Can Islamization Be Rolled Back Without Eroding Civil Liberties?

The following essay is based on a series of comments that emerged in the thread accompanying Part 1 of El Inglés’ recent three-part essay on the Pakistanis (see also Part 2 and Part 3).

Note: In the remarks below I write as if from a European point of view. I have been specializing in European affairs for so long that I have “gone native”: when considering the issues of mass immigration and Islamization, I tend to examine the situation in Western Europe to get a sense of the way we are headed.

Things are different here in the USA — we are careening towards the same cliff as the Europeans, but we are a right good ways behind them. As a result, America may be able to avoid the catastrophic future that faces Europe. Or, if Western Europe turns it around and follows El Inglés’ advice, we’ll be able to model our responses on theirs and escape martial law or civil war or revolution or whatever nasty outcome would await us otherwise.

But Western Europe will not have the luxury of returning to the idyllic status quo of 1955-2000. My contention is that things have gone too far down the multicultural primrose path for Europeans to be spared an illiberal outcome. The niceties of civil society will evaporate, no matter what. They will either be blown away by the imposition of sharia, or at the very least they will be reduced by whatever authoritarian regime emerges to resist the sharia.

There are no other choices.

Our situation in the West is similar to that of the Hindus who eventually became Sikhs, and violently resisted the Islamic invasion. Will we develop our own version of Sikhism? Or will we simply become the European version of Persia/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Indonesia?

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

A number of commenters on El Inglés’ posts objected to the idea of the draconian actions against Pakistanis that he proposed. They observed, correctly, that these things cannot be done without abrogating the civil liberties of at least some of the targets. They also noted that innocent Pakistanis — those few who do not oppress women, take little white girls as sex slaves, and engage in welfare fraud for their livelihood — would be caught up and punished along with the guilty ones. El Inglés addressed these objections in the conclusion of Part 3, but his answers evidently failed to assuage the fears of his critics.

We’ve been discussing these issues in this space for at least a dozen years. Time was short when the conversation started, and it is far shorter now. Back then we were at five minutes to twelve; today it may be five seconds to twelve.

Any solution that does not rend the civil fabric of our societies must be devised VERY quickly. Bear in mind that such a solution would first have to be raised and discussed in national legislatures. Then a majority coalition would have to somehow be cobbled together in support of it. Horses would have to be traded. Palms would have to be greased. Sausages would have to be made. Individual representatives would have to be convinced to vote in favor of something that would earn them a death fatwa from the Religion of Peace for doing so.

Just think how difficult it would be to accomplish that.

Furthermore, as soon as such a movement gained steam, it would be violently resisted by the antifas and other “anti-fascist” street thugs bankrolled by the globalists. We already know that antifas aren’t averse to a bit of ultra-violence when they bash the fash. How will they respond to real political and cultural change in Western Europe, the kind that would actually deport the “refugees” en masse?

Once the anti-fascists start killing police, for example, the rules of the game will change. The first thing the state will do at that point is to impose martial law and significantly reduce everyone’s civil liberties.

I can’t see a way out of this that preserves the customary civil society that Europeans have grown used to. It’s just too late.

Our choices are between sharia and some form of authoritarian governance by leaders of our own native ethnic groups. There are no other doors out of this room.

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

The conversations below are taken from the comments section on El Inglés’ first post. They cover in greater detail the same issues I outlined above. The participants are our Swedish correspondent Svenne Tvaerskaegg, ECAW, and myself.

Svenne:   ‘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, reprehensible 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.”
Baron:   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 anywhere 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.

Svenne:   “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 undesirable 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.

Baron:   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.

Svenne:   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.

Baron:   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.

ECAW:   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 [Sam Solomon]. 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.

Baron:   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?

ECAW:   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 Pollyannaish 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)

Baron:   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.

110 thoughts on “Can Islamization Be Rolled Back Without Eroding Civil Liberties?

  1. My oh-so-human self agrees that there is nothing to be done, really, before this tidal wave, but …
    my small, perhaps silly, voice asks: is there no room for the awesome Creator of the entire universe, the One who loves us so, the One who asked if Job was there at the beginning, for that One to pursue His will?
    He has asked us only to believe Him.

    Perhaps it is for the Christians who do believe, to repent, and continually ask for revival. Surely He “knows” of another door?
    I realize this is not practical, but miracles often aren’t, at least to our eyes.

    • He was remarkably absent when Islam subjugated two thirds of the Christian world, in the 4 1/2 centuries before the Crusades.

      • He wasn’t absent, just as He wasn’t absent from Egypt during the 400 years the Jews were there. We mistake our will and view of time and it’s consequences for His.

        • May your “small, perhaps silly, voice” be heard by many, including myself.

  2. Since nothing seems to be possible through peaceful and democratic means at this late hour seconds before midnight, I wonder what the odds are of some truly nasty incident happening that is used to spur the populace to vote for doing what needs to be done. For example, a chemical or biological attack on the Parliament but executed by agents within the government in such a manner to frame the islamists? I cannot believe that rational thinkers do not exist within the british intelligience agencies, and that the consequences of further importation of muslims and the non-deportation of the ones already present has not been wargamed, and projections and possible courses of actions prepared.

    • I believe that the government(s) – specifically the British one – simply does not take these scenarios into account. Why I am so pessimistic: let’s go back to the eve of WWII – some perhaps did see it coming in the 30s (Churchill?) but at the government level, Hitler’s war machine “surprised” all the countries he assaulted and so easily conquered.

      So why on earth this time reality should be different?

      Furthermore – “to spur the populace to vote for doing what needs to be done” – well, long way from voting for somebody to become a leader to enacting and enforcing policies that would resolve something.

      I think it goes back to square one of Baron’s position: either dictatorship against sharia or sharia itself. Either solution means suppression or full revocation of our constitutional liberties, in our case invalidation of the US Constitution – etc. etc.

      • Not “Surprised” in truth as Britain began re-arming rapidly from about 1936-7 but couldn’t catch up. They certainly refused to take the forceful action however in fear of triggering the little corporal which of course only made matters worse down the road.

        In their very top secret meetings they will know that catastrophe is approaching but like Chamberlain live in hope that a peaceful resolution can be pulled out of the hat……


        • Actually, by 1940 British aircraft production was hugely expanding: in the Battle of Britain the main shortage was of pilots, prompting the grudging (but very fortunate) admission of Polish and Czech pilots into the fray.

          The over-confident Nazis, notwithstanding losses in the Netherlands and France, had reduced production.

  3. The purpose of elections is to define the future direction of western civilization. It follows that people who don’t want western civilization to have a future have no busines voting.

  4. “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.”

    Breathtaking conversation, Baron – and you summed it up, even several times and in different ways, substance of your message (if possible to simplify the opinions expressed in the dialogues above) being:

    “The niceties of civil society will evaporate, no matter what. They will either be blown away by the imposition of sharia, or at the very least they will be reduced by whatever authoritarian regime emerges to resist the sharia. There are no other choices.”

    To expect that any other solution – a third way if you will – is possible is to me equivalent to a massively shocking religious miracle – say Jesus appearing in Jerusalem and preaching again …

    Ain’t gonna happen – just the opposite will happen, the scenario you see so clearly and sadly.

  5. Can civil liberties be protected without rolling back Islamization? The answer is no. There is an obvious conundrum here, but a choice has to be made. One where a future with civil liberties exists or one without. The choice is actually easy, it’s the follow through that is hard.

  6. The Jews are a great benefit to Europe. Indeed their destruction by Fascism led directly to where we are now. “Civilisation died at Auschwitz” is a truism.

  7. The solution is simple and lies on the surface. To preserve European culture and civilizations two things should be done:
    a. uphold the secular character of the de-facto multinational society which means no group of people can have preferential treatment because of their religion
    b. kill the welfare state.
    Once that’s done, things will sort out themselves.

    • a. European “culture” is gone. And several states have national religions, which Islam can easily replace. Britain is nominally “Anglican” but besides the Queen’s trips to church, who actually attends the churches in Britain? What percentage has become deeply secular, championing their right to believe in nothing? People who believe in nothing won’t defend any aspect of their culture. In the U.S., the push to eliminate private belief (aside from Islam) is going full speed ahead.

      b. the welfare state is far too entrenched to be killed. If that weren’t the case, the NHS would have been dismantled long ago. The NHS is a shambles; it could well implode as fewer and fewer people show up for careers in the health profession. Either that, or it will be a field run by non-British ethnics, and the latter will find it increasingly hazardous to attempt to get medical care.

      • European culture is not gone, people just forgot that they should be responsible for themselves and the state encourages them not to be, so that they are forever dependent on the social handouts. And “secular” means the opposite of “clerical”. Not what you’ve wrote it is. Secular means religion has no place in human society. Any religion. It doesn’t matter if people go or do not go to a church. Secular means no church, or mosque or whatever. No group of people gets preferential treatment based on their religion or the lack of it.
        People get freedom of consciousness wrong. It’s true meaning is that nobody can be prosecuted solely based on their religion or the lack of it. This is all there is. It doesn’t mean that if there are no mosques (or churches, or synagogues), state should build them to uphold the freedom of consciousness.
        I really didn’t get a thing about NHS. I am a simple man, if there are services to be rendered, then they should be paid for. It is a really simple concept which somehow got lost in the translation with all that “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite” thing.

        • European culture is not gone, people just forgot that they should be responsible for themselves and the state encourages them not to be, so that they are forever dependent on the social handouts.

          You prove my point. If people have forgotten responsibility, then their culture is hollowed out, gone. And the only use for churches is as tourist destinations; whether or not the state “supports” them is immaterial if no one attends them. Prince Harry and his consort will no doubt get married in the cathedral and then never darken the door again…unless they produce off-spring.

          • What I am saying is, it’s 21 century and religion is irrelevant. Society needs to treat all religions as they are: irrelevant. Which means, if there are no halal products are produced or imported in the country then the state should not jump from its pants to provide people with ones. If halal is contrary to the animal dignity (or rights, or whatever) ban it for this purpose. It will not be a religious discrimination because religion is irrelevant, society needs to understand that. It means no call to prayer at 5 am, because it disturbs public peace, not because anyone is discriminating against a particular religion. There is no need to infringe civil rights to protect West from islam. On the contrary civil rights, individual rights are this corner stone on which Western civilization is built. And on this corner stone islam will be broken. Uphold individual rights, no welfare and no religion in civil matters. Some people will be pissed off of course, but they’ll be busy paying their bills in the absence of social studies grunts etc.
            And of course freedom of speech. That’s crucial too. Without freedom of speech everything is lost.
            I am convinced that only by strengthening civil liberties islam can be repelled.

          • Hell Awaits:

            Now, more than ever, religion is one of the last things that can give an impulse to self-defense. When there is no more hope, you turn to god, make a cross and fight knowing you have nothing left. You fight thinking that last thing you can lose is your life or your faith.

            Society is not a bunch of individuals living between borders. Society is a living creature that is able to kill and digest everything conflicting the society (country, religion, traditions, history). Europe, the west Europe, does not have society. My father told me once, that west Europe suffer of a very dangerous malady – full belly sensation and TV entertainment. This malady isolate neighbors, kill the will to think and deform the capacity of understanding the events surrounding you.
            When I first time came in the west, from east Europe, I had the strange sensation that I am in the Kids and toys territory. It was like there was no grown up person in this part of the world. For me, having a depression because you have nothing to do, was something over my logical power of understanding. When you have all you want, to be depressive, is mental sickness. Read a book, learn something new, study, make your life count. If there is no orgasm, drugs or alcohol… then is boring.
            In my country, friendship is something deep. For a very good friend, you can kill if this is the only way to save your friend. In the west ? I don’t think real friendship exist anymore. Not to the young generation.

            You must be realist, you must start from the reality of today. Do you realize what will happen if halal is forbidden ? Do you realize what will happen if the mosques must be silent ?
            There is no society to enforce this. Society means people who pressure their faith, traditions, rules, history, habits.
            Religion is irrelevant for you…and this is a weakness, when we talk about society. Even if you don’t believe in god, you must defend the faith of your ancestors. It means to defend your history. If you don’t feel that way, you are easy pray for muslims.
            The west civilization is no longer what you think. Master Boot Record of the western civilization has been exposed to viruses.

            You can’t cut the welfare…not only muslims will go wild…there are many 100% westerners enjoying the system of doing nothing.

            Agree…no interference between religion and civil matters. How can you stop islam to not push ? Who is going to oppose islam ? There are no more politicians in Europe. They are opportunists.

            When we talk about muslims, they dont care about bills…We are paying their bills. So, they are not busy with something like this. Maybe me, you, Barron, Cross…
            Freedom of speech can be defended only by a strong society. Taking in consideration Anno Domini 2018, I see nobody in the west ready to enforce this freedom. No party, no society. They are scared of the potential aggression of muslims. They are scared to break their own new/stupid laws. And most important, politicians are complicit.
            So…I do understand you are a good person…but I tell you…you need killers to defend peace.

  8. “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.”

    They are gone.

    “They’ve sold us out. They’ve destroyed our nation. They’ve destroyed our culture.”
    Tommy Robinson at 14.00

    “We don’t have justice, we don’t have the rule of law, and so we have all these incoherences, and inconsistencies, and all that the people in charge can do is to keep on censoring…” at 17.59.
    Peter McLoughlin,
    Author of “Easy Meat”,
    Brian of London, youtube

    • I entirely agree, Michael. My unforced, spontaneous reaction immediately I read the title of this post was, “And precisely what ‘civil liberties’ do we have left and, if we do have some that I cannot call to mind, just how long can we anticipate they will continue to exist? Answers: “Very few if any” and if we do have any “Not for much longer.”

  9. Our discussions should not take place in a vacuum. It should be known to all and sundry that the Western countries subscribe to, and participate, in surveillance programs (such as Echelon, Prism, etc) which protect our countries from organized terrorist attacks, by flagging key words and phrases. That means that your government knows exactly what you are saying and doing, without needing to use a single policeman. How do you think that the elites, who control this surveillance, will react to any of your proposals? They can pinpoint your exact location and they can follow every conversation you hold. Any tactical proposals your readers make will be read by the entire security apparatus… which means that any real or practical resistance, unless it is of a groundswell nature, can only be formulated off the grid. What chance of that?

    • I did develop software for Echelon. Echelon is a tool. But this tool is used wrong, not at the full/right capacity. There is so much to talk about. But main subject is that we all writing here, will feel the system, according to our own texts. Kind of the last judgment day. It will be our sins to condemn us, not the system.

  10. Sunday morning, I’m settling down to a couple of bacon and tomato sandwiches and a pint of ‘amphetamine strength’ coffee. The sun is shining (although given the forecast that may change any time soon) and I have plans to see my daughter and granddaughter this afternoon. What’s not to like?

    Then again, it’s hard not to have the constant nagging in the back of my mind about the horrors to come. It kind of gets in the way of everything.

    • I wanted to write some things to you….but I don’t want to disturb. There will be others to do it.

  11. I actually believe there is a very simple solution to this, that requires no pogroms, no discrimination of colours or cultures, no civil war, no mass deportations or sweeping imprisonments.

    The problem, simply, is Islam. It is not Moslems, or Pakistanis or Somalians. Someone needs to summon the courage to ban Islam from their country. All the Imams should be deported immediately and all the mosques razed to the ground. The practice or preaching or teaching of Islam should carry massive, immediate penalties.

    I believe that if this is done swiftly, ruthlessly and without fear or favour, the majority of Moslems will just carry on shuffling about and living their lives. Those that do not can be dealt with individually. Screaming mobs can be herded into enclosed yards and locked in with water cannon till they cool down.

    It may not be perfect, but it does address the fundamental problem of endless, apologising appeasement and nit-picking excuses. It is the best solution I have encountered, if not the only one. and it has the huge bonus that many Islamic children may be spared the brainwashing that destroys their lives and their souls. The poison ivy of Islam, starved of sustenance, may then wither and withdraw.

    • Ideology does not exist in a vacuum. It is attached to its bearers. This has logical consequences which no moral can argue its way out of.

    • I agree, this is the solution. Islam must be removed from the list of “religions”. After all, why would be this cult a religion, when Kali’s sect is not, or cannibalism is not?
      Once removed, then it can be put in place as the third large totalitarian ideology beside the national and international socialism.

      • Cross. Get real. In my country Islam is a cult. They have no voice. But we are talking about the west. You know, the civilized west?

  12. Baron, I agree with Svenne. Once you have granted immigrants citizenship You cannot discriminate based on race, or religion without losing your own humanity or respect for the rule of law. I see no reason to prevent any society from choosing to discriminate in favour or against any persons before letting them into their country, for any reason. However, once you have invited them in, granted them citizenship then the rules change, even if you have done so foolishly.

    At this point you can only discriminate based upon the rule of law. That’s to say, based upon individual behaviour. That said, we have so many laws in the west now that if the State so chose, it could make life unbearable for any citizen simply by putting them through endless tax audits, health and safety checks, welfare audits and the like, such that they would choose to emigrate. Look what they have done to Tommy Robinson for example. They trawled though his entire life to find a technicality on which to imprison him. Upon his release, they have continued to harass him and his family.

    Which as Douglas Murray has pointed out, shows that Britain is very good at dealing with secondary issues, but not the primary issues. They have chosen to harass those who point out the problems with their multicultural utopia, rather than address the problems themselves.

    Which leads me to agree with your primary thesis – namely that Britain faces either Sharea or an increasingly totalitarian surveillance state. Both options are totalitarian, both are illiberal. The word tragedy seems woefully insufficient.

    • In a final fight between the two totalitarian systems, secular leftism and Islam, I’d bet on the latter.

      • The Red-Green alliance is united, for the time being anyway, by its shared goal of the destruction of western civilization (including the U.S.), but when and if that goal is attained, there will certainly be a sorting out between the Cultural Marxists of the Left and their erstwhile Muslim allies.

        Most leftists will simply take the easy way out – and convert to Islam as quickly as possible.

        It is already fashionable on the left to convert to Islam – and when push comes to shove, the trend will only accelerate.

    • “At this point you can only discriminate based upon the rule of law. That’s to say, based upon individual behaviour. That said, we have so many laws in the west now that if the State so chose, it could make life unbearable for any citizen simply by putting them through endless tax audits, health and safety checks, welfare audits and the like, such that they would choose to emigrate. ”

      This is an illogical statement on the face of it. You have to go by the rule of law. Yet, there are so many laws, likely contradictory, that any citizen can be punished or persecuted if the state wishes to do so. Hence, there is no restriction through law on the persecution of individuals; hence, there is no rule of law.

      The only way there is a rule of law is if one can choose to be either in the law or out of the law.

    • In my country, citizenship can be canceled. You will go to the country you entered my country.
      You don’t judge based on race or religion…you judge the facts and actions of the person. If the person’s actions are against the law, he must pay.
      Brendan, you must be young. I do remember the 1990’s….if you want a tourist visa for USA, they will check all about you…if you did not pay your taxes, you don’t get a visa. Even if you want to spend 100k usd in USA for a 10 days trip. With muslims today is different.

      No…If I will invite you in my home…thinking you know how to use the toilette, I will knock you down if you produce dirty/smelling things in my living-room. And I will throw you out.
      But this is me, not UK. Masters of UK want something else.
      UK is in full progress of implementing sharia. And this is mainly totalitarian.

  13. In my opinion, it is possible to de-islamize west without touching civil liberties. It was done before. But you need a strong society oriented to own existence and aware about dangers to own existence. A society has own culture, religion, belief system, traditions, common reaction to foreign events or threats. A society has the moral advantage to consider as a common treasure own country, own cities, own citizens, own ancestors. In a society (ideally) all citizens care about common good and work for it. West Europe does not have a society..not anymore…West Europe has a population. It is a big difference between society and population. In a society, politicians listen to people’s rules and demands. To a population politicians are making the rules. Merkel opened the borders and there was nothing to stop her. Population of Germany did not react. They did not prove to be a society with a common reaction regarding their future.
    What is happening in the west now is visible oriented to delete the last traces of a united society. Regarding same event, Merkel’s open borders, east Europe had a totally different reaction. While in the west the bound with ancestors is broken, in the east the Ottomans killing their ancestors is still learned in schools. The blood covering the history of their lands is not yet dry. You cant demand in the east Europe acceptance of invading millions of muslims. You will have blood on the streets at the first serious aggression from muslim’s side.
    De-islamization can be done…but with a society, not a population.

  14. The way the BREXIT proceedings are going or should I say being thwarted will more likely be the spark that ignited the gunpowder.

    Everyone here knows that the EUs Freedom of Movement is just open borders by the back door for the third world. We all know that the EU Parliament is just a central control centre ordering national governments to implement Coudenhove-Kalergi while asset stripping us at the same time.

    Leaving the EU in March 2019 will be date hostilities kick off. Why are the likes of Gina Miller and other minorities so determined to block BREXIT?

    • Most likely the British “negotiators” of Brexit will agree to free movement of populations from EU countries into Britain. So, once again, unless you get a government with backbone, immigration of third world peoples into Britain will not stop.

  15. Sacrifice 20,000 better Pakistanis or betray 2 billion friends, which one do you prefer? If you chose to save 20,000 Pakistanis you really need to work on your thinking. Nobody will remember your action as something ethical.

    Muslims lie, cheat and betray to further their goals. It is totally ethical to do onto them what they do onto others.

  16. I think the task is possible to accomplish, but not easy for sure The first task would be to remove Islam status as a religion.

    Islam as a cult then would be open for criticism, not protected by any law, like a religion.

    The method described in Matthew Bracken’s book would be a great method to separate out Muslims from the others:

    Another must have task would be to introduce legislation against the Left. All three collectivist, totalitarian supremacist ideology should be banned: Nazism, Communism and Islam. Nazis already sufficiently ostracised, but Communists never got to answer to their crimes. Just to note, when I mean Communists, I include the present parasites of cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt school, the Antifa, radical Greens, rabid feminists. (They all love to put everyone into identity groups, as all cis-gendered white males are responsible for all kind of bad stuff, then they should not be surprised, when they have to answer for all the crimes of their comrades).

    • CrossWare,

      I can’t speak for Hungary, but such a “solution” would be devastating for the US. Our anti-Muslim movements have been so successful precisely because we have the first amendment, guaranteeing free speech. As soon as you concede the right of government to regulate speech, they will ban anti-Muslim journalism and blogging.

      As far as not recognizing Islam as a religion, and not extending it special privileges, I’m absolutely confused as to how “any” religious exemptions made it through legislation. The First Amendment clearly says “Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion…” Which, to me, say laws giving religious buildings or organizations special exemptions is on the face of it, unconstitutional.

      A huge problem with Muslim migrants or a Muslim population is that Muslims vote more or less as a special-interest bloc, and so any extraordinary power you concede to the government, is most likely to be turned against you.

      I agree with you the Frankfurt school is extraordinarily dangerous. These guys worm their way not only into academia, but into advertising. They specialize in popular culture and communications, and have done a massive job in pushing cultural Marxism.

      So, what’s the best response to them? I would say, begin with eliminating university tenure. Tenure is what permits vile “professors” to poison students, decade after decade. The Association of University Professors, the college professor union, threatens to withhold accreditation from any university not implementing tenure rules. What government can do is withhold funds from any university offering tenure. This would not affect constitutional rights in the least, and would go a long way to solving the problem of toxic, tenured communist professors.

      I do have a recommended course of action which I believe will be more effective than those recommended by el Angeles, but I will detail those after reading the rest of the comments.

  17. .


    Why does the clock in Schloss Bodissey
    never strike noon? .
    Is it the baron’s completely private countdown or some
    general US time that is applied?

    Here in Absurdistan aka Sweden and maybe also in
    the rest of West Eurpe
    the time is already 12:35.
    Sharia shines at the horizon: 2040-50.

    For Sweden’s part, there is currently no other rescue
    than that the new partyAFS (Alternative for Sweden)
    receives 50.3% in the parliamentary elections
    on September 19, 2018
    – and immediately commences the promised
    mass repatriation of culture enrichters.

    However, 85% of the domestic populace is still sleeping
    and half of them are essentially goodhearted.

    Hard candy!

  18. The picture of the Christian under assault by Apollyon, AKA Satan, is a rather apt description of the state of the Church and Christianity today. The assault is merciless and the battle is to the death.
    Following the description of the Christian’s armor in Chapter Six of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians we see the helmet of Salvation having been knocked off the head of the Christian possibly because it wasn’t properly fastened, but the Christian is still holding onto his Shield of Faith and Sword of the Spirit (the Word of God).
    Apollyon is poised for the kill but the Christian refuses to surrender and apparently loves not his life even unto death. The Christian also wishes that he could put his helmet of Salvation back on so as to ward off those doubts and deceptions that Apollyon is using to weaken him.
    Given all of this your woodcut engraving that is the opening picture to your post Baron, is quite the applicable parable of these final days. Satan is closing in for the kill and he does have the Christian and the Church fighting for its life. The Good News is that in Satan’s focus on the Church and the Christian he has forgotten about the head of the Church and the Savior of the Christian, Jesus Christ, Who is God Incarnate. Satan is only a created being whose day is coming when he will be confined to solitary, (prison speak “The Hole”) and then after breaking parole to eternal death in the Lake of Fire.
    Despite having lost the helmet of Salvation in the battle, the Christian still remembers his salvation, his Savior’s love for him, and Satan’s promised fate. Even if Satan does kill my body Jesus will resurrect it and with a far better one. So, here is to standing firm in the face of the enemy’s assault and praying for those who are trapped in t he prison cell of Islam with kindness and compassion knowing what a miserable lot in life we have been spared in and by Jesus Christ’s love for us that could, and should, be His love for them as well.

  19. I must disagree. It is not Islam per se. For centuries, South Africa’s Muslims were peaceful, productive, valued members of Dutcu Cape society LONG BEFORE apartheid made inroads into civil society. What was the insitgator of all this? It is the “muslim revival” led by the Muslim Bortherhood. Did you guys know that Christian biblical canon was settled in 325AD at the Council of Nicaea?. Care to guess when the Koran being quoted by ISIS was finalised? The Koran that you are not allowed to burn? The perfect book, and the unaltered word of God? Anyone? Take a guess, go on, I dare you….


    • I would maintain that the Muslims of South Africa were peaceful because of their ignorance of Islam, or theit lack of adherence to its tenets. The Brotherhood and other groups fostered Islam’s version of the Protestant reformation, returning to to basics of original Islam and insisting on adherance, and doing so with violence, after the example of Muhammed. Nominal or cultural Muslims may not be a problem, but Islam … real Islam, is indeed the problem.

  20. That’s right. What you guys are blaming on Islam is not the cause, but a symptom of the anti-white, anti-Western jihad being perpetrated by the Western intelligentsia against its own working classes. Does anyone believe that California’s issue is Islam? Or is it mass population replacement in general? Syrian and Pakistani rape-n-grope gangs have been briefed to behave in this fashion. They have been told what to do when they get here… The targets of your anger should be your own leaders. I refuse to believe that most Muslims would want to willingly leave the sun, beaches and great food of the Middle East for the pasty, boring food, awful weather, and plodding urban dullardry of the UK…. Think about it…

    • Uh, no. Islam has been subjugating the kaffir since Mo found that argumentation would not work. Your comments can be summarily dismissed.

      • True. Verses 2:194, 9:125 and 37:22-23 has been identified in the oldest Koran (Sana’a). So the attitude toward infidels originates from the roots of Islam, I presume, and remained intact during all these 1400 years.

    • The logical fallacy you make is making the assumption that if our own leaders are bad, then Islam is not bad. After all, the Muslim terrorists and street criminals are from low-IQ, low-skill, high criminal countries like Pakistan, Somalia, Syria…And our “leaders” shirk their responsibility by not only continuing to import them, but making laws and legal precedent which increasingly make it more difficult to deport anyone.

      So, I guess your argument is that because there are, or were, Muslims who integrated successfully, that the massive problem with Muslims is actually their nationality or racial heritage, rather than Islam.

      By the way, would a country like Saudi Arabia, that supplied the majority of the 9/11 hijackers, be considered a country of moderate Muslims able to adapt to western civilization?

    • Most immigrants from middle east and Asia for the mattter have been throughout history known to be only too willingly leave their homes in middle east and Asia solely to exploit the generosity of White Europeans.
      And of course, many of them are by nature extremely racist, insular, oppressive, ambitious and have an agenda to take over using Islam.

  21. It’s nice for the Baron that he lives in a place where he can at least say exactly what he thinks. If he lived in the UK, he’d have the plod knocking at his door about now, having made this post last night.

    Probably the same here in Canada, though because they’re less efficient, it would take them months.

    I’ve long been coming to the conclusion that this will end in violence and subjugation one way or another. Either Islamic subjugation of the natives, or an ugly scenario such as described by El Ingles. I dislike both outcomes. If I *have* to pick one, I’d much rather pick one where I’m not the victim, of course. I suspect that this is also where the Baron is coming from. But this doesn’t take away from my disliking both outcomes and wishing that something else could be done instead.

    Re ECAS’s requoted comment that: “Come to that, why not Guardian readers who massively subscribe to the attitudes which have led us to this position?” – I’m with this idea. The ideology of the far-leftists that *enable* the Islamists is actually the fundamental problem. Most Guardian-type readers are followers, though. I suspect that if the Word came out from On High that this isn’t The Way any more, they’d start to follow in other directions. Just like a bunch of “intellectuals” where essentially pro-Nazi back in WWII (sorry, but I have no use for Peace Pledge Union types in this kind of scenario), then Communism became (and stayed) the thing, etc. Just like a weathervane, the Chattering Classes seem to find a way to align with whatever the upcoming power is, in large part, or at least enough of them do that it could make them irrelevant.

    The “received ideology” can be changed, I suspect, with enough pressure. For example, anti-patriarchal leftist-feminists could probably be redirected against Islamic Patriarchy, with a bit of effort (i.e., the Chattering Classes could be cut off at the knees).

    If enough of the population was on board, this *could* be done peacefully. The problem is, there isn’t enough unity among the “native” population. That’s why it won’t end well.

    I’ll prove my assertion. Does anyone think that the Arab population of 1948 Israel was any less hostile than the current scenario in the UK or elsewhere in Europe? I highly doubt it. For the first 20 or so years, Arab-majority areas (but not *people*) were under military rule, and major efforts were made to deal with this hostility. A very significant fraction of this population *remains* quite hostile (probably somewhere between 1/3 and 2/3), *and* has significant external backup for its hostility. But a significant (and in private, even more significant, probably a majority) fraction is quite happy with things as they are. Keeping it this way requires *constant* pushback, but there is enough unity among the Jewish population on the need for this, so it works. The “no go” areas are in the areas where there *isn’t* enough pushback, the best example being East Jerusalem. An Arab area of Haifa? No problem at all! This is all largely done with minimal individual-level group-based discriminatory behaviour (considering the circumstances), the prime example being treatment at the airport. Absolutely no legal restrictions are in the way of an East Jerusalem Arab from moving to a Jewish area of Tel Aviv, taking a job in the tech sector, and living a life similar to that of his Jewish fellow-residents. Such a course of action isn’t the norm, but it’s nonetheless common enough not to be of note when it happens. The beach near Jaffa is another good example: bikinis share space with hijabis, with everyone largely ignoring each other. There isn’t a problem. There’s no harassment either way. Why? Because those who make a problem will face serious pushback.

    If the native populations of Europe became willing to engage in serious pushback, the current situation could probably be managed in a similar/better way. It’s because they’re *not* that the scenarios envisaged by El Ingles and the Baron will likely come to pass, or be even worse. An Israeli-style scenario is probably a “best outcome” for much of Europe, at this point.

    And I have a prediction. If it happens in a scenario such as the one envisaged by El Ingles, the life of Muslims in the “big Satan” United States and the “little Satan” Israel will be largely unchanged during this period, for all the screaming that the Chattering Classes now make about how these places are so horrible.

    I have another prediction: the United States *will* reverse course before a serious problem happens. The old quip about “Never sell America short” will hold true. I wish I could say the same for my own country (Canada), which is looking more and more like it’ll go the “European way”. The one saving grace that we have, oddly, is American pressure, because a mess in Canada would spill over the border, and there’s a point where economic pressure gets exercised so as to discourage us from being complete and total idiots… at least under the Trump Administration. If Trump is re-elected and the Houses hold on to a Republican majority, all will almost certainly be well. Not because Trump is making such great headway in fixing the problem, but because his administration is at least not taking active steps to make it *worse*, which is already a huge positive. And by the end of a second Trump Administration, the situation in Europe will be even more obvious to all.

    • One factor you did not discuss was the fact that Israel has absolutely closed its borders. And for all practical purposes, no Muslim will get to immigrate to Israel. Thus, there are stable social and legal constraints on conflict. Most of the Muslim population of Israel is satisfied with the benefits of living in a civilized country, although if the “pushback” you mentioned became weak, they would likely act out of Islamic principles, and against their own interests.

      Immigration destabilizes a country, and Muslim immigration in particular will erode the social structure that suppresses open conflict.

      • ” Most of the Muslim population of Israel is satisfied with the benefits of living in a civilized country….”

        I’m sorry, Ronald, but what is your evidence for this claim? In fact, before the rodef Rabin gave hope to the Muslims squatting in Eretz Israel, these Muslims were murdering Jews whenever possible. They have continued. They do NOT care about creature comforts, in general.

        • Take it up with Mike, who made the original post:

          For the first 20 or so years, Arab-majority areas (but not *people*) were under military rule, and major efforts were made to deal with this hostility. A very significant fraction of this population *remains* quite hostile (probably somewhere between 1/3 and 2/3), *and* has significant external backup for its hostility. But a significant (and in private, even more significant, probably a majority) fraction is quite happy with things as they are. Keeping it this way requires *constant* pushback, but there is enough unity among the Jewish population on the need for this, so it works. The “no go” areas are in the areas where there *isn’t* enough pushback, the best example being East Jerusalem. An Arab area of Haifa? No problem at all!

          I am perfectly happy to hear your experience. Note, however, I was referring to the Muslim citizens of Israel who are there legally, and not to those who have no right to be there and who have nothing to lose by committing crimes.

  22. How are we going to stop Islamization when those Muslims are being given so many special privileges to breed excessively, to dominate, etc, in their Muslim majority countries as well as in some increasingly suppressive Western countries by the elites?

    • Perhaps we don’t stop it. We fight to our death, whether we’ll win or not. Somehow the courage to fight can win the fight despite all odds. The courage (without fear to lose) gives you spiritual strength. Look at moslems. They have courage to mock, even when they were weak. Now they are strong. Furthermore, our spiritual strength may (and I believe WILL) incite Gods’ help in the war.

  23. Firstly, I congratulate GoV for the excellent articles and the news flow on the problem inflicted on the West by Islam. It is essential reading for those trying to understand the situation we are all in and the future trajectory of the West.

    The three part essay by El Ingles attempts to deal with one aspect of Islam and the responses to his essay vary in degree from the hard line to the softer approach.

    Unfortunately, however, whilst I, like GoV and many of its readers, would consider Islam to be the greatest existential threat to the future of the West, I believe it is necessary to look beyond this one problem and to examine the issue within a broader political and moral context.

    I speak on the whole for the UK, but the rest of the broadly Christian West is afflicted with the same problems as here in the UK. Broadly, the West is now in an era of steep decline morally and politically. Whilst there is still much to play for economically I fear the war has already been lost to the cultural Marxists of the left.

    It is necessary to step back to the 1930’s and the evolution of the Frankfurt School and its eleven point manifesto to realise the extent of the trouble we are now in. I imagine that most GoV readers are familiar with the Frankfurt School so will not expand on their philosophy – such as it is. Add to this the the Pan European Project dreamt up by Coudenhove-Kalergi for mass migration from sub Saharan Africa and a picture emerges of the extent and grip of the Marxist stranglehold on rational thought and governance.

    Suffice it to say that all of the cultural organs within the West are rotten to the core. This includes the schools (the teachers), the universities (the professors), the media, the arts and of course both central and local government. The British police have also been corrupted – only last week reports from various parts of the UK highlighted the plight of inner cities where the police appear to be powerless to act against lawlessness and anti social behaviour. Never mind rape gangs in Rotherham, they are powerless to deal with burglary, theft, drug trafficking and the rest. Instead they dedicate their time to virtue signally for the LGBT “community” and to search Facebook and Twitter for “hate speech”.

    The West has truly fallen into the tangled web spun by the Left and the more those of us on the Right try to disentangle ourselves from this hideous web the more we are ensnared.

    The Left and all of the organs of the state, as outlined above, are all hemmed in by ‘Groupthink”. One only has to witness the near total outrage at the Brexit vote followed by the even greater outrage at the success of Donald Trump in becoming President last year to get a glimpse of how far down the socialist path we now are. The BBC, which is supposed to be impartial, struggles to represent the facts or the truth but boy does it have an agenda. Anti Brexit, anti Trump, pro migration, pro LGBT, anti Christian, pro Islam etc etc. As pointed out by journalist Melanie Phillips (one time Lefty Guardian writer, now on the Right side of the argument) the BBC are incapable of understanding views beyond their limited groupthink horizons. They simply do not understand how Brexit could happen or how Trump could be elected. They genuinely believe that the little people or, as H Clinton described them so colourfully, the ‘basket of deplorables’ are the cause of these unpardonable sins.

    Readers outside of the UK may be unaware of the shadow group called Common Purpose – This outfit ostensibly runs courses on “leadership development”. One does not – as I understand it – become a member of Common Purpose but gets a qualification having attend one of their courses. (Membership of such an organisation would have to be declared by MPs, Counillors- hence the concept of qualification.) It appears that people in positions of influence are “invited” to take the Common Purpose courses. These include MPs, local Councillors, those in the media, law and teaching professions – in other words the usual suspects. This then creates a large web like network of like minded people all imbued with a similar view of the world. And of course this view is, as you may have surmised, of the Left.

    And, as if by some strange synergy, only today Black Pigeon Speaks has posted an excellent YouTube essay concerning the fate of the UK, entitled Britain ABOLISHES ITSELF – I commend it to GoV readers.

    So what is the answer? I am afraid I am with Black Pigeon. We – the white, nominally Christian people of the West – are surrounded. Reason, debate, argument and all the fine intentions of Tommy Robinson and Anne Marie Waters etc will be to no avail. Civil unrest leading to all out civil war is probably what now lies ahead. Sweden may topple first in which case the UK might avoid the worst excesses of violence as the shock will be sufficient to awaken the slumbering population to act before it is too late.

    So, let us stay vigilant for ourselves and loved ones and enjoy the setting sun – the sun that sets on the greatest of civilisations yet known.

  24. There will be almost zero personal freedom left in the world if the West continue to allow Islam to spread in Western countries and as such it is more important to stop the rot and therefore protect our Western civil liberties before it is destroyed by those so-called multicultural brigade.

  25. Alas Babylon!
    A city of such beauty and strength that there was no need to defend her, even from those who would throw her down and ravage her!

  26. It’s possible to restrain Islam without harming civil rights. Measures such as banning first and second cousin marriages, de facto polygamy and anyone involved in polygamy in their home country, banning people with a recent history of attending a mosque which promoting violence and/or anti-Semitism and screening mosques for antisemitic/violent speakers. Future immigrants could be required to favor support for a Jewish State (i.e. Israel). Such measures would keep out the lion’s share of Muslim extremists, especially since most traditional Muslims marry their cousins.

    • By banning cousin marriage and polygamy you would be interfering with a person’s right to freely practice their own religion; therefore, it would be a violation of their civil rights. It will become increasingly urgent for the West to clearly enunciate its values and stress that they supercede religious rights. The potential here for conflicting opinions is enormous but it will have to be done. For example, here in Ontario it is illegal to discriminate against someone based on their sex; however, there is an exception made for religions. So, we end up with the Catholic Church being allowed to forbid the ordination of female priests and Muslim mosques can segregate male and female, even to the extent of allowing females to enter a mosque only by a side or back door—this has been extended to apply to female reporters and a similar restriction was even imposed on our female premier. This is legal because there has been an exemption granted for religion. Followers of a religion must be allowed to practice it freely, even if it violates established laws. Of course, there is a hierarchy of rights (e.g. so-called “honour” killings are not yet allowed under Ontario’s Human Rights Commission—the right to life supercedes Islamic rights in this case). Who determines the ordering of the hierarchy? It’s hard to say but a recent dispute between a lesbian and a Muslim barber highlighted the problem. The OHRC settled it in private rather than being forced to choose between Muslim religious rights and LBGTQ rights (or was that women’s rights? – it got a bit muddled). Better to have clear cut laws that apply to all – but that requires courage and clear thinking on the part of the government.

      When it comes to marrying cousins or practicing polygamy, since these are Islamic practices they could very well be granted the same type of exemption from the law. In fact, I believe that’s exactly what is happening in the UK and Europe in some places.

      If these practices were banned Muslims would claim their civil rights were being harmed.

      As for screening mosques for anti-Semitic or pro-violence speakers, this would open up a hornet’s nest of protests that would be mired in the courts forever. Who defines anti-Semitic? Who defines violence? Who will determine the context? And that perennial excuse, was it in the original Arabic – or was it translated (always inaccurately, it appears)?

      • You’re looking in the right direction. By my simple reading of the US Constitution, any religious exemptions from general laws is flatly against the constitution. It’s right there in black and white: “Congress shall make law laws concerning the establishment of religion”. Clearly, legal exemptions for a religion is a law (legal enforcement) of religious establishment.

        I’m not against religion or religious institutions, but favor extending the right of free association to everyone. If you want to not hire Muslims, blacks, or Jews in your place of business, or do not want to rent to them or sell to them, I believe that is (or should be) your right. There is a small problem in such businesses receiving public services paid for by the people they discriminate against. Perhaps some sort of “freedom” tax should be enacted to receive certain public services and still maintain your freedom of association.

        Public education is, of course, a HUGE problem, especially in higher, state and federal government-supported education. Blacks, generally of lower IQ than whites and less suited for advanced education, would be well within their rights to object to being underrepresented in institutions of higher learning or advanced, secondary school classes, since their taxes go for support. The best solution to that is to massively withdraw tax-based support of schools, especially higher education.

        • You are making huge, unwarranted assumptions about black IQ. Please look at the stats on that, and look at the number of black conservatives, which is high, considering their percentage of the population. What LBJ and his colleagues did to the black family and culture was/is criminal. Under great burdens they managed to prosper; with easy money they fell apart. Ask Walter Williams, ask Thomas Sowell. Ask Justice Thomas.

          My aunt taught black children and she knew the bright ones. Her black school was (afaik) the only one to integrate backwards, i.e., white children wanted to go there and so they did, in sufficient numbers to satisfy the state that the school was “integrated”.

          Her closest friend taught Clarence Thomas and saw his potential. After 8th grade, Virgie encouraged him to go to minor seminary to further his education. He stayed the course, though there was only one other black kid. But they knew how to survive bullying and live to tell about it. He mentions Sister Virgilius in his autobiography and invited her to his swearing-in.

          Don’t lump black children into the hellacious situation they endure now. Their grandparents ate the government apple, while people like Thomas were raised by family who had their own business.

          • I think RonaldB huge assumption reflects reality. I am perplexed by your response. Your husband himself posts about blacks being low IQ. Yes, not explicitly, and Baron himself might object or deny me; but see GoV archives.

            The story you wrote does not represent the majority of cases. I come from ethnic whose majority of individuals are somehow less smart than other tribes. I am not denying it.

            Putting the analogy to black people, if I am black I won’t deny that RonaldB assumption is wrong. It’s the reality. Face the reality, whether you’re on the same race or group.

            Finally, facing/admitting the reality is very much needed now to fight against moslem and the left. We on the other group, if we admit and understand the reality, are better prepared to fight.

          • The B has black relatives so when he puts the adjectival “white” in front of something it makes me cringe. I also have black relatives, and Asian ones, on my side. Plus, we have many black people who live in our community and we depend on them sometimes.

            This whole area of south-central Virginia was settled by freed slaves who didn’t immediately leave for greener pastures. Subsistence farming, keeping the homeplace in good repair and finding education for their children were priorities. Then came buying land; land couldn’t be taken away as long as the taxes were paid. It was a number of generations before kids were lured to the free money in the big cities. But many come back for the annual Homecoming at church. You can recognize the city blacks by their sullen demeanor. Fortunately, they don’t stay long.

            Love those Democrats.

          • By the way, the white people didn’t leave either. Later, after the Civil War, there was a large contingent from Wales, who came to quarry the slate and they remained to marry and raise children. There were also Swiss immigrants; they prospered, as the Swiss usually do.

            In addition there are any number of original white residents: descendants of slave owners, lower middle-class whites, and the less-than-intelligent bottom class.

            The public schools, dependent on state and federal (fecal) money, cannot get passing grades on the SOL tests. Back in the day, this same system produced literate and numerate graduates. Those days are gone. One good thing about the coming cataclysm: kids will get the basics and they *will* learn, by the same magic process which currently keeps them stupid.

          • Dymphna,

            Let’s be clear on what I said and what I didn’t, and consider what I actually said.

            “You are making huge, unwarranted assumptions about black IQ.”

            What I said is that the black population has a lower IQ than the white population. This is not speculation. It has been documented and analyzed for a hundred years. Note that I am talking about population means. It does not mean you don’t have very intelligent or brilliant blacks. It does not mean that blacks cannot hold jobs, maintain a family, or pay a mortgage.

            The difference in intelligence means has the consequence that the proportion of blacks with IQ high enough to do well at Harvard is lower than the proportion of whites. It also means the proportion of blacks suitable for advanced institutes of learning like MIT or Stanford is also smaller.

            I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer myself, so I know the floundering and frustration that comes from being in a technical class that goes too rapidly to learn the material. I was lost in lectures on material that I was able to learn myself when slowly reading on my own.

            When you pull blacks at the very lower end of the acceptable SAT range into the fast-moving classes at Harvard or Yale, what you do is impair them from learning material they are perfectly capable, in many cases, of absorbing in other schools. This, by the way, is an argument pioneered by Thomas Sowell.

            But, the unqualified blacks who get sucked into Harvard can only maintain grades in garbage courses like black or feminist studies. They flounder in the fast-moving substantive classes, and this, I believe, is responsible for a lot of the bitterness and anger of the black students you see at advanced universities.

            So, my statement was, if you have a lower proportion of black students qualified for Harvard, is it not justified for a black taxpayer to object to giving tax money to an institution that is unlikely to directly benefit him or his relatives? I realize at this point, the government takes money from every producing individual and hands it out like candy to every group imaginable. But, should we ever go to true, merit-based decision-making, the question of having to pay for the education of other people’s gifted children does come up.

            I’m fully on board with your recall of Patrick Moynahan begging LBJ to not take away the financial incentives for black families to stay together. The best indicator for poverty is a single mother, and the group with the lowest poverty rates are families with the father and mother both present.

            The consequence of accepting that the black population has a mean lower IQ than the white population is that discrepancies in graduation rates, or grade scores, or college admissions is not the result of systematic discrimination or white bigotry. And the higher rate of black incarceration is not the result of a biased justice system, but a reflection of higher black criminality.

            By the way, taking a realistic view of the higher rates of black criminality allows police to incarcerate the criminals, and makes neighborhoods safe for non-criminal blacks, who are no longer subject to black criminals protected by police departments afraid of having bad statistics.

            Malvina Reynolds, a famous teacher in Chicago, used to brag that she accepted any black students without precondition, and taught all her students adequate reading and writing skills. I don’t doubt it, and her story is inspiring, but it doesn’t affect the reality of a difference in the populations.

          • For Bret:

            “Your husband himself posts about blacks being low IQ. ”

            I think it’s important to distinguish between population means, which is an abstract statistic, and individuals. You can have a brilliant black individual, more intelligent than many, most or all whites. The proportion, however, of blacks qualified for Harvard will be lower than the proportion of whites.

            I used to be a programmer, and there was a black programmer there who was far better and far more productive than I was. So, it would be stupid for me to say that blacks, in general, are less intelligent than whites.

            But, from the black population, you would get fewer qualified doctors or lawyers than from a white population of the same size. On the other hand, I’m neither a doctor nor a lawyer, so it’s not the end of the world.

            In fact, in the US right now, the unemployment rate is low and most people with basic skills can get a job. And most people with a job, particularly in a stable family, can have a comfortable, not luxurious, life if they know how to manage money.

            One situation keeping blacks (or anyone) from developing skills is the insistence for keeping disruptive students in school. One disruptive student can ruin an entire class, and when schools are not allowed to discipline or expel disruptive students because they are black, it actually creates more black illiteracy.

  27. Virgilius says “Civil unrest leading to all out civil war is probably what now lies ahead. Sweden may topple first in which case the UK might avoid the worst excesses of violence as the shock will be sufficient to awaken the slumbering population to act before it is too late.”

    The British population is indeed slumbering, too deeply asleep to hear or see the warnings of the few among them who see the threat of Islamization clearly. The future fall of Sweden, as you say, might awaken a few. Another atrocity along the line of the Manchester bombing, for example, might awaken a few more. Another murder, such as that of Kriss Donald, or the revelation of even more Pakistani grooming gangs, will no doubt disturb the sleep of a few more.

    But as horrible as these scenarios are, they’ll be too little, and far too late to wake up the British. The future does not look good for Britain.

    I don’t see how Islamization can be rolled back—starting now—without some erosion of civil liberties. Is this a price the Brits are willing to pay?

    The last pitched battle fought on British soil was at Culloden in 1746. At that time there was no talk of human rights let alone political correctness. The cruelties inflicted by the victors, the troops of George II, upon the supporters of the Jacobite cause, haunted future generations of Scots. No one wants to see that again.

    But recently murdered Britons such as Kriss Donald and Lee Rigby have fought their own battles on British soil. The abused girls preyed upon by the Pakistani grooming gangs, the victims blown up in Manchester or on the London Tube have also fought their own battles on British soil. And, those Muslim girls killed in the name of so-called “honour,” or the murdered Glasgow shopkeeper, Ahmadiyya Muslim, Asad Shah, have fought their own battles too. The enemy is real but in multicultural, politically correct Britain remains nameless. Of course the individual perpetrators are named, but they are secondary to the ideology that drives them—Islam. But to say so is verboten.

    A massive paradigm shift is needed to jolt the sleeping Britons. Victims of the “Asians” need to be seen not as random “collateral damage” (so to speak) in a country open to immigration from hostile populations but as victims brought down by enemy combatants.

    Instead of viewing the obvious lack of assimilation of vast numbers of immigrants as the fault of the British for failing them somehow, the onus needs to be placed squarely on the immigrant: Britain will support you (for a short while) and give you opportunities you never could have had in your homeland, but you must accept responsibility for your own actions, work hard, and respect British values and laws. But the self-blaming culture of Britain will work against this.

    The hour is late and these changes would take time. The political will is not there to implement them. The future for Britain is grim indeed.

  28. The problem facing Europe is the mass immigration of people from very different cultures with beliefs and customs that are in opposition to the European values of the enlightenment. Islam is such a belief system. But one European value is that people can believe anything they want, however obnoxious. This is why those who propose banning Islam are wrong, doing so would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. The freedom to believe anything you want should be fiercely defended.

    Islam, like any belief, can be held with varying degrees of conviction, from mere lip service to fanatical dedication. The problem with Islam is that fanatical dedication to the core beliefs is very dangerous for reasons I don’t think anyone here needs explaining to them. It is the belief system Islam that should be vehemently opposed while repecting and defending the right of people to believe the dangerous nonsense if they want.

    Unfortunately opposing Islam has it’s dangers, not only from the more fanatical believers of that religion, but also from violent left wing supporters of Islam who seem to have turned themselves into the foot soldiers of The Prophet. Even the authorities in European countries will readily use the full force of the law against people it considers “islamophobes.”

    What Europe sorely lacks is freedom of speech laws as robust as those in the USA because Europe is facing a tremendous existential danger from the massively increasing numbers of people who follow the word of The Prophet and words and argument, apart from drastically reducing third world immigration, are the best way of opposing them. Unless something is done, and it must be done within the parameters of European enlightenment values, then the words of Enoch Powell will prove to have been prophetic in the second part of this century and perhaps even earlier. If and when it does happen I predict it will be first in Sweden.

  29. I think too many people are afraid to speak out against Islam for fear of reprisal, etc.
    Hopefully, the increasing incidences of poverty will wake more people up with regard the damaging effect it would had on our freedom and our lives, if we let them dominate our lives. It is sad that Britain has been ruined by certain elites and groups of totally incompatible immigrants to the extent that it has even become an extremely hostile place for us freedom loving nonbelievers who wish to seek a home.

  30. People change their ways of thinking all the time. We got rid of Nazism, Fascism, Sophism, smoking, fear of homosexuality, hesitancy to divide by something approaching zero (dy/dx), and even Islam in the Reconquista.
    This blog and thousands of such minds over the planet are doing it. We’re just waiting for the paradigm to shift. We all know how this works. In 1380 in Florence Italy there was a total revision in Middle Age thinking.

    Have hope. Go skiing.

  31. I’ve been saying this on various occasions. However difficult for the Good and Righteous to accept: To fight monsters, you must be(come) a monster yourself. One generation will need to sacrifice its innocence, that others may live.

    • But…surely you recognize, K., that Germans were unable to do this? They waited for someone else to stop the evil until the evil destroyed them.

      No one ever wants to stick his head above the parapet. We have to a reason that far outweighs our individual life for such heroism to take place. In our post-Christian world, that reason no longer exists.

      • I didn’t say we were ever able to metabolize this and give a working example. Rather an expression of frustration. It seems insurmountable. In a perverted sense, the Nazi excesses may have come closest. It was believed that Jewry was a monstrosity threatening our way of life which needs to be expelled or exterminated (remember the Mufti of Jerusalem, hence the former possibility was not available although it would have been prefered). Arguing the situation isn’t comparable doesn’t help. It is actually very comparable, since we’re talking about methods, not validity of the premise. We know we can do it, but will lose ourselves in the process and healing will leave deep scars. We’ve been to this hell and back, and knowing what it’s like makes the fear even greater.

    • Re:”However difficult for the Good and Righteous to accept: To fight monsters, you must be(come) a monster yourself. One generation will need to sacrifice its innocence, that others may live.”

      ‘People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.’ – George Orwell

      George Orwell spoke of the rough men who stood guard over civilization as their fellow men slept peacefully in their beds. For Europe’s sake, we’d best-hope that such men still exist and can be rallied to defend their birthright.

  32. Good posts, good discussion, good summary, good moderation.
    Sorry to be joining in so late.

    I found El Ingles’ posts to be thought-provoking, but I think the more extreme policies he suggests are a strategic error (the more moderate ones are a good start, but only a start) and the worldview he presents to be – forgive me – morally flawed. Just to be clear, our current policy of surrender is equally flawed. I understand that this statement needs considerable substantiation to be taken seriously – I will try to provide it below.

    I found I substantially agreed with Svenne’s objections, and also with most of ECAW’s.
    I also agreed with Baron’s objections to the analogy between Jews and Pakistanis in their respective diasporas. Everything he said was true, but I do not think this amounts to a rebuttal of Svenne’s concerns. It is possible for Britain to implement disastrous and immoral policies against the Pakistanis (even though they are a threat) in the same way that Nazi Germany implemented disastrous and immoral policies against the Jews (even though they were not a threat). The analogy lies not in the nature of the threat from the diasporas, but in the damage an immoral policy might cause.

    The crucial question is, how bad is the threat?

    As the Baron puts it:

    “I can’t see a way out of this that preserves the customary civil society that Europeans have grown used to. It’s just too late. Our choices are between sharia and some form of authoritarian governance by leaders of our own native ethnic groups. There are no other doors out of this room.”

    El Ingles shows a similar attitude when he says (forgive me for not quoting exactly) that things have gotten so bad that he has no sympathy for innocent Pakistanis caught up in the measures he proposes.

    Is this attitude justified by the current situation? It might seem so for Europeans whose most recent memory of war has just died with their great-grandparents. I live in Israel, where the perspective is rather different. We’ve been fighting muslims for 70 years (or 90, if you count the outbreaks in 1929 and 1936-1939). We still have a democracy, no dictatorship, no totalitarianism, and no mass deportations.

    You’ve had a Manchester bombing and a subway bombing ten years apart? We’ve had fifty of these since 1993.
    You had a van attack on London bridge? We had a dozen of these two summers ago, and another dozen in the previous 20 years.
    You have 5% muslims, maybe 10% soon? We have 15% muslims, or 30% if you count the West Bank, and even more if you count Gaza.
    You fear a civil war? I believe it will come. Israel’s war of Independence entailed a civil war against the local Arabs, as well as war against invading Arab armies. Casualties were 1% of the starting population. Current British casualties are 0.00015% of the population (100 / 65M).

    None of this was pleasant. But none of it entailed a dissolution of democratic institutions, or a resort to totalitarianism. On the contrary. Israel’s democratic institutions were established (on the British model, I should mention) precisely during the period of fighting, when it would have been so easy for the Prime Minister to assume dictatorial powers.

    My point is this: Britain’s position is not so objectively bad that no hope exists for a reversal. It merely appears this way because of a spectacular failure of leadership. We are on a downward slope, but the slope is longer than it seems, and large ships change course slowly. Blowing up the tiller is not the answer. From the Israeli perspective, the situation resembles to some extent that of 1978 or so, when large-scale terrorist attacks were new (maalot massacre, Costal Road Massacre) and it was not yet clear how to prevent them or react to them. You could also compare it to the situation after the 1929 Palestine riots, where an armed Arab populace attacked their largely unarmed Jewish neighbors. In both cases, the official government (British then, British now) chose to maintain the peace by appeasing the muslim aggresors.

    How could Britain act to reverse the course of events?

    0) Brexit.

    1) Reduce welfare payments generally. Cease all welfare payments to for anyone who has been in the country fewer than 7 years.

    2) Introduce conscription. Recruits will be overwhelmingly native Britons. Army recruiters can exercise discretion in accepting recruits. Have a fund to help support the families of children. E.G. the single mom with 5 children from 4 different men won’t get her usual payments via the welfare office, but if 1 of her sons signs up, her other children won’t starve.

    The combination of (1) and (2) will make Britain a much less attractive destination for immigrants, and may by itself induce many to leave. At the same time, the effect on the lower classes will be mitigated, and you will have 100K+ armed men whose loyalty can be trusted. At the same time, you avoid the exceedingly dangerous precedents which some of El Ingles’ proposals entailed, e.g. “General Malicious Harassment” which could easily be turned against law-abiding citizens, or race-based welfare regulations, or press-gangs hunting men of Pakistani appearance in the streets, to be sent on the next special transport to Treblinka. I mean, put on a plane to Karachi. The cost will probably be civil unrest and an economic crisis, but we’re probably going to reach those anyway, and here we at least get something for it.

    The next bullets in the magazine, so to speak, would be:

    3) General moratorium on immigration from Islamic countries. Encourage repatriation of people of British descent (e.g. parent or 2 grandparents held British citizenship). In my view, this is substantially different than making laws which discriminate between citizens on a racial basis, even if it has (in practice) a similar effect. Israel has given preferential treatment to would-be Jewish immigrants for 70 years. It has not led to a slew of race-based legislation. Nations have a right to discriminate between different groups of non-citizens, even though asserting this right will probably cause apoplexy in a certain type of leftist. All the same, it is best to avoid an explicitly racial criterion. Honorable discharge after serving 2-3 years in the army would probably make a good criterion. And if 2% of your intake winds up being Christian Nigerians singing God Save the Queen, maybe that’s not a problem.

    4) Deport illegal immigrants. The USA and Japan do this without batting an eyelid. (Except Mexicans, of course but you don’t have many of those in Britain).

    5) Cease all translation of government documents. All religious preachers must preach in English. Monitor houses of worship for violations. Yes, also churches and synagogues. The Jews will put up with it, and the Churches haven’t used Latin since Henry VIII.

    There are more ideas in this vein.

    The problem, of course, is that none of the Stanley Baldwins who now constitute Her Majesty’s government is about to do anything like this. The political winds must shift first, and they will likely only follow a massive shift in popular opinion. It is the duty of every loyal citizen to do what he can to create this shift. There is more time than you think – not because civil strife is so far away, but because civil strife does not automatically result in British Sharia or British Tyranny.

    This thread may also be of interest:

    • A valuable addition to the conversation from someone with more direct experience of coping with Islam than most of us here.

      El Ingles, BB, Svenne and myself are arguing about what makes a better baling implement, a plastic container or a tin can, while water is still coming in over the gunwhale. The first requirement for our survival is the implosion of the EU which I hope will come about with a) the loss of Britain and Britain’s financial contribution b) the Visegrad group’s continued defiance of EU immigration policy c) a nationalist party actually getting into power somewhere…France, Sweden, Austria, Italy? After the EU self-destructs individual countries may remember what their borders are for an adopt sensible pro-survival policies.

      Yes, the situation isn’t hopeless. It just seems that way most of the time.

      • Thank you for your kind words.

        I sometimes wonder whether a breakup of the EU may be sufficient to get the ball rolling, at least in Britain. The first consequence would doubtless be a serious economic downturn, which might force the government to take some of the steps we’ve discussed, e.g. a reduction in welfare payments.

    • Zionist Overlord,

      I much appreciate your logical and informational contribution the the discussion. You make great points, specifically that some actions by the government are more important and more immediately needed than the suspension of normal government constrains and impartiality.

      In other words, cutting off immigration, deporting illegals, and reducing the pull benefits of welfare and government coddling will do more than targeting of Pakistanis as such.

      Now, there are several problems. As reasonable as your suggestions are, there is the situation that representative government is extraordinarily sensitive to single-issue cohesive political and identity groups. In other words, the police and social services clearly had an eye to Muslim political influence when they ignored the grooming gangs. How do you reverse this?

      Another problem is that in looking to government to implement solutions, one must recall that the British government, beginning with Tony Blair, covertly and explicitly engineered the massive immigration. The Blair government, outed by a former Blair official, specifically intended to dilute the population with third world immigrants. The Israeli government seems to not be affected by this virus, although a recent column by Carolyn Glick exposing the rampant kritarchy Israel has become, seems to foretell big problems in this area.

      I’m going to offer a bit of a solution of my own. There is a seminal column in on the very liberal use of executions in the Britain prior to the nineteenth century.
      The thesis was that by implementing the death penalty very frequently for not only murder, but for what we call felonies, Britain culled out its low-IQ, impulsive, violent, and sociopath genes, leading to the sophisticated, intelligent, socialized Brits we know (or knew).

      I would recommend the implementation of the death penalty for many or most felonies, and one or two levels of appeal at most, after which the sentence is carried out without delay. This would be a non-discriminatory action which would have disparate effects on certain populations, but not in any way offending a value of justice. This would not only provide an incentive for certain peoples to leave Britain, but would reduce the dangerous dependent parts of the population, and leave the people who are really acclimated unmolested.

      If el Ingles thesis of almost all Pakis being criminal and malevolent is correct, there will be many, many Pakis hung over the next few years. But, there will be a process of justice to determine exactly who that is. You won’t achieve perfect justice but at least you’ll be shooting in that direction.

      • RonaldB,

        Thank you for taking the time to consider my ideas.

        “Now, there are several problems… the police and social services clearly had an eye to Muslim political influence when they ignored the grooming gangs. How do you reverse this?”

        Indeed, there are problems, But it seems to me that the police and social services were obeying the dictates of political correctness when they ignored the grooming gangs. If in the future they sense the political climate has changed, I expect they will turn as efficiently as a weathervane.

        Of course, there is a group which has its eye firmly on the Muslim vote – politicians. Here, I wonder if Britain’s electoral system might not work to our advantage. Each member of parliament represents a particular constituency (if I understand it correctly), and Muslims tend to congregate together. So if a certain constituency has 100% muslim population, then effectively half of these votes are wasted. Theoretically, a 10% muslim population might find itself with only 5% effective electoral power. If the native population flees these zones, as they certainly will in the case of conflict, they will reinforce anti-immigration candidates in other constituencies.

        The real problem is presenting the British voter with a reasonable alternative – either via a new political party, or by co-opting one of the existing parties. From where I stand, it’s hard to see why this has not happened yet. But any such challenger will have to gather support without appearing overly divisive, and the adoption of slogans like “Pakis Out!” will make that much more difficult.

        “I would recommend the implementation of the death penalty for many or most felonies, and one or two levels of appeal at most, after which the sentence is carried out without delay. This would be a non-discriminatory action which would have disparate effects on certain populations, but not in any way offending a value of justice. ”

        The first victim of this policy would be Tommy Robinson, followed by anyone who sought to imitate his example. The British government has already started using selective enforcement of existing laws as a political tool (e.g. Lauren Southern held on anti-terrorist regulations). Routine application of the death penalty would make this infinitely more tempting. This idea of administering IQ tests for voting rights has the same problem. As soon as the IQ test become a useful political tool, politicians will corrupt it to serve their purposes.

        “The thesis was that by implementing the death penalty very frequently for not only murder, but for what we call felonies, Britain culled out its low-IQ, impulsive, violent, and sociopath genes, leading to the sophisticated, intelligent, socialized Brits we know (or knew).”

        I have not read the vdare article (yet), but I am skeptical of such explanations for changes in character of nations. Consider how rapidly (compared to evolution) nations can change their habits. The Jews – helpless for millenia – are now the most warlike people of Europe. The English have abandoned their stiff upper lip after two or three centuries. The Japanese admired the way of the warrior for centuries. Now they are merchants and manufacturers. None of these changes was wrought through evolution – they are the result of the spread of new ideas. I would guess that British self-restraint spread through a conscious imitation of the upper classes. The problem now is a conscious imitation of the lower classes.

        • “The first victim of this policy would be Tommy Robinson, followed by anyone who sought to imitate his example. The British government has already started using selective enforcement of existing laws as a political tool ”

          Indeed, you put your finger on a major weakness of my idea. I thought of it as well. The government, in fact, tried to use imprisoned Muslims to assassinate Robinson. It’s the usual dilemma: the more discretion you give the government to protect you, the more abuse you invite. I stick by my idea, though, perhaps to be better thought out.

          There is no question that genetics can change from selection pressures. Or the lack of selection pressures.
          The Genius Famine

          Having said that, I acknowledge this is speculation rather than based on direct research. In other words, the widespread execution of criminals in England may have contributed to the genetic quality of the English people, but maybe not. It’s important to differentiate actual research from even reasonable speculation.

          Having said that, I can give my own defense of the idea that genetic drift affected the character of the British people in terms of their aggressiveness and dominance of the world. But, it would be speculation as well. I absolutely do not believe it is simply philosophical drift of a static population that accounts for a radical decline in the idea of a national culture and the willingness to defend one’s country.

    • Even if there was an end to immigration from Europe, where do you think the immigrants will come from in order to continue the Ponzi scheme known as the population replacement of the indigenous Brits?

      “1) Reduce welfare payments generally. Cease all welfare payments to for anyone who has been in the country fewer than 7 years.

      2) Introduce conscription. Recruits will be overwhelmingly native Britons. Army recruiters can exercise discretion in accepting recruits.”

      Of the 1400 Parliamentarians in The Palace of Westminster, how many can you name who since 9/11 have voiced support for even one of these policies? Lord Pearson might be the only name you could mention, but I don’t recall him ever articulating any position approaching either of these views. For all his moderation, I do recall hearing him lament that he is the only Parliamentarian to speak of Islam in anything other than glowing terms.

      Put this in reverse. When MPs debated banning Trump from entering the UK, how many even spoke out in support of Trump? By contrast MPs fell over themselves to extol the wonderful illegal immigrants in Grenfell Tower and to offer them and their families largesse. The opposite of such clemency and charity was offered to the families of the native Brits who died in the Hillsborough disaster.

      • @Peter McLoughlin

        Strictly speaking, it is not necessary to replace or convince all 1400 Parliamentarians, or even 701 of them. Most of them, I expect (I have no personal acquaintance) are unprincipled opportunists, whose greatest talent is guessing what the populace wants to be told tomorrow afternoon. If a new party would appear with 50 seats in one election, and 100 in the next, all the rest would be knocking each other over in their haste to align themselves with the new consensus.

        And I believe it was the same parliament which was elected in 1935 – the one which utterly failed to prepare Britain for the coming war – which was able, in the end, to secure victory. The same MPs who were happy to follow Chamberlain had no trouble following Churchill when he took power.

        The question is, what could cause this change, and how to get it done? The rise of a new political party could do it, or the co-option of an existing one. This would require a large shift in political opinions – which seems to have started, perhaps – and the ability to make that shift visible to the public eye – which has not. The MSM is doing its best to suppress any signs of such a change, but there are limits to its power, especially in the age of the internet. Katie Hopkins had a piece, recently (I believe) about discontent with in BBC itself. Alternatively, the collapse of the Ponzi scheme which you mentioned might trigger a recession, which could hasten events. Or Brexit might do it. The power of the individual is limited (one of the benefits of a Democracy), but we can all do our part to affect public opinion. You yourself have done as much and more as anyone could be expected to do.

        The point I was trying to make earlier was that we must not be driven by an excessive sense of urgency to abandon moral principles. The English ought to have their own country, and they ought to preserve its character, and it is right that they should take steps to do so. It is Right – and they should not compromise the justice of their cause by immoral expedients.

        And on a practical note, this sense of rightness may be very useful in rallying the public to the cause – and garnering support abroad, which may well be necessary at some point.

  33. Forcible expulsion of an immigrant population must be avoided. Large financial inducements must be offered to those of Pakistani origin and other ethnic groups who have no intention of assimilating into European society, to return to their ancestral homelands where they can enjoy the delights of Sharia Law etc. This is the most sensible solution -especially for those of child bearing age.

    • I don’t think they can be paid enough. A carrot isn’t enough without an accompanying stick – e.g., a drastic reduction in welfare payments if they refuse to leave.

      • And those who own properties should sell off at a reasonable market rate. Those who hold high positions should either retire or resign and return back to the countries where their family migrated from. That means those poor native White inhabitants would feel less oppressed when those oppressive migrant communities leaves.

  34. Re: “I can’t see a way out of this that preserves the customary civil society that Europeans have grown used to. It’s just too late. Our choices are between sharia and some form of authoritarian governance by leaders of our own native ethnic groups. There are no other doors out of this room.”

    What has been done by man can be undone by man. It is easy to lose heart in the face of the thus-far unopposed Islamic onslaught, but it is well to remember that westerners – whether in Germany, France, Sweden or Britain or some other nation – have not yet been heard from in the form of a counter-offensive.

    The closest to a genuine counter-offensive to the Red-Green alliance between the Cultural Marxists and the Muslims (apart from the election of Donald Trump in the U.S.) has been the resolute and courageous resistance of the Visegrad Four nations of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland, as well as by Russia – a nation unaligned with the Visegrad Four but which is still defending traditional Eastern Orthodox European civilization.

    As former U.S. Navy SEAL officer and respected commentator-analyst Matt Bracken has stated, some sort of conflict is already baked into the European cake in the form of civil war or some other form of warfare. His analysis has proven to be correct, for we are already seeing a systemic waging of jihad across the continent by Muslims against non-Muslims.

    Thus far, in part because the European Union and much of the western/northern European leadership class are protecting Muslims as a privileged class, this “holy war” is being fought only by one side, the Muslims, whereas much of their opposition are still sleepwalking through it all. However, inevitably, the infidels and kafirs must respond in some manner – and they will. It is simply a matter of when and how.

    The difficulty, then, for those Europeans in this predicament, is that they are facing not one but two enemies: the soldiers of Allah themselves, and their collaborators and enablers hidden in the shadows. Those who would arise in defense of Europe must take care of the jihadists, to be sure – but only when they have eradicated the Quislings in their midst will the job be done.

    The U.S. is not as far down to road to being conquered by the new caliphate, and thus has more choices of action. During the height of the Cold War, U.S. Presidents were able to issue executive national security findings designating communism as an enemy ideology and a clear-and-present danger to the republic. President Trump could do the same with Islam.

    While outright prohibiting the private practice of Islam would be legally problematical, much the same effect could be had by outlawing the practice of sharia law. Sharia serves as the “teeth” of Islam, the means by which it conquers non-Muslims and keeps fellow Muslims and would-be dissidents in line.

    Such an effort would not be easy, but a thing worth doing rarely is. It would probably involve challenging and, if necessary, overruling the findings of leftist/Muslim-controlled courts, to name one example.

    The intellectual ammunition used against Islam would have to include proof that Islam is not, per se, primarily a religion, but a form of totalitarian government and an extremely effective and lethal form of conquest disguised as a religion.

    Ultimately, if western civilization is to survive, it must relearn how to distinguish between itself and those not itself, a function not unlike a cultural immune system. Christianity used to provide much of this protection against the other, but in this post-Christian age, something else may have to fill that space. Perhaps in the coming darkness, even secular Europeans will again learn to find their God and defend their birthright.

    Admittedly, the odds appear long – but perhaps not as long as they seem. Islamic conquest has always been highly-opportunistic – the soldiers of Allah tend to like to infiltrate and conquer when their would-be adversaries are weak and disorganized – just as present day western-northern Europe are. However, if these disorganized and dispirited Europeans could somehow be rallied, they might find that the Mohammedans are not as strong as they appear. Muslims have always used fear to keep their subjects – their dhimmis – under control. But what if that fear suddenly vanished?

      • Thank you for the link. I am aware that a number of different states in the Union – Oklahoma comes to mind – have considered, at various times, legislation banning sharia law in that state. To date, all such efforts have been beaten, either by push-back from CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood proxies, or by Cultural Marxist judges. The Red-Green alliance is real, and it is powerful.

        It seems to me that the defenders of our republic need to undergo a change of attitude and realize that our enemies, ideological and otherwise, believe themselves to be at war with traditional western civilization – and are conducting themselves on that basis.

        Unless the defenders of our civilization are prepared to match (and eventually exceed) the commitment of the enemy in this ages-old fight, our civilization will lose – and it will lose big.

        Do you remember the scene in the 1980s film, “The Untouchables,” when tough old Chicago cop (played by Sean Connery) and FBI agent Elliott Ness (played by Kevin Costner) are sitting in church, talking about how to beat Al Capone?

        Malone says, “You said you wanted to know how to get Capone….(pauses)… do you really want to get him?” When Ness doesn’t answer, he continues, “Do you see what I’m saying? What are you prepared to do?”

        Ness replies, “Everything within the law” to which Malone replies sharply, “And then what are you prepared to do?” Malone continues, “If you open the ball on these people, Mr. Ness, you have to prepared to go all the way. Because they won’t give up the fight until one of you is dead.”

        Ness replies, “I want to get Capone, but I don’t know how to get him.”

        Malone explains, “Want to get Capone? Here’s how you get him: He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue! That’s the Chicago way!… and that’s how you get Capone! …Now, do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?”

        Ness remains silent, whereupon Malone turns to him and says, “I’m making you a deal; do you want this deal?”

        Ness says, his voice low, “I have sworn to put this man away using any and all legal means at my disposal, and I will do so.”

        Looking at his St. Christopher medal and then raising his eyes to the alter, Malone says, “Well, God hates a coward!” and the scene ends.

        Malone, the street-smart and tough realist, recognized that Ness and his team could not hope to beat the mob handicapped by adherence to rules that Capone had no intention of following.

        We need a similar dose of realism in our fight against Islam.

        The holy warriors – mujahedeen and the jihadists who oppose us – we of non-Muslim civilization – are prepared to risk everything for their cause, up to and including death. Within Islam, dying while waging jihad is considered the surest way to enter paradise.

        Not only are they willing to risk their lives and the lives of fellow believers (to say nothing of unbelievers and infidels), they are willing to use any method which advances their cause, with the sole exception of anything which is prohibited by sharia law. Even that isn’t absolute, as there are mujahid willing to violate even those rules to complete their missions.

        Americans tend to believe that technology and advanced weaponry are decisive in military conflicts, but that view is seriously mistaken. In war, as the late, great Colonel John Boyd reminded us, people and ideas are more-important than technology.

        Boyd himself had learned that truth in Vietnam, when he saw the most-technologically-advanced power on earth – the United States – lose a war to a nation a fraction the size of the U.S., and several generations behind it technically.

        One reason why the West – here taken to mean the non-Muslim world generally – is losing so badly in this fight – is the asymmetry of belief and motivation between the two sides.

        The Muslims know very well what they stand for and why they are fighting. They also know the lengths to which they and their fellow believers are prepared to go to attain their goals. As the Muslim fighters like to say of non-Muslims, “They have the watches, we have the time.” They are prepared to go the last mile and do whatever it takes to win.

        We in the West, on the other hand, squabble about philosophy and dither about debating this-and-that as the soldiers of Allah rape, pillage and murder their way across old Europe. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic.

        We won’t even admit we’re at war! How can you possibly hope to win a war you won’t even admit is taking place?

    • “During the height of the Cold War, U.S. Presidents were able to issue executive national security findings designating communism as an enemy ideology and a clear-and-present danger to the republic. ”

      Please note that in this period, the Supreme Court invalidated the McCarren Act, which forbade immigration of a communist. Even then, kritarch courts interjected themselves into legislation and executive functions. That needs to stop.

      You confound forbidding sharia law with mandating that only US legislation and English common law can be the basis for any judicial decision. Forbidding sharia law doesn’t make sense, as sharia mandates both political actions, and personal actions by Muslims, such as which hand to clean yourself with. But, a few judges have used Muslim law/culture as the basis for a decision, and that needs to be explicitly forbidden.

      As I’ve said before, the government has no business whatsoever giving religious exemptions. It’s not a matter of whether Islam is or is not a religion. It’s that the constitution explicitly forbids recognizing or assisting religion in legal matters. If religious institutions could not claim exemptions, they would support real freedom of association. The undercover deal is, religious interests tolerate encroachments on the right of free association, as long as the religious organization is not subject to it.

  35. @ Svenne Tvaerskaegg

    Re: “This is why those who propose banning Islam are wrong, doing so would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. The freedom to believe anything you want should be fiercely defended.”

    Perhaps you ought to acquaint yourself with the so-called “Paradox of Tolerance” as explained thus by philosopher the late Sir Karl Popper:

    “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”

    Popper supplies the philosophical basis for the ethical defense of Europe against those who wage war upon it, but it will be up to ordinary Europeans themselves to actually do the dirty work which will be required.

    You might wish to note that your Islamic foes will not be persuaded in the least by philosophical arguments. The soldiers of Allah, like the Nazis three-quarters of a century ago, deal in force – that what they understand. Even if you refuse to admit it, they believe themselves to be at war and conduct themselves accordingly.

    The time for navel-gazing is long-past; if Europeans want to save their civilization from being conquered, then they’ll eventually have to pick up the gauntlet and somehow resist.

    Muslims offer only a narrow range of options to those whom they conquer: Conversion to Islam, subjugation under Muslim rule as dhimmis and de facto slaves, or death.

    The only other choice is to fight them so that they don’t conquer you in the first place,
    which is how Old Europe (Christendom) managed to remain mostly non-Muslim
    for the last thousand years or more, despite numerous Islamic invasion attempts.

    “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” – Winston Churchill

    The great Mr. Churchill was speaking of fighting the Nazis, but his wise words apply equally as well to the most-ancient enemy of European civilization – the Moslems.

    • Freedom of speech is not navel gazing, but an invaluable tool to maintain freedom. The freedom of speech is being curtailed everywhere, and particularly in Europe where violators are subject to fine and jail. And in what direction is the suppression of freedom of speech? Against critics of Islam. So, what makes you think that making suppression of speech part of the legal system, that it would be Islam and not critics of Islam, who would be suppressed?

      Having said that, Aldo in one of his tapes makes the perfectly reasonable point that in Muslim countries, the government is well aware of the explosive potential of radical Islam. Police, who themselves understand Arabic, monitor the services, and would arrest any imam preaching the “war” verses before he even finished speaking. So, freedoms as we know them do not apply in majority-Muslim countries.

  36. While you were all debating, Theresa May just appointed a Pakistani as Home Secretary! What does that tell you?
    And while you are doing the numbers, here is some more arithmetic:
    People assume that because there are millions of British people still living in the United Kingdom, that there is therefore some time to go before the situation gets out of hand. Let us examine that premise.

    The population of the UK was 63,182,000 in 2011 and is currently estimated at around 66 million. At that time 83% were native British but the net effects of emigration and immigration has reduced that to about 77% of the population, that is, 50,820,000. Of these, 5.02% said, in 2011, that they were Muslims. Nobody knows what the current percentage of Muslims is but at the 2011 numbers, that leaves 48,159,884 non-Muslims. Of that number, the Office for National Statistics tells us that 18.8% are in the 0-15 year bracket and 17.7% over the age of 65, which allows for a total adult population of 30,580,000 in rounded numbers. The government says that there are 3.6 million gays or lesbians in the UK, and though they do not clarify whether the statistic includes the 0-15 year bracket, let us work on their percentage of 6% – leaving us with a pool of 28,745,200.
    Every single British professional I have spoken to thinks that he/she will have time to emigrate once hostilities ‘get too bad’. 44% of working men and 56% of working women describe themselves as professionals, senior managers or managers so let us assume an average of 50% of full-time working people have no intention of sticking with any kind of civil or cultural war, and bang! there go another 11,5 million people.

    We can safely assume that all the socialists, Marxists, progressives and attendant snowflakes will not want to join the party, and in fact, in the 2016 elections only 38% of the electorate identified as conservative – so we are now left with a pool of 6,553,100 counter-jihadists If we are going to rely mostly on the men to handle the dirty work, then we only have available 3,145,480 British people to work with, and that assumes that 100% of the remaining conservatives will be patriotic enough to take up arms. If, say, only one third of them are prepared to fight for their country, then our war party is down to about one million people.
    Now, how many Muslims did you say lived in the UK?

    • There is one glimmer of hope.

      If other countries develop a nationalist perspective, they will not accept as immigrants those Brits who supported Tony Blair and the gaggle of anti-British leaders up through Theresa May. In other words, the British professionals you polled may find they have no place to go, and maybe they’ll join the fight.

      • Most British professionals are thinking of English-speaking countries, like the USA, Australia and New Zealand. But, in any case, I was only making the point, by inference of numbers, that the resolution will have to be by unpleasant means rather than diplomatic or ‘polite’ incentives. I cannot see how you can sustain the niceties of civil liberties once civil war has broken out.

  37. @Stefan cel Mare
    Well, I totally agree with everything what you’ve said.
    And I am not implying there is a way to avoid bloodshed. On the contrary, things inevitably will end up in bloodshed. I am just saying that Christianity need not to be a banner for it. And we need not to infringe individual freedoms to exert pressure on Islam. It only takes a country to adhere to its own laws.
    And economic situation matters of course. Wealth redistribution went astray. When people are not busy paying their bills they get all the weird ideas about everybody being entitled to the same level of income.
    My projection is people, the productive population, whose hard earned wealth gets redistributed will have enough very soon. It’s already happening in the US and Austria. People are waking up.

  38. Our situation in the West is similar to that of the Hindus who eventually became Sikhs, and violently resisted the Islamic invasion

  39. Fighting is not necessary. What I simply cannot wrap my head around about the alt-right is this: they will argue that only guns and oppression will succeed, and then claim there is a serious chance that this will occur. But here’s the thing: you say “tax revolt, mass strikes by conservatives, mass tax evasion days and actions” and you get told either … nothing, or “oh well, I dunno, eerrr… that would never work…” So let me get this straight then. You guys are saying that a so-called “resistance” could organise a serious IRA-type militia force. But would be incapable of organising mass anti-immigration rolling strikes and tax boycotts?

    What was it that so paralyzed the communist states of Eastern Europe? Not armed resistance (which against the modern surveillance state is all but impossible) but mass civil disobedience. I think since the average citizen no longer has a farm which the state can seize for its produce, the balance of power has forever shifted in favour of the citizen. For the state is now helpless in the face of your refusal to buy things, to work, or to pay taxes.

    Here is another thing you guys who support Brexit can do: organise a run on a bank! I mean, it is entirely moral to say – it is no longer in my interests to support through my labour and efforts, a state and an economy that is wholly committed to the destruction of my childrens’ future.

    I predict that at the very murmur of a tax and labour revolt, politicians in the west will literally [foul their undergarments]… You can just stage mass walkouts, have months where you refuse to buy anything. It’ll hurt for sure. But far less than a war…

    • Soon the strikes will be unnecessary as all the productive people are put out of work by “affirmative action” and leftist bias. Things will just collapse of their own accord; the question is what to do next.

  40. Since an army of state employees in the UK turned a blind-eye to more than 40 years of Muslim gangs raping English schoolgirls, it should be clear to all that the state is behind the Islamization of Britain at any cost.

    In Europe the Muslim minority riot (England), burn hundreds of cars (France), and bomb official buildings (Sweden) over mere trifles. But the British male (“the scum of the earth” according to the Duke of Wellington) did nothing when faced with the rape of children on an industrial scale. The British didn’t have the stomach to resist by electing even one representative to Parliament who would speak up for those girls.

    Anyone who thinks the British are going to resist by deporting Muslims is living in a dream. Once the state could print money (apparently ad infinitum) it has proven itself capable of bribing even the most violent “scum of the earth” into their own extinction. On the anniversary of Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech, Hate Not Hope published a survey where the respondents were asked how they felt about mainstream demographic studies which show that the British will be a minority in our own country by 2060. No more than 2% of respondents described themselves as “happy” with this demographic inevitability. IngSoc is so confident of having won that they can even gloat by asking the British what they feel about their powerlessness in the face of their extinction.

    Powell’s predictions are coming true in every way – except the idea that the British people would offer any resistance. The only blood that has been spilt has been that of the British – Kris Donald, Ross Parker, etc. and an unidentified number of schoolgirl victims. The vilification of war hero Powell at the hands of the British establishment was so thorough that it served as an example so that no-one would lead any resistance, even when Muslim gangs were raping and murdering children. We demonstrated in Mohammed’s Koran that the elite’s lies about “the Religion of Peace” are a concerted wall of deception.

    In the years leading up to 2006, IngSoc sought to introduce “hate speech” laws to criminalize those lesser beings who had dared to speak about the decades in which the rule of law had been perverted in favour of Muslim rape gangs, decades where the law of consent meant nothing. Muslim leaders were worried about the application of such hate speech laws to mosques. These Muslim leaders sought (and were granted) exemption from these hate speech laws. Even though every day in every mosque, Muslims denounce Jews and Christians as the sine qua non of all prayer. If the hate speech laws were applied without favour, every mosque would be closed down – an anomaly which the 26 Bishops in the House of Lords are perfectly capable of articulating.

    Muslim superiority in the eyes of the British state is already instituted. Yet this basic observation eludes many of those who are critical of Islam. If you think the Muslim minority have treated the British badly, wait just a few decades until the British are a minority. The one-party state which passes as democracy in Britain will stand four-square behind the replacement population. They did so when the Muslim voting bloc was small, so there’s no reason to expect anything else when that voting bloc doubles every decade. Anyone who doesn’t get out of the way of IngSoc’s project will just be roadkill.

    It’s nothing new to point out that the extinction of the Brits is just part of the extinction of Europe. But sadly, a decade after an emeritus Professor of History lamented the end of Europe, most Europeans are still blind to what is happening.

    If you want to see how hopeless the situation in Britain is, note the number of people at the next protest being organised by Tommy Robinson. I doubt there will be even 5000 people there. Nearly 1 million Leftists and Muslims protested in London against going to war in Iraq. They were ignored and the Iraq War went ahead.

    If only 5000 people turn out to protest after all that has happened in the last 20 years, then don’t fool yourself there will be any deportations in the next 20 years.

    • Peter – as a side issue, do you have an estimate of the number of girls who fell foul of Muslim grooming gangs over the last 40 years?

      I ask because I often see what I regard as “the million girl myth” perpetuated on the internet with never an attempt to substantiate it. I did the sums once and found that it would mean that 1 girl in 10 throughout Britain during that time was a victim.

      The only source I can find for the 1,000,000 figure is an interview in which Sarah Champion appeared to conflate figures for Muslim grooming gangs with figures for general child sexual abuse. At the time she was campaigning to hold onto the Rotherham seat which she inherited from Denis Macshame and some people might have thought she did it deliberately in a bid to distance herself from events there (but not me because she sues people for things like that…and wins).

      Perhaps you have arrived at a realistic estimate during your work on Easy Meat?

      Thank you.

      • There’s no reason to believe that Rotherham is atypical.

        1400 known victims (minimum) in a town that has fewer than average number of Muslims. Rotherham is 250th largest town in UK.

        1400 x 250 = 350,000 over a 16 year period.

        There are 249 towns _larger_ than Rotherham. So this would seem likely to be a minimum for that period. There’s categorical proof that the Muslim grooming gangs were operating in Rotherham in exactly the same manner in 1975 as they were in the reports to come out in 2015 (and the gangs in 1975 were not just Pakistanis but also Arabs were members).

        The current claim about Telford is that the problem there has been worse there than Rotherham. As I pointed out in Easy Meat, as the staff at Rotherham kept saying while they were being scapegoated: “we’re no different from any other town”. There are plenty of towns where I have been informed of the gangs operating as far back as the 1990s, and the names of these towns have never come up in any public discussion.

        350,000 victims over a period of 16 years is still a staggeringly high number. But when an army of state employees and academics have been covering this up for 40 years, the onus is on them to tell us why we this extrapolation is off the mark. These are the people who have told us for decades that the grooming gangs don’t even exist. The army of state employees learned the lesson from the Nuremberg trials – our professional childcare agents decided not to keep records so that they could never be indicted for their complicity in these rapes.

        Going off figures for 2007, there were roughly 6 million girls between the ages of 11 and 16 in that year. But this total of 350,000 is based on a period of 16 years, so we can calculate that total pool of potential victims as about 15 million. 350,000 out of 15 million is about 1:43 girls. It is still a staggering number. But there are remarks from girls in Rotherham who said the grooming was commonplace.

        I would love to be provided with evidence that this extrapolation is off the mark. I don’t want to come from a country where we allowed something of this magnitude to occur. But until we are provided with sound evidence why this is not the case, we owe it to potentially 350,000 raped schoolgirls to keep pressure on the authorities. If this extrapolation is right it would be monstrous to try and diminish what has gone on and what is going on.

        Despite Kuffars making up 95% of the UK, I’ve not been made aware of one gang of Kuffars who have preyed on Muslim schoolgirls in the last 40 years, to rape and pimp the girls out. But we are supposedly the “evil, violent people” who have no respect for Muslims. This shows the contrast in behaviour and attitude between the Muslim minority and the Kuffar majority. The story I recount in Easy Meat of a young girl in Rochdale who was raped by three unrelated gangs on one day (and most of those perps were never found, because Muslims cover up for Muslims) shows just how common is this attitude towards our children. Where’s the obverse case, of a single Muslim girl being raped in broad daylight by multiple groups of Kuffar men?

        • Thanks very much for taking the time to provide such a detailed summary. It is really quite sobering.

          And thank you for your work in helping to bring all this to light.

  41. Well seeing civil liberties aren’t being respected now and EU governments are outright favoring the jihadist this seems not to be an important question. The real question is how to restore civil liberties once the invaders have been ejected.

  42. I am late to the party. Connection issues. And that really is a better excuse than was my old guy afternoon nap.

    Bdsm may have a good idea there.

    I will expand on it but differently. My idea may not be entirely the same. I may be primarily motivated by manatthepubs annoying questions about where is the will? His question may be annoying in the same way it would be if two men were arguing about which dish would be a better meal at a low cost restaurant and a third man happened along to point out that none of them had enough money for any meal at that restaurant.

    Or another story. When I was 18 and 19 years old, I knew many my age who were very pro military with regard to Vietnam but had no idea why they themselves ought to participate.

    The same has no doubt been true of our most recent wars.

    I agree entirely with the general opinions expressed here that the west is headed for a bloody and then impoverished future but why not reverse these?

    We could skip past the bloody part to impoverishment and obviate the war problem. Maybe. Begin with selective impoverishment. We do not have to give public assistance to anyone from anywhere who asks for it. If Joe Blow from one of the usual places has four wives and sixteen children and no job skills, too bad for him and all those who put their faith in him.

    No more one way passenger tickets. Ever.

    Sounds easy, easier than massive social disruption or war, but it is not so easy. In our various western countries there are many who will not ever put aside their precious virtue signalling with other peoples money in order to do it. Our greatest enemies are our conceits and our second greatest our comforts. Sometimes they are one and the same.

    We all like to have some self esteem, but stupidity does not have to be our banner.

    Here is the standoff: our virtue signallers have no intention of doing themselves what they call upon others to do, and too few of our own will do what they call upon someone else to do.

    Let us begin with the easiest of all things, mocking and calling out our virtue signallers, and posting their own histories if possible. Well, it’s a thought.

    I suppose that this means that I am myself going to have to start looking for conversations with the kind of people who I never wanted to have anything to do with….

  43. Nah, tax revolt – tax boycott is WAY more effective. Heck encourage all conservative renters to pick alternative months for a rent boycott. Alternate conservative rolling strikes. No need for blood. Just cut off the money, and the illegal migrant problem solves itself in a heartbeat.

    • Are you yourself doing what you are calling upon others to do? Or will you wait until they do?

Comments are closed.