasn’t happened repeatedly throughout history. Hijrah, conquest by immigration within 2 generations. It really is that stark. Thus there are only 2 routes to survival: expulsion or genocide. [intemperate recommendation redacted].

    • There is another solution, which is partition. I realize it gets in people’s craw to talk about giving up territory, but when you have a civilized people fighting a civil war, they will generally prefer to move populations rather than to carry out mass atrocities. You had that in the Kosovo and Bosnian wars, where if NATO had not invaded, Muslim populations would have been moved to the Muslim areas, and Serbs would control the bulk of the region. I’m not sure what would happen to the Croats.

      My thinking is that in a civil war, your best outcome is to have a clear winner and loser. The winner sets the terms, and the losers have to work with it, but the solution is more stable than a compromise that leaves the flash points in place.

      While we’re on the topic of homogeneous populations, let me bring up something which seems off-topic. A homogeneous population in an area free of conflict and ruled by law, will deteriorate genetically. The deterioration is due to lack of natural selection pressures, and is a natural result of genetic mutations and genetic drift. I suspect this is what took place in Sweden, where the population allowed immigration of completely unsuitable people.

      The Genius Famine

  21. Didn’t go back far enough in history to pinpoint the real problem with Pakistan. The country is the product of the longest, bloodiest holocaust in human history. Pakistan exists because all the Hindus who originally lived there were killed or eventually converted to Islam to avoid being murdered.

    What was one of the first civilizations on Earth and a peaceful prosperous province of India with civilized Buddhists and Hindus – was overrun by savages repeatedly for a millennium. Now it’s an insane asylum posing as a nation.

  22. As an Indian Hindu , I can vouch that this article is 100% TRUE. We know first hand what these people are capable of. What world and mainstream media has ignored is that Pakistan is also guilty of genocide of 4.6 million hindus in last 70 years. Hindus made up of 18 to 25% of population of Pakistan in 1940s. Today their population is below 1%. Each month, approximately 5000 of Pakistani Hindus flee to India, silently leaving everything behind to come and live on roads of India as refugees. No human right organizations ever take up their cause. They work hard, try to forget everything and move on in life, while muslims in India, enjoy a free ride on hindu tax payers money. I am sick of this trend. I am sick of the violence my community faces each day in muslim majority areas. I have organized fund raisers to help hindu refugees but its barely enough to provide anything for them. My heart bleeds to look at my people suffering like this. What is our fault? We have given them 30% of our territory to make an islamic nation, still they did not leave India. Indian muslims have reached 25% of Indian population through demographic aggression. Its they who are behind this population explosion. Government data never admit this 25% figure, but on ground its true. Last left wing government did not even release this data. God give my people the strength to fight whats coming. Help us save our culture, our religion and milleniums old hindu civilization, for if we fall, entire world will fall in darkness. If islamization of India takes place, the world will not be able to handle the dark tide coming their way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.