Although the population of Great Britain is reputed to consist of only sixty million people, a recent Independent newspaper article argued there may well be up to eighty million inhabitants of this poor benighted island, and as the Muslim population is expanding at ten times the rate of the demographically dying post-Christian population, one can reasonably conclude that a good percentage of these possible extra twenty million bodies are of Islamic descent.
There is no particular reason to disregard such a possibility just because it is not of mainstream acceptance. The number of Sharia courts operating in Britain was thought to be only five until yesterday, which proved to be yet another naïve and delusional liberal hope shattered by the news that there are actually eighty-five Sharia courts sitting in Britain, a seventeen fold increase on received opinion. One is almost tempted to note that Sharia courts are expanding like mosquitoes, but perhaps that would be a little dangerous in the modern Western world, so I will refrain from saying so.
When Mark Steyn attracted the attention of the Canadian Thought Police by relaying in print the words of Mullah Krekar… “Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes” his utilisation of another man’s words led directly to his hate speech trial as the authorities reflexively tried to censor out any semblance of truth as to the real number of Muslims in Europe.
Comparing the reproductive proclivity of Muslims with mosquitoes is to make a rather distasteful association and not one that sits easily with the average European, his or her mind filled with notions of oppression, prejudice and general Western ne’er do well, unlike the good Mullah who presumably has no such mental shackles. But although Mr Krekar is a member of a faith not universally known for its contribution to stand up comedy, was his linking of Muslims and mosquitoes not perhaps subconsciously drawn from an old sketch by Peter Cook and John Cleese, in which Cook took it upon himself to inform Cleese of an interesting fact?
PETER COOK: The grasshopper is an interesting creature…….up and down and up it goes, all over arable land. That’s land that’s actually tilled by Arabs. You see the interesting fact about your Arab is that he can live for a whole year on one grain of rice.
JOHN CLEESE: What rubbish! One year on one grain of rice!
PETER COOK. Sorry, sorry. It's the mosquito that can live for a whole year on one grain of rice...I get those two muddled up because they're next to each other in the dictionary.
JOHN CLEESE: What are?
PETER COOK: Mosquitoes and mosques…
But levity aside, and God knows we need it, as an apparent 40% of British Muslims wish to see Sharia law enacted in the traditionally Judeo-Christian country they were so affably invited to reside within, it becomes important to know what their numbers are. Relying on our ruling elites to honestly inform us of such pertinent facts is perhaps asking too much, but let us take a stab in that general direction.
In 2001, the BBC released a report, stating there were 1.6 million Muslims in Great Britain, equating to some 2.8% of the population.
In 2008, Jacqui Smith, Britain’s masochistically implausible and as such sadly missed Home Secretary disclosed there were 2 million Muslims enjoying the advantages of British democracy.
By 2009, The Times newspaper reported the numbers had surged to 2.4 million, or 4.5% of the population.
The Economist magazine agreed with the figures from the Times survey, but broke down the overall percentage into differing age groups, within which the Muslim population of 0-4 year olds now numbers close to 10%.
Patrick Sookhdeo of the Barnabas Fund has little time for such surveys; his personal viewpoint being there are at least four million Muslims living in Britain, which is certainly a more believable figure given the puzzlingly disproportionate clout Islam currently exerts over British authorities, not to mention the confusion surrounding official statistics.
Suppose though, that all the above are mistaken, and Britain’s Muslim population is far higher than anyone has yet to admit?
Such a scenario is more probable than improbable. Were Britain an Eastern bloc country circa 1975 then it would know exactly how many people entered and exited it’s borders over any given time scale, but the truth in Britain of 2009 is that no one has the faintest idea who comes in and who leaves.
A recent Daily Telegraph article tells us of a gang of illegal immigrants running one of the biggest visa scams in Britain. The ringleader by name of Jatinder Sharma was accused of submitting visa applications based on thousands of forged documents to the British Home Office all of which were rubber stamped by the equal opportunity officials with nary a backward glance, although one assumes they were scanned assiduously for that dirty word “Gurkha.”
The UK Border Agency (UKBA) was rebuked last year for hosting a Christmas party where the invitations consisted of mocked up visas inside fake British passports, a Home Office jape which unfortunately coincided with news that 300,000 immigrants had been processed by said UK Border Agency that year, and for many other years, with obviously fraudulent paperwork because to deny them entry meant increased form filling.
Not that this is much of a surprise. The UK Border Agency lacks sufficient staff, particularly lean men of substance to ensure complete surveillance of our borders, especially so over weekends and national holidays when quite unbelievably they have been told not to arrest anybody- so a little tip to any ambitious Afghans, striving Somalis or peripatetic Pakistanis without the correct paperwork, is to turn yourself in to the authorities on a Saturday afternoon when Manchester United is playing Chelsea. In wintertime. When it is raining - at dusk.
What is something of a surprise however is who partially co-sponsored the £140,000 UK Border Agency Christmas knees-up, fake visa invitations included. Step forward Clear Springs Property Management and The Angel Group, two privately run organisations who make millions from the British government by housing illegal immigrants and asylum seekers, not always in accommodation fit for human habitation.
In 2003, Julia Davey, the owner of The Angel Group, collected almost 1.5 million pounds in salary and dividends. Nice work if you can get it, but try getting it without having a “friend” in the higher echelons of government. In Davey’s case her name has allegedly been mentioned in association with an ex-Home Secretary and ex-Communist sympathiser (take your pick as regards the name, it could be one of four and the short straw wins) always useful if you want to enrich yourself at the expense of the British taxpayer whilst reaping the 90% Labour voting pattern of third world immigrants even as you destroy your own country.
Britain is out Mecca-ing Mecca as a destination for Muslim students from Pakistan, who come to the UK on fraudulent study visas all the time. A few months ago Britain had 15,000 schools and colleges open to non-EU students, the majority of which appear to have been used as a major conduit in the trafficking and promotion of Islamic extremism and terrorism within our borders. Of the twelve Muslim terror suspects arrested in April 2009, ten were here on student visas.
The vast majority of these “students” are not interviewed by the Home Office, nor are they interviewed by the British High Commission in Pakistan where security threats are now so high that officials, nationality unknown, vet potential students over the phone in……… Abu Dhabi! Perhaps if we were slightly more stringent we would never have allowed Dhiren Barot, often quoted as Osama Bin Laden’s second in command in Europe, to study at Brunel University on forged identification documents.
This has led to a serious rise in extremism on university campuses, where one in three Muslim students think it is acceptable to kill in the name of Islam. Some forty-eight universities have been infiltrated, including Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and the London School of Economics, yet many of those with a student visa obtained in Pakistan do not even bother to attend college. They arrive in Britain and simply disappear. At the time of writing it is not legally necessary for the educational institutions to notify the authorities that Mustafa Bint or Justada Kamel had been granted a visa but subsequently gone AWOL.
The Yorkshire Post points out that 10,000 non- EU students failed to attend local universities over the last three years. One faculty in Manchester claimed to have more than one hundred students whilst foolishly providing only two desks, and an international college in London with links to Pakistani businessmen is alleged to have made five million pounds by selling 2,500 forged visas.
In March 2009 a new ruling decreed the 15,000 educational establishments must be registered with a government authority. To date, only 10% have done so, out of which a quarter were rejected. Ninety percent of them have simply evaporated. How many students passed through nobody knows and just in case you were thinking that good old Britain has started to get its act together, I should point out that the government authority in question is none other than the UK Border Agency, who admit they cannot track non-student students until they have fixed their computer systems, a not inconsequential matter they predict will take place in 2010. Possibly.
How many other people come in? Again, no one really knows. British MP Ann Cryer, who represents Keighley, a town near Bradford, estimates that 1 million Pakistanis came to Britain over the last four years to work, study or marry, with imported wives making up 80% of all marriages in her area.
If one wishes to wage demographic warfare against a benevolent and naïve country, polygamy is really the way to go. One man has four wives, aka baby machines, each of whom produces five children, all twenty-five one of whom (father, wives and children) will be financially maintained by the British Government, even though polygamy is illegal in Britain.
Such insanity goes some way toward explaining why only two out of three babies born in Britain today are classified as white British, with twenty percent of mothers being first generation immigrants and a further twenty five percent of mothers being second or third generation immigrants. In London, for the first time in history, white school children now enter their first year as an ethnic minority.
Now clearly, not all non-white births are to Muslim parents, but such figures make a mockery of the average middle-class assumption that indigenous Brits make up ninety percent of the population, and the Johnny foreigner-come-latelys only ten percent. Indeed, one million people from Pakistan alone over four years alone is an astonishing figure, even assuming the real figure is not considerably higher.
When Eastern European countries joined the EU, our wonderfully prescient government predicted a mere seventeen thousand people would venture west. That figure is closer to two million of course, at the very least, and Migration Watch UK tells us that nine out of ten recent immigrants are of non-European heritage, which effectively means an additional eighteen-million non-EU immigrants our government chooses not to tell us about.
Going back to the Independent article written by Martin Baker, one is struck by his persuasive simplicity. The people he cites in his argument that an extra 20 million people reside on our small, damp and wind swept island are not gimlet bespectacled micro-statisticians getting everything wrong in the backrooms of failing banks whilst in the possession of petroleum based shirts, wide soled shoes and the entire DVD content of Star Trek, but national food producers and chairmen of supermarket conglomerates, who tell us with brutal honesty that the Britain of 60 million people simply cannot consume so many calories without turning into Little Rock, Arkansas.
This extra 20 million people is borne out by the National Insurance numbers issued in Britain, which outnumber eligible British citizens by 29 million. As it is impossible to obtain welfare benefits without NI numbers, they thus become a matter of vital importance to the forty percent of British Muslims who devote ceaseless time, energy and self-sacrifice into remaining resolutely unemployed, although, to be fair, providing for four wives and twenty five children is probably beyond the financial means of Warren Buffet let alone Sammy Achmed, late of Waziristan, occupation goatherd. Abu “old-hooky” Hamza for example received almost £5,000 per month, to finance his half a million pound house, his current wife, and her seven children, and of course he received this from the very British government he seeks to overthrow. Dear God, please tell me this cannot really be happening.
One does not need to read - or more pertinently to read between the lines - official statistics to gain a picture of reality. There are vast areas of Britain that have been physically transformed into the East in a blink of an eye. Although one sees very few veiled ladies on the streets in my area, which unlike many parts of modern Britain is 80% indigenous, a continental shift occurs the moments one sets foot into the maternity ward of the local hospital, which more resembles Islamabad than Isleworth.
No one from the British government will refute this. They will call you a racist for raising the issue even as they admit the last twelve years has seen an influx of non-EU immigration twenty-five times higher than ever before and even as they cheerfully admit a la Hazel Blears that Britain has become an immigration mad house in which no one has the faintest idea who is here and who is not. We don’t even really know how many indigenous Brits are emigrating. Official reports suggest 1,000 per day, but this could be far higher given the misery that currently exists in Britain, particularly England, coupled with the fact that ALL official figures are just guesstimates, ALL of which have historically proven to be not just inaccurate but as wrong as wrong can be.
Is it racist and xenophobic to raise this issue? I am sure many people will think it is, but they should be aware that the huge number of Pakistani Muslims who came here over the last few years come from a country where only 19% of people have a negative view of al- Qaeda and by default the taliban, and where 75% wish to see Sharia law implemented. Or in other words, out of every five Pakistanis entering Britain, four of them statistically wish to overthrow us.
Although British and Western liberals may decry this, it is not a view shared by Islamic extremists, who view such ridiculously naïve people as Lenin once viewed his very own Western useful idiots. Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca, Medina and Mohammed has not spent 90 billion dollars entrenching Islam in Europe in order to achieve peaceful co-existence. They can do this far less expensively by just selling us oil and leaving us be, but that is not their agenda simply because it was not Mohammed’s agenda.
In 1974, former Algerian President Houari Boumedienne said in a speech at the U.N.:
"One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere to go to the northern hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory."
Libyan president Mommar Ghadaffi added for good measure:
We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades…. Europe is in a predicament, and so is America. They should agree to become Islamic in the course of time, or else declare war on the Muslims.
Paul Goodman, the conservative shadow Minister for “community cohesion” representing High Wycombe, an area historically known only as a stockbroker belt due to it’s close proximity to London, has stated that his constituency will be 25% Muslim within the next fourteen years. Any English readers who are familiar with High Wycombe will tell you that if such an area is being Islamified then quite frankly, it is all over. Or yet to begin.
In conclusion, we don’t really know how many Muslims there are in Britain. The accepted number is 2.4 million, but our government which hates traditional England constantly lies to us, and based on all the above, the true number of Muslims in Britain it could just as well be anywhere between five and fifteen million, which means ten million to thirty million within one generation, which means the end of Britain as a liberal democracy.
I am not surprised that the British Government wishes to cover such appalling realities up. If the truth were known it is hard to believe even the docile British people would not take to the streets. Or perhaps that is just wishful thinking.
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Friday, 3 July 2009
Monday, 9 February 2009
Wilders In Wonderland
When Alice fell down a rabbit hole and embarked on her adventures in Wonderland, she discovered a thoroughly surreal environment in which the White Queen was able to advise the Mad Hatter that… “quite often subjects are punished before they commit a crime, rather than after, and sometimes they do not even commit it at all.”
Welcome to Wonderland, Mr Wilders, where Holland’s sober lawmakers appear intent on out-fantasizing Lewis Carroll on acid. The fact that they are hell-bent on subjecting Geert Wilders to a criminal prosecution is more than just absurd. It is insane. Totally, utterly and mind-bendingly insane.
Take a look at a criminal photo-file log book. The faces glowering out at you are uniformly suited to violence and mayhem; the close set eyes, the curious haircuts and the ubiquitous facial tattoos sympathetically framing the studded visage.
Mr Wilders does not look like such a criminal to me. I suppose he could possibly be a white-collar embezzler but he lacks the lean and hungry look of the rapacious city banker, (many of whom, I understand, are still at large.)
If one uses one’s imagination it is not entirely impossible to picture an ancestral Wilders doppelganger storming up a Kent beach with his fellow Vikings, blonde mane flowing over his animal skinned jerkin, battle-axe at the ready, his mind aflame with rape, pillage and destruction.
But the 2009 version of Geert Wilders is not intent on taking over a foreign land. Today, he is simply defending his own land against a new generation of foreign destroyers, pillagers and rapists. And for this he is smeared a criminal by his very own countrymen.
It is a very curious state of affairs when a man can be indicted for detailing the revolting behaviour of a third party group, but this, in effect, is just what has happened. Wilders’ film “Fitna” does not offer a personal running commentary heaping vilification and abuse upon the heads of the followers of Mohammed.
He allows them to harvest vilification all by themselves. A photo opportunity inciting a variety of hatreds is the Achilles heel of many imams, who view such behaviour as a mere exercise in Islamic public relations. But when these images are combined with the hate filled words of the Koran, then Islam manages to indict Islam itself via a magnificent lack of self awareness. Bearing in mind that “petard” was a small bomb designed to break down fortifications, the religious ideology that promotes self-detonation may find itself thus ironically hoist.
According to Gates of Vienna correspondent “VH” who has translated the Amsterdam Court documents, Wilders will face two charges, the first being the incitement of religious or racial hatred in contravention of the Dutch Penal Code, Article 137d.
The prosecution will find itself on a very sticky wicket here. No doubt Mr Wilders will have expert witnesses on hand who will dissect Koranic scripts and jihadist video footage. It matters not what the prosecutors wish, the only ideology in the dock will be that of Islam, not that of Dutch “fascism” no matter how many collaborative spin-meisters the sympathetic liberal media utilise in an attempt to prove otherwise.
The second likely charge Mr Wilders will face is that of the positively Orwellian sounding “insult of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, or their hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities.” Which is a contravention of the Dutch Penal Code, Article 137c.
No doubt this fantastical piece of legislation was partially designed to clamp down on comparisons between Islam and the Nazis, which Mr Wilders does when he encourages people to read and compare the Koran and Mein Kampf, after which he invites them to draw their own conclusions as to the humanitarian philosophies of the respective authors.
This may also turn out be something of an embarassment for the embattled prosecution. After all, who or what am I describing here?
“My ideology believes in world domination. My ideology wishes to eradicate the Jews. My ideology believes the three mainstays for women are children, the local religious establishment and the kitchen. My ideology believes in organised violence and fear to advance our agenda. My leader is a prophet and his followers work on the Fuhrerprinzip. If you disagree I will kill you, along with the homosexuals.”
Quite.
In the event that Geert Wilders should be found guilty of “insulting a belief” how will that square with the reflexive leftist accusation of Nazi! toward a man or group of men who would once have fought against Hitler, but today fight against Islam, and for freedom of speech? Or indeed, membership of a religion that attracts the term “infidel” or “kuffar.” A legal precedent is a legal precedent that the "right" can then use against the "left."Are the liberal/left not aware of this?
Taking an optimistic view on the probable Wilders trial does not mean all is well. Wilders could still lose, even if it were a phyrric victory for the prosecution, but Wilders, brave as he is, is still only one man.
What the Dutch authorities (in cahoots with EU authorities) are doing is ensuring the selective ending of free speech. I say selective, because under existing criminal legislation most Mosques throughout Europe should need a conveyor belt to shuttle the new imams through the front door as the manacled ex-imams, convicted not only of sedition but also the incitement of hatred against Jews, Christians, women and homosexuals, are shuttled out through the back.
This is not the case of course. As the EU so delicately puts it, some are more equal than others:
“Insults, slander, defamation and contempt” are sub category crimes against the open category crime of “offences against personal liberty, dignity and other protected interests, including racism and xenophobia.”
Islam, by dint of being a minority religion is a protected interest, whilst Mr Wilders, despite being one in a million, is the majority of one, and therefore an unprotected interest. In his own country. Dear God, what has the liberal/left come to.
Geert Wilders is our modern day Winston Churchill, he who railed at the deaf and blind politicians of the late 20’s and early 30’s as to the welling danger one particular “ism” posed to Europe, just as Wilders does today.
There is one crucial difference however. The 30’s politicians were not on Hitler’s side, they did not actively seek to colonise their country with Nazi followers and nor did they attempt to imprison Churchill.
Can one compare Churchill and Nazism with Wilders and Islamism? Liberals would probably disagree, but liberals need a few basic lessons in reality. Islam is at war with Europe. Right now. Today.
It is easy to tell if you are at war. The leaders of the other side encourage their foot soldiers to invade you, kill you, take your territory, impose their religion and culture upon you and rape your women.
It is equally easy to tell if you are losing a war. The other side succeeds in invading you, killing you, taking your territory, imposing their religion and culture upon you, raping your women, and most importantly, seizing control of the political apparatus to advance their cause whilst denying resistance.
Which is why Wilders is being criminalised for pointing this out.
When Churchill toured the country during the Blitz, his tin hat was not there to ward off attacks from crazed air-raid wardens, Methodists or Mancunians; but Geert Wilders’ metaphorical tin hat, aka his 24 hour security, is absolutely necessary to defend himself against Islamic assassins.
It is a sobering thought that Wilders, in ostensibly a time of peace, is more exposed to assasination than Churchill in a time of war, but with previous Dutch critics of Islam permanently silenced, we really are only ostensibly at peace.
There are plenty of Dutchmen who understand this. The Perth property market in Australia is virtually reliant on them. Faced with their purported leaders casual acceptance of Sharia Law for Holland in the not too distant future, Dutchmen are flying out. It is estimated that a full 4% of middle class Dutch aged 25-45 are legging it every year.
Within 20 years they will have all left, and they are the tax paying backbone of Holland. Their replacement? The jubilant Jihadists, if they get their way, which seems likely if only by demographic growth, a scenario most demographers project.
When Germany finally engaged in Blitzkrieging their way across Europe, everyone got behind Churchill. In Holland, faced with Islamic defeat – which is what Piet Hein Donner’s acceptance of Sharia Law actually means - the leaders attempt to silence resistance.
The idea that fellow Europeans, indeed fellow Dutchmen, have deliberately imported and protected an alien and totally unassimilable culture whose core ideology is the antithesis of the liberal democracy that is Holland would have Alice in need of prozac rather than a nice cup of tea, such is the manifest insanity of it all.
To take it one stage further, to admit our future is Islamic and to then enact a lunatic law whose sole intention is shut down the freedom of expression of Geert Wilders, and others like him, in order to muzzle their warnings of an ideology that threatens the total and utter destruction of our way of life goes far further than normal liberal lunacy.
These politicians are guilty of treason.
If the prosecution team find Wilders guilty, it will be a massive victory for those who wish to destroy us. Without freedom of speech it becomes infinitely harder, especially in Europe, to advance a serious resistance. And not just with regard to Islam, but anything, literally anything you may believe in, that our rulers would rather you did not.
It is imperative that everyone does something, no matter how little, to ensure the traitor class who currently run Europe are made to realise they are not just up against one lone man, albeit with a Samsonesque head of hair, but thousands upon thousands of ideologically similar people who stand full square behind him.
Geert Wilders is not the criminal here. It is our criminal, Quisling, treacherous rulers who deserve such a mantle. Indeed they deserve a great deal more. The treason laws and treason penalties were enacted for a reason, something our rulers should bear in mind when they view the ever growing public anger they seem intent on stoking
Gates of Vienna is one of a handful of sites staging a serious and growing resistance to the lunacies our rulers wish to force upon us, and is now joined by a new movement called The International Free Press Society or IFPS, which everybody should read, support and promote.
Established by journalist and historian Lars Hedegaard and nationally syndicated journalist and author Diana West, IFPS has a roll call of eminent thinkers as its advisors not to mention a board made up of people whose commitment to truth, decency and freedom cannot be questioned.
IFPS deserves to become a household name in it’s fight to preserve the society many currently take for granted in the West, but which is, in reality, only a couple of decades from "Change We Really Don't Want To Believe In."
So do your bit and spread the word.
Copyright Paul Weston. 2009
.
Welcome to Wonderland, Mr Wilders, where Holland’s sober lawmakers appear intent on out-fantasizing Lewis Carroll on acid. The fact that they are hell-bent on subjecting Geert Wilders to a criminal prosecution is more than just absurd. It is insane. Totally, utterly and mind-bendingly insane.
Take a look at a criminal photo-file log book. The faces glowering out at you are uniformly suited to violence and mayhem; the close set eyes, the curious haircuts and the ubiquitous facial tattoos sympathetically framing the studded visage.
Mr Wilders does not look like such a criminal to me. I suppose he could possibly be a white-collar embezzler but he lacks the lean and hungry look of the rapacious city banker, (many of whom, I understand, are still at large.)
If one uses one’s imagination it is not entirely impossible to picture an ancestral Wilders doppelganger storming up a Kent beach with his fellow Vikings, blonde mane flowing over his animal skinned jerkin, battle-axe at the ready, his mind aflame with rape, pillage and destruction.
But the 2009 version of Geert Wilders is not intent on taking over a foreign land. Today, he is simply defending his own land against a new generation of foreign destroyers, pillagers and rapists. And for this he is smeared a criminal by his very own countrymen.
It is a very curious state of affairs when a man can be indicted for detailing the revolting behaviour of a third party group, but this, in effect, is just what has happened. Wilders’ film “Fitna” does not offer a personal running commentary heaping vilification and abuse upon the heads of the followers of Mohammed.
He allows them to harvest vilification all by themselves. A photo opportunity inciting a variety of hatreds is the Achilles heel of many imams, who view such behaviour as a mere exercise in Islamic public relations. But when these images are combined with the hate filled words of the Koran, then Islam manages to indict Islam itself via a magnificent lack of self awareness. Bearing in mind that “petard” was a small bomb designed to break down fortifications, the religious ideology that promotes self-detonation may find itself thus ironically hoist.
According to Gates of Vienna correspondent “VH” who has translated the Amsterdam Court documents, Wilders will face two charges, the first being the incitement of religious or racial hatred in contravention of the Dutch Penal Code, Article 137d.
The prosecution will find itself on a very sticky wicket here. No doubt Mr Wilders will have expert witnesses on hand who will dissect Koranic scripts and jihadist video footage. It matters not what the prosecutors wish, the only ideology in the dock will be that of Islam, not that of Dutch “fascism” no matter how many collaborative spin-meisters the sympathetic liberal media utilise in an attempt to prove otherwise.
The second likely charge Mr Wilders will face is that of the positively Orwellian sounding “insult of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, or their hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities.” Which is a contravention of the Dutch Penal Code, Article 137c.
No doubt this fantastical piece of legislation was partially designed to clamp down on comparisons between Islam and the Nazis, which Mr Wilders does when he encourages people to read and compare the Koran and Mein Kampf, after which he invites them to draw their own conclusions as to the humanitarian philosophies of the respective authors.
This may also turn out be something of an embarassment for the embattled prosecution. After all, who or what am I describing here?
“My ideology believes in world domination. My ideology wishes to eradicate the Jews. My ideology believes the three mainstays for women are children, the local religious establishment and the kitchen. My ideology believes in organised violence and fear to advance our agenda. My leader is a prophet and his followers work on the Fuhrerprinzip. If you disagree I will kill you, along with the homosexuals.”
Quite.
In the event that Geert Wilders should be found guilty of “insulting a belief” how will that square with the reflexive leftist accusation of Nazi! toward a man or group of men who would once have fought against Hitler, but today fight against Islam, and for freedom of speech? Or indeed, membership of a religion that attracts the term “infidel” or “kuffar.” A legal precedent is a legal precedent that the "right" can then use against the "left."Are the liberal/left not aware of this?
Taking an optimistic view on the probable Wilders trial does not mean all is well. Wilders could still lose, even if it were a phyrric victory for the prosecution, but Wilders, brave as he is, is still only one man.
What the Dutch authorities (in cahoots with EU authorities) are doing is ensuring the selective ending of free speech. I say selective, because under existing criminal legislation most Mosques throughout Europe should need a conveyor belt to shuttle the new imams through the front door as the manacled ex-imams, convicted not only of sedition but also the incitement of hatred against Jews, Christians, women and homosexuals, are shuttled out through the back.
This is not the case of course. As the EU so delicately puts it, some are more equal than others:
“Insults, slander, defamation and contempt” are sub category crimes against the open category crime of “offences against personal liberty, dignity and other protected interests, including racism and xenophobia.”
Islam, by dint of being a minority religion is a protected interest, whilst Mr Wilders, despite being one in a million, is the majority of one, and therefore an unprotected interest. In his own country. Dear God, what has the liberal/left come to.
Geert Wilders is our modern day Winston Churchill, he who railed at the deaf and blind politicians of the late 20’s and early 30’s as to the welling danger one particular “ism” posed to Europe, just as Wilders does today.
There is one crucial difference however. The 30’s politicians were not on Hitler’s side, they did not actively seek to colonise their country with Nazi followers and nor did they attempt to imprison Churchill.
Can one compare Churchill and Nazism with Wilders and Islamism? Liberals would probably disagree, but liberals need a few basic lessons in reality. Islam is at war with Europe. Right now. Today.
It is easy to tell if you are at war. The leaders of the other side encourage their foot soldiers to invade you, kill you, take your territory, impose their religion and culture upon you and rape your women.
It is equally easy to tell if you are losing a war. The other side succeeds in invading you, killing you, taking your territory, imposing their religion and culture upon you, raping your women, and most importantly, seizing control of the political apparatus to advance their cause whilst denying resistance.
Which is why Wilders is being criminalised for pointing this out.
When Churchill toured the country during the Blitz, his tin hat was not there to ward off attacks from crazed air-raid wardens, Methodists or Mancunians; but Geert Wilders’ metaphorical tin hat, aka his 24 hour security, is absolutely necessary to defend himself against Islamic assassins.
It is a sobering thought that Wilders, in ostensibly a time of peace, is more exposed to assasination than Churchill in a time of war, but with previous Dutch critics of Islam permanently silenced, we really are only ostensibly at peace.
There are plenty of Dutchmen who understand this. The Perth property market in Australia is virtually reliant on them. Faced with their purported leaders casual acceptance of Sharia Law for Holland in the not too distant future, Dutchmen are flying out. It is estimated that a full 4% of middle class Dutch aged 25-45 are legging it every year.
Within 20 years they will have all left, and they are the tax paying backbone of Holland. Their replacement? The jubilant Jihadists, if they get their way, which seems likely if only by demographic growth, a scenario most demographers project.
When Germany finally engaged in Blitzkrieging their way across Europe, everyone got behind Churchill. In Holland, faced with Islamic defeat – which is what Piet Hein Donner’s acceptance of Sharia Law actually means - the leaders attempt to silence resistance.
The idea that fellow Europeans, indeed fellow Dutchmen, have deliberately imported and protected an alien and totally unassimilable culture whose core ideology is the antithesis of the liberal democracy that is Holland would have Alice in need of prozac rather than a nice cup of tea, such is the manifest insanity of it all.
To take it one stage further, to admit our future is Islamic and to then enact a lunatic law whose sole intention is shut down the freedom of expression of Geert Wilders, and others like him, in order to muzzle their warnings of an ideology that threatens the total and utter destruction of our way of life goes far further than normal liberal lunacy.
These politicians are guilty of treason.
If the prosecution team find Wilders guilty, it will be a massive victory for those who wish to destroy us. Without freedom of speech it becomes infinitely harder, especially in Europe, to advance a serious resistance. And not just with regard to Islam, but anything, literally anything you may believe in, that our rulers would rather you did not.
It is imperative that everyone does something, no matter how little, to ensure the traitor class who currently run Europe are made to realise they are not just up against one lone man, albeit with a Samsonesque head of hair, but thousands upon thousands of ideologically similar people who stand full square behind him.
Geert Wilders is not the criminal here. It is our criminal, Quisling, treacherous rulers who deserve such a mantle. Indeed they deserve a great deal more. The treason laws and treason penalties were enacted for a reason, something our rulers should bear in mind when they view the ever growing public anger they seem intent on stoking
Gates of Vienna is one of a handful of sites staging a serious and growing resistance to the lunacies our rulers wish to force upon us, and is now joined by a new movement called The International Free Press Society or IFPS, which everybody should read, support and promote.
Established by journalist and historian Lars Hedegaard and nationally syndicated journalist and author Diana West, IFPS has a roll call of eminent thinkers as its advisors not to mention a board made up of people whose commitment to truth, decency and freedom cannot be questioned.
IFPS deserves to become a household name in it’s fight to preserve the society many currently take for granted in the West, but which is, in reality, only a couple of decades from "Change We Really Don't Want To Believe In."
So do your bit and spread the word.
Copyright Paul Weston. 2009
.
Friday, 28 March 2008
The Face Of Moderate Islam In Britain
The Muslim beating handed out to Canon Michael Ainsworth, priest at the St George – in – the - East church of Shadwell, East London earlier this month and last weeks conviction of a Muslim for the rape of a 27 year old woman in nearby Whitechapel during 2005, share a surprisingly common link in the attitudes and associates of The Muslim Council Of Britain.
In the wake of the faith-hate attack, Inayat Bunglawalah, media secretary for The Muslim Council Of Britain, wrote a quite extraordinary article in the Guardian entitled: “Jihad or Alcohol” where he claimed:
“An alcohol fuelled attack on a Christian priest in East London has stirred up more Islamophobia.”
The amusingly named Bunglawalah was distinctly unfunny in his article, where he attempted to suggest the attack - and subsequent media reporting of it - were nothing to do with Islam’s anti-Christian ideology and everything to do with the British media’s (with the honourable exception of the BBC and Guardian) ongoing Islamophobic agenda.
Quite how he can turn such a cowardly attack on a priest into an attack on the Islamophobic British is positively surreal, and quite how the Guardian allowed him the platform to deliver it even more so. Bunglawalah relied on half-truths, evasion and a refusal to name the perpetrators as Muslims as he distorted their actions as alcohol fuelled high jinks - which is understandable I suppose. To recount the actual facts of the event would presumably have made even Bunglawalah an Islamophobe.
Bunglawalah’s article also carried a press release from the East London Mosque, which decried the attack by “Asian” youths on Canon Ainsworth. Bunglawalah presumably thinks that citing a religious organisation of such undoubted munificence would add credibility to his dissembling, but the mosque in question should really carry no moral authority - more of which later.
He finishes his Anti-British contortion by criticising Melanie Phillip’s article in the Spectator (where she accused the attackers of being Jihadists rather than common or garden drunks) with his piece- de-resistance:
“Alcohol fuelled anti-social incidents are worrying and reprehensible enough without being hijacked by those with a not so subtle anti-Muslim agenda of their own.”
What the discombobulating Bunglawalah omitted to mention in his Guardian puff piece was that this was not an “anti-social” incident at all, having already been classified by the police as a faith-hate crime. A curious aberration considering the time and trouble the Muslim Council of Britain has gone to in order to get just such legislation passed in the first place.
Bunglawalah also failed to mention the insults hurled at this harmless 57 year old man of God prior to his attack by the three plucky Muslims, which were reportedly: “You f***ing priest” and “this should not be a church, it should be a Mosque.” Nor did he mention the previous attacks on the church which left it’s elderly congregation cowering in fear as bricks smashed through it’s ancient stained glass windows, nor the repeated vandalism of gravestones in nearby St Dustan’s church.
The bungling Bunglawalah was remiss again in his failure to mention that half of all London’s clergy have been the victims of faith based attacks over the last twelve months, and as this happens rarely in the leafy avenues of Chelsea and Richmond it is possible that ALL of East London vicars face violence on a regular basis, as articulated by the Bishop of London, the Rt Reverend Richard Chartres who said:
“over the years we’ve had murders, we’ve had assaults on the Clergy….but of course if you go out onto the streets, if you belong to the community, if you’re part of it, then you’re vulnerable.”
This incredibly depressing statement is backed up by ex-policeman Nick Tolson of Churchwatch, who notes that whilst the Police and Crown Prosecution Service are overly eager to classify attacks on mosques or Muslims as hate crimes, they are equally reluctant to classify attacks on churches and vicars as such.
Dr Anthony McRoy, a Christian expert on Islam, also stated on the Churchwatch web site that attacks on churches in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham were a routine occurrence, and questioned why a firebombing had failed to become mainstream media news. The answer to this of course is that the supposedly Islamophobic British media go out of their way to ignore such stories, not that they get much in the way of thanks from their Islamic masters.
It is unfortunate that Canon Ainsworth’s wife inadvertently helped Bunglawalah’s perverse disassociation with Islamic reality when she stated:
“Clearly the Muslim community is very shocked. These individuals were clearly under the influence and this was a random act….. normally community relations here are very good. We have had very strong messages of support from the East London Mosque and Tower Hamlets Mosque with whom we have good relations.”
I hesitate to suggest that Mrs Ainsworth is exhibiting classic signs of Dhimmitude, but firstly, this was not a random act, as she knows only too well, and secondly she should be careful in her acceptance of support from the Tower Hamlets Mosque which has been pressurising Muslim dominated Tower Hamlets Council to dig up the 350,000 dead Christians in a local graveyard in order to provide space for dead Muslims, and she should be even more circumspect with regard to the East London Mosque for the following reason.
The East London Mosque is partly funded by Wahhabist Saudi money, in addition to European Development Fund money. In 2004 it opened a new study centre where the guest of honour was Sheikh Abdur-Rahman-al-Sudais, an imam at the Grand Al Haraam Mosque in Mecca, the heart of Islam. Although Sheikh Sudais was granted a visa to enter Britain, he has been refused one for Canada because of his repeated calls for the annihilation of the Jews, along with solicitations of violence against Christians, Hindus, and British and American soldiers. The BBC, choosing to ignore such trivial details, describe him only as a “controversial” figure, and promote him as a Muslim leader working to achieve “community cohesion” despite Sudais’s following inflammatory rhetoric:
“Read history and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil fathers of Jews of today, who are all evil offspring, infidels, distorters of words, the scum of the human race whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs….these are the Jews, an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil and corruption.”
Well, gosh, what can you say to that? Quite frankly such an outburst by the East London Mosque’s guest of honour would have left even Adolf Hitler lost for words! Awestruck admittedly, but lost for words none the less and not a little envious of the Sheikh’s command of anti-Semitic vituperation. But this is not why I draw attention to said mosque, I do so for the part in played in the rape of a 27 year old woman in Whitechapel.
Abdul Makim Khalisadar, an East London Mosque goer was convicted last week of raping the unnamed woman who, pregnant with twins, had a knife held to her throat and was punched repeatedly in the face until she said “I love you daddy” whilst Khalisadar violated her.
Khalisadar was not originally arrested in relation to the rape. He was already under police surveillance over his alleged involvement with a Kazi Nurur Rahman, a fellow Muslim sentenced to nine years imprisonment after pleading guilty to attempting to procure explosives with which to carry out a terrorist attack. Khalisadar’s computer disc was searched for evidence associating him with Rahman, where the police found downloaded images of child abuse. They DNA tested him for possible paedophile offences and subsequently linked him to the Whitechapel rape.
When he was arrested he claimed he could not possibly have carried out the rape, because at the precise time it happened he was attending a 3:00 AM sleepover at The East London Mosque, as one does, and produced seven other East London Mosque going alibis who swore under oath that they were all with Khalisadar, dressed in pyjamas and partaking of milk and cookies as they discussed the meaning of life.
Well, they all lied. Khalisadar’s DNA was his undoing. He was sentenced to ten years in jail and his seven honourable friends were sentenced to twelve months for perverting the course of justice. Burqa clad women in the court gallery screamed abuse at the judge, and accused the violated woman of being a prostitute. In light of a media blackout regarding the race of the woman, and the reaction of Muslim women to her, I am assuming she was English until proven otherwise.
The East London Mosque would appear to be a slightly unedifying religious institution, home as it is to purveyors of paedophilia, rapists, lying friends of rapists, friends of terrorists and Jew haters extraordinaire. To those with more than a casual knowledge of Islam, none of this is remarkable in itself, but what is remarkable is the fact that the Chairman of the East London Mosque is a certain Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, better known as the Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain.
The MCB is held up by as the true face of moderate Islam by the British government, which has rewarded Dr Bari with an OBE for his efforts in the promotion of community cohesion, following on from the knighthood awarded to his predecessor, Sir Iqbal Sacrani.
But the MCB is no such thing. On top of the troublesome connections outlined in this article, they have also stated that Britain would benefit from Sharia law, they are connected with the Muslim Brotherhood - which seeks a global Islamic rule - via their affiliation with it’s spiritual leader, Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi, and are outraged he has been refused a visa to visit Britain, apparently having no problem whatsoever with a man who condones suicide bombing against Israelis, the murder of homosexuals, the beating of women, and a man who boasts that Islam will conquer Britain and the West.
In these strange totalitarian times we live in, it is no longer possible to suggest that the Muslim Council of Britain and the East London Mosque are representative not of moderate Islam, but of imperialist Islam, of genocidal Islam, of violent, oppressive, raping, gay-murdering, honour-killing, forced-marrying, girl-mutilating, Christian-hating, Jew-hating, suicide-bombing Islam – so I will refrain from doing so. I will let readers draw their own conclusions and would suggest they also read - if they have not already done so - Adrian Morgan’s meticulously researched article on the MCB and Fjordman’s Jihad Watch article on Muslim expansion in the West.
What I would say though, is that the last few weeks reveal a great deal about the state of Britain.
Canon Ainsworth’s wife fears that publicity over her husband’s beating will lead to racial tension in the area, by which she means she is terrified that the Muslim majority in the Shadwell enclave will exact revenge for the temerity of drawing the medias attention to their initial violence.
Bunglawalah’s disgraceful attempt on behalf of the MCB to turn the faith/hate attack into an issue of Islamophobia reveals him to be a devious man whose true intentions, along with those of Dr Bari, are not community cohesion but Islamic expansionism.
The refusal of the British government to denounce the MCB, coupled with the Guardian’s promotion of Bunglawalah in the full knowledge he was being economical with the truth are symptomatic of more than just shoddy government or shoddy journalism. They are evidence of a complicit alliance with Islam in their war against Britain and the West.
The Quisling politicians and journalists would, in different times, be thrown from their offices for aiding and abetting an enemy, an offence of which they are most categorically guilty.
If one replaced The Muslim Council of Britain, Dr Bari, Mr Bunglawalah, the attack on a priest within church grounds and the rape of an English girl by a Muslim man - with the British National Party, Nick Griffin, Phil Edwards, the attack on an imam within mosque grounds and the rape of a Muslim girl by an Englishman, there would be, quite correctly, a national outcry led by the British government, the BBC and the Guardian. An outcry followed not only by the Islamic community, but also by the vast majority of the British people themselves, who, unlike their Muslim counterparts, really are moderate.
This is not of course the case here. After all we are merely white Christians living in our homeland bequeathed to us by the blood and sacrifice of our forefathers. There is no outcry, no rioting, no pressure to disband the MCB and its sinister leaders or to close down the virulently racist East London Mosque, and no heads to roll from political or media organisations.
But in the instance of this disgusting Muslim attack on a Christian priest, the sordid behaviour and lies of the inhabitants of Dr Bari’s mosque, and the perverse machinations that ensued, certain people and certain organisations have been seen to have taken very definite sides, and in so doing have made their position abundantly clear to the majority population of this country.
I’m not sure how much longer the British people will put up with all of this. A tipping point must surely be in the offing, and to judge from comments in the online MSM (including the BBC and Guardian) in relation to the incidents mentioned above, the British people are becoming increasingly – but not yet uncontrollably – angry. Not just with Islam, but with their elected representatives who appease the violent alien population and ignore and criminalise the peaceful indigenous one.
Britain is being dictated to by a violent but tiny minority of the population. It’s politicians and main media outlets have taken the side of a quasi-political movement masquerading as a religion whose history is one of unremitting violence and imperialism, and a political movement at the furthest extreme from Western Civilisation as is humanly possible.
The result of this is a country exhibiting clear signs of defeat and Dhimmitude. Our clergy and armed forces are advised to discard their dog collars and their uniforms when they enter the public domain in order to avoid being attacked. This should be an impossible, unthinkable situation, but it is the sad reality of a country ruled by an elite who seek its destruction.
But, to finish on a less depressing note, the leftist enablers of the slow motion Islamic colonisation of Britain number only in their thousands, the colonisers themselves, a mere 3% of the population today. If we wanted to, we could put a stop to this tomorrow were the knowledge and the will to hand. The will is there amongst those aware of the true nature of Islam, although the numbers are currently too low - but with every passing day the numbers grow and will continue to do so until they become unstoppable.
Islam has gone too early. Various Islamic leaders openly boast they will subsume the West through demographic growth and mass immigration, which they could have done if they had laid low rather than self-detonating and engaging in open sedition. But they are out in the open now. 9/11 and 7/7, the Madrid train bombing, these were our wake up calls and should have been Islam’s too, but they are not endowed with massive intellect. Do they really think they can carry on as they are whilst a massive majority quietly accept their fate? They appear to think we will, just as our equally ignorant leftist rulers think we will, but it ain’t ever going to happen.
There are already hints of impending revolution, the heady aroma of which hangs heavy in the air. If things continue as they are for another five years, the possibility of revolutionary change will cease to be a mere possibility and become a certified probability. And that day cannot arrive soon enough.
In the wake of the faith-hate attack, Inayat Bunglawalah, media secretary for The Muslim Council Of Britain, wrote a quite extraordinary article in the Guardian entitled: “Jihad or Alcohol” where he claimed:
“An alcohol fuelled attack on a Christian priest in East London has stirred up more Islamophobia.”
The amusingly named Bunglawalah was distinctly unfunny in his article, where he attempted to suggest the attack - and subsequent media reporting of it - were nothing to do with Islam’s anti-Christian ideology and everything to do with the British media’s (with the honourable exception of the BBC and Guardian) ongoing Islamophobic agenda.
Quite how he can turn such a cowardly attack on a priest into an attack on the Islamophobic British is positively surreal, and quite how the Guardian allowed him the platform to deliver it even more so. Bunglawalah relied on half-truths, evasion and a refusal to name the perpetrators as Muslims as he distorted their actions as alcohol fuelled high jinks - which is understandable I suppose. To recount the actual facts of the event would presumably have made even Bunglawalah an Islamophobe.
Bunglawalah’s article also carried a press release from the East London Mosque, which decried the attack by “Asian” youths on Canon Ainsworth. Bunglawalah presumably thinks that citing a religious organisation of such undoubted munificence would add credibility to his dissembling, but the mosque in question should really carry no moral authority - more of which later.
He finishes his Anti-British contortion by criticising Melanie Phillip’s article in the Spectator (where she accused the attackers of being Jihadists rather than common or garden drunks) with his piece- de-resistance:
“Alcohol fuelled anti-social incidents are worrying and reprehensible enough without being hijacked by those with a not so subtle anti-Muslim agenda of their own.”
What the discombobulating Bunglawalah omitted to mention in his Guardian puff piece was that this was not an “anti-social” incident at all, having already been classified by the police as a faith-hate crime. A curious aberration considering the time and trouble the Muslim Council of Britain has gone to in order to get just such legislation passed in the first place.
Bunglawalah also failed to mention the insults hurled at this harmless 57 year old man of God prior to his attack by the three plucky Muslims, which were reportedly: “You f***ing priest” and “this should not be a church, it should be a Mosque.” Nor did he mention the previous attacks on the church which left it’s elderly congregation cowering in fear as bricks smashed through it’s ancient stained glass windows, nor the repeated vandalism of gravestones in nearby St Dustan’s church.
The bungling Bunglawalah was remiss again in his failure to mention that half of all London’s clergy have been the victims of faith based attacks over the last twelve months, and as this happens rarely in the leafy avenues of Chelsea and Richmond it is possible that ALL of East London vicars face violence on a regular basis, as articulated by the Bishop of London, the Rt Reverend Richard Chartres who said:
“over the years we’ve had murders, we’ve had assaults on the Clergy….but of course if you go out onto the streets, if you belong to the community, if you’re part of it, then you’re vulnerable.”
This incredibly depressing statement is backed up by ex-policeman Nick Tolson of Churchwatch, who notes that whilst the Police and Crown Prosecution Service are overly eager to classify attacks on mosques or Muslims as hate crimes, they are equally reluctant to classify attacks on churches and vicars as such.
Dr Anthony McRoy, a Christian expert on Islam, also stated on the Churchwatch web site that attacks on churches in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham were a routine occurrence, and questioned why a firebombing had failed to become mainstream media news. The answer to this of course is that the supposedly Islamophobic British media go out of their way to ignore such stories, not that they get much in the way of thanks from their Islamic masters.
It is unfortunate that Canon Ainsworth’s wife inadvertently helped Bunglawalah’s perverse disassociation with Islamic reality when she stated:
“Clearly the Muslim community is very shocked. These individuals were clearly under the influence and this was a random act….. normally community relations here are very good. We have had very strong messages of support from the East London Mosque and Tower Hamlets Mosque with whom we have good relations.”
I hesitate to suggest that Mrs Ainsworth is exhibiting classic signs of Dhimmitude, but firstly, this was not a random act, as she knows only too well, and secondly she should be careful in her acceptance of support from the Tower Hamlets Mosque which has been pressurising Muslim dominated Tower Hamlets Council to dig up the 350,000 dead Christians in a local graveyard in order to provide space for dead Muslims, and she should be even more circumspect with regard to the East London Mosque for the following reason.
The East London Mosque is partly funded by Wahhabist Saudi money, in addition to European Development Fund money. In 2004 it opened a new study centre where the guest of honour was Sheikh Abdur-Rahman-al-Sudais, an imam at the Grand Al Haraam Mosque in Mecca, the heart of Islam. Although Sheikh Sudais was granted a visa to enter Britain, he has been refused one for Canada because of his repeated calls for the annihilation of the Jews, along with solicitations of violence against Christians, Hindus, and British and American soldiers. The BBC, choosing to ignore such trivial details, describe him only as a “controversial” figure, and promote him as a Muslim leader working to achieve “community cohesion” despite Sudais’s following inflammatory rhetoric:
“Read history and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil fathers of Jews of today, who are all evil offspring, infidels, distorters of words, the scum of the human race whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs….these are the Jews, an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil and corruption.”
Well, gosh, what can you say to that? Quite frankly such an outburst by the East London Mosque’s guest of honour would have left even Adolf Hitler lost for words! Awestruck admittedly, but lost for words none the less and not a little envious of the Sheikh’s command of anti-Semitic vituperation. But this is not why I draw attention to said mosque, I do so for the part in played in the rape of a 27 year old woman in Whitechapel.
Abdul Makim Khalisadar, an East London Mosque goer was convicted last week of raping the unnamed woman who, pregnant with twins, had a knife held to her throat and was punched repeatedly in the face until she said “I love you daddy” whilst Khalisadar violated her.
Khalisadar was not originally arrested in relation to the rape. He was already under police surveillance over his alleged involvement with a Kazi Nurur Rahman, a fellow Muslim sentenced to nine years imprisonment after pleading guilty to attempting to procure explosives with which to carry out a terrorist attack. Khalisadar’s computer disc was searched for evidence associating him with Rahman, where the police found downloaded images of child abuse. They DNA tested him for possible paedophile offences and subsequently linked him to the Whitechapel rape.
When he was arrested he claimed he could not possibly have carried out the rape, because at the precise time it happened he was attending a 3:00 AM sleepover at The East London Mosque, as one does, and produced seven other East London Mosque going alibis who swore under oath that they were all with Khalisadar, dressed in pyjamas and partaking of milk and cookies as they discussed the meaning of life.
Well, they all lied. Khalisadar’s DNA was his undoing. He was sentenced to ten years in jail and his seven honourable friends were sentenced to twelve months for perverting the course of justice. Burqa clad women in the court gallery screamed abuse at the judge, and accused the violated woman of being a prostitute. In light of a media blackout regarding the race of the woman, and the reaction of Muslim women to her, I am assuming she was English until proven otherwise.
The East London Mosque would appear to be a slightly unedifying religious institution, home as it is to purveyors of paedophilia, rapists, lying friends of rapists, friends of terrorists and Jew haters extraordinaire. To those with more than a casual knowledge of Islam, none of this is remarkable in itself, but what is remarkable is the fact that the Chairman of the East London Mosque is a certain Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, better known as the Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain.
The MCB is held up by as the true face of moderate Islam by the British government, which has rewarded Dr Bari with an OBE for his efforts in the promotion of community cohesion, following on from the knighthood awarded to his predecessor, Sir Iqbal Sacrani.
But the MCB is no such thing. On top of the troublesome connections outlined in this article, they have also stated that Britain would benefit from Sharia law, they are connected with the Muslim Brotherhood - which seeks a global Islamic rule - via their affiliation with it’s spiritual leader, Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi, and are outraged he has been refused a visa to visit Britain, apparently having no problem whatsoever with a man who condones suicide bombing against Israelis, the murder of homosexuals, the beating of women, and a man who boasts that Islam will conquer Britain and the West.
In these strange totalitarian times we live in, it is no longer possible to suggest that the Muslim Council of Britain and the East London Mosque are representative not of moderate Islam, but of imperialist Islam, of genocidal Islam, of violent, oppressive, raping, gay-murdering, honour-killing, forced-marrying, girl-mutilating, Christian-hating, Jew-hating, suicide-bombing Islam – so I will refrain from doing so. I will let readers draw their own conclusions and would suggest they also read - if they have not already done so - Adrian Morgan’s meticulously researched article on the MCB and Fjordman’s Jihad Watch article on Muslim expansion in the West.
What I would say though, is that the last few weeks reveal a great deal about the state of Britain.
Canon Ainsworth’s wife fears that publicity over her husband’s beating will lead to racial tension in the area, by which she means she is terrified that the Muslim majority in the Shadwell enclave will exact revenge for the temerity of drawing the medias attention to their initial violence.
Bunglawalah’s disgraceful attempt on behalf of the MCB to turn the faith/hate attack into an issue of Islamophobia reveals him to be a devious man whose true intentions, along with those of Dr Bari, are not community cohesion but Islamic expansionism.
The refusal of the British government to denounce the MCB, coupled with the Guardian’s promotion of Bunglawalah in the full knowledge he was being economical with the truth are symptomatic of more than just shoddy government or shoddy journalism. They are evidence of a complicit alliance with Islam in their war against Britain and the West.
The Quisling politicians and journalists would, in different times, be thrown from their offices for aiding and abetting an enemy, an offence of which they are most categorically guilty.
If one replaced The Muslim Council of Britain, Dr Bari, Mr Bunglawalah, the attack on a priest within church grounds and the rape of an English girl by a Muslim man - with the British National Party, Nick Griffin, Phil Edwards, the attack on an imam within mosque grounds and the rape of a Muslim girl by an Englishman, there would be, quite correctly, a national outcry led by the British government, the BBC and the Guardian. An outcry followed not only by the Islamic community, but also by the vast majority of the British people themselves, who, unlike their Muslim counterparts, really are moderate.
This is not of course the case here. After all we are merely white Christians living in our homeland bequeathed to us by the blood and sacrifice of our forefathers. There is no outcry, no rioting, no pressure to disband the MCB and its sinister leaders or to close down the virulently racist East London Mosque, and no heads to roll from political or media organisations.
But in the instance of this disgusting Muslim attack on a Christian priest, the sordid behaviour and lies of the inhabitants of Dr Bari’s mosque, and the perverse machinations that ensued, certain people and certain organisations have been seen to have taken very definite sides, and in so doing have made their position abundantly clear to the majority population of this country.
I’m not sure how much longer the British people will put up with all of this. A tipping point must surely be in the offing, and to judge from comments in the online MSM (including the BBC and Guardian) in relation to the incidents mentioned above, the British people are becoming increasingly – but not yet uncontrollably – angry. Not just with Islam, but with their elected representatives who appease the violent alien population and ignore and criminalise the peaceful indigenous one.
Britain is being dictated to by a violent but tiny minority of the population. It’s politicians and main media outlets have taken the side of a quasi-political movement masquerading as a religion whose history is one of unremitting violence and imperialism, and a political movement at the furthest extreme from Western Civilisation as is humanly possible.
The result of this is a country exhibiting clear signs of defeat and Dhimmitude. Our clergy and armed forces are advised to discard their dog collars and their uniforms when they enter the public domain in order to avoid being attacked. This should be an impossible, unthinkable situation, but it is the sad reality of a country ruled by an elite who seek its destruction.
But, to finish on a less depressing note, the leftist enablers of the slow motion Islamic colonisation of Britain number only in their thousands, the colonisers themselves, a mere 3% of the population today. If we wanted to, we could put a stop to this tomorrow were the knowledge and the will to hand. The will is there amongst those aware of the true nature of Islam, although the numbers are currently too low - but with every passing day the numbers grow and will continue to do so until they become unstoppable.
Islam has gone too early. Various Islamic leaders openly boast they will subsume the West through demographic growth and mass immigration, which they could have done if they had laid low rather than self-detonating and engaging in open sedition. But they are out in the open now. 9/11 and 7/7, the Madrid train bombing, these were our wake up calls and should have been Islam’s too, but they are not endowed with massive intellect. Do they really think they can carry on as they are whilst a massive majority quietly accept their fate? They appear to think we will, just as our equally ignorant leftist rulers think we will, but it ain’t ever going to happen.
There are already hints of impending revolution, the heady aroma of which hangs heavy in the air. If things continue as they are for another five years, the possibility of revolutionary change will cease to be a mere possibility and become a certified probability. And that day cannot arrive soon enough.
Thursday, 23 August 2007
A Peculiar Night In My Local
Drinking in my local pub last week – The Saracens Head – I was surprised to overhear an animated discussion revolving around the subject of one Frederick (Freddie to his friends) Thielemans.
As my fellow drinkers are, in the main, horny-handed sons of the soil, I had naturally assumed they would not be entirely au fait with the latest developments vis-à-vis European politics.
But they soon put me right. One point, repeatedly raised by a Charles Montgomery Martel (Mad Monty Martel, as he is known in the Saracens Head and the nearby Bigot’s Arms) was how extraordinarily ugly mayor Thielemans is.
I must confess that Freddie’s physical failings had until that moment quite passed me by, but with a dextrous flick of a hand more suited to the daily relief of cows, Mad Monty conjured a dog eared photograph from his corduroy pocket of none other than mayor Thielemans himself!
Good Lord, I murmured to myself, as heads craned to glimpse this quite revolting image, Mad Monty is absolutely right. Mayor Thielemans really is quite hideously ugly, how could I possibly not have noticed this before?
With an appalled fascination, we slowly passed the photograph around, shaking our heads more in sorrow than anger. One local farmer, a breeder of the scarcely known pig variety “Brusellius Horriblius” was so sickened he bought up an entire pint of Bitter and Twisted, the local brew much favoured in this part of the world.
Once Mad Monty had dried off his photograph, an eerie calm settled across the pub. The silence one may have heard when the guns fell silent during the war, or a traumatized victim perhaps feels upon receiving his medication.
Suddenly, a stentorian voice, more suited to bringing sheep dogs to heel on those desolate windswept moors nearby, abruptly crashed through the shaken and shocked pub.
“Y’ere” it bellowed, “an I’ll tell ee summat else, e’s a roight fat fookin baastard an’all!”
As I sprang to reappraise yet another overlooked aspect of mayor Thielemans, I realised that my natural inquisitiveness, or thirst for knowledge, had overcome the deference normally shown to ageing farmers, and had pushed ahead of the oldest man in the pub.
I made my apologies, but he waved them away. “No, no,” he said, “I really can’t take any more. You go ahead, take a gander, and then describe it to me, but gentle mind!” He tapped his chest a couple of times, implying that at his age, one shock per day is more than adequate.
When I looked again at the still moist photograph, I had to hit myself on the head at my lack of visual cognisance! How could I have missed this one? Not only is mayor Thielemans hideously ugly, he is also massively - if not monstrously – fat.
Well, after that, the evening turned into something of a haze. Whether it was the alcohol or some sort of post-traumatic stress disorder, I know not. All I can really remember is the final point made by Mad Monty; which bought into doubt mayor Thielemans sexuality.
Now, it is not for me to question the sexuality of the roly-poly mayor of Brussels. As far as I am concerned, if he is heterosexual, then that is his business, and his business alone. I cautioned my fellow drinkers on the litigious dangers in alluding to the heterosexuality of socialist mayors. I am sure some of them are, I explained to them, but you simply cannot tar them all with the same brush. A great many of them go home every night to nubile young Brazilian boys, just as every self respecting socialist mayor is expected to do.
Mad Monty then explained why he had a photograph of Fat Freddie in his pocket. It turns out that on some EU farmers junket to Brussels in the 90’s, he had got very drunk, gate crashed a lesbian wedding ceremony for German MEP Lissy Groner and her unnamed girlfriend (did Ms Groner take the girlfriends name I wonder?) and found none other than Fat Freddie Thielemans conducting the ceremony.
Anyway, to cut a long story short, photos were taken, hence his possession of the damp, but still shockable picture in his pocket. I asked him why he carried out around with him, to which he replied that he used it as a means of inducing labour in recalcitrant cows when all else had failed.
“Better the old bitch die of shock, than a calf die inside her” as he so eloquently put it.
Returning to mayor Thielemans sexuality for a moment, I have recently been given a clipped out article from a very hungover Mad Monty, which suggests that Fat Freddie may not be heterosexual after all. According to the Brussels Evening Echo, an unattractive, corpulent individual, in possession of a luxuriant moustache, was spotted rooting around in the back alleys of the adolescent (built only fifteen years ago) Arab Quarter of downtown Brussels, red faced, sweating profusely and singing the anthem to the Red Flag.
This may or may not have been mayor Thielemans, and I would like to state, quite unequivocally, that to my mind, unpalatable though it may be, I am convinced he is heterosexual.
Mayor Thielemans is many things: The charge of being hideously ugly would have a difficult defence in a court of law, as would monstrously fat, or even viciously treacherous. But I do think we need to draw a line somewhere, and that somewhere is his sexual proclivity, be it procreative or passive. After all, if it turned out that he was indeed homosexual, what would his local voters make of that?
Given his varied physical problems, I think the least we can do is to maintain that mayor Thielemans is heterosexual, no matter what evidence comes to light in the coming months. I should hate to think of the lovely Freddie, swaying gently by his feet from a lamppost in years to come, surrounded by swarthy men loosing their Kalashnikovs into the air, whilst small boys with long memories hit his sad, podgy face with slippers, his magnificent moustache drooping poignantly downward.
C. Paul Weston
As my fellow drinkers are, in the main, horny-handed sons of the soil, I had naturally assumed they would not be entirely au fait with the latest developments vis-à-vis European politics.
But they soon put me right. One point, repeatedly raised by a Charles Montgomery Martel (Mad Monty Martel, as he is known in the Saracens Head and the nearby Bigot’s Arms) was how extraordinarily ugly mayor Thielemans is.
I must confess that Freddie’s physical failings had until that moment quite passed me by, but with a dextrous flick of a hand more suited to the daily relief of cows, Mad Monty conjured a dog eared photograph from his corduroy pocket of none other than mayor Thielemans himself!
Good Lord, I murmured to myself, as heads craned to glimpse this quite revolting image, Mad Monty is absolutely right. Mayor Thielemans really is quite hideously ugly, how could I possibly not have noticed this before?
With an appalled fascination, we slowly passed the photograph around, shaking our heads more in sorrow than anger. One local farmer, a breeder of the scarcely known pig variety “Brusellius Horriblius” was so sickened he bought up an entire pint of Bitter and Twisted, the local brew much favoured in this part of the world.
Once Mad Monty had dried off his photograph, an eerie calm settled across the pub. The silence one may have heard when the guns fell silent during the war, or a traumatized victim perhaps feels upon receiving his medication.
Suddenly, a stentorian voice, more suited to bringing sheep dogs to heel on those desolate windswept moors nearby, abruptly crashed through the shaken and shocked pub.
“Y’ere” it bellowed, “an I’ll tell ee summat else, e’s a roight fat fookin baastard an’all!”
As I sprang to reappraise yet another overlooked aspect of mayor Thielemans, I realised that my natural inquisitiveness, or thirst for knowledge, had overcome the deference normally shown to ageing farmers, and had pushed ahead of the oldest man in the pub.
I made my apologies, but he waved them away. “No, no,” he said, “I really can’t take any more. You go ahead, take a gander, and then describe it to me, but gentle mind!” He tapped his chest a couple of times, implying that at his age, one shock per day is more than adequate.
When I looked again at the still moist photograph, I had to hit myself on the head at my lack of visual cognisance! How could I have missed this one? Not only is mayor Thielemans hideously ugly, he is also massively - if not monstrously – fat.
Well, after that, the evening turned into something of a haze. Whether it was the alcohol or some sort of post-traumatic stress disorder, I know not. All I can really remember is the final point made by Mad Monty; which bought into doubt mayor Thielemans sexuality.
Now, it is not for me to question the sexuality of the roly-poly mayor of Brussels. As far as I am concerned, if he is heterosexual, then that is his business, and his business alone. I cautioned my fellow drinkers on the litigious dangers in alluding to the heterosexuality of socialist mayors. I am sure some of them are, I explained to them, but you simply cannot tar them all with the same brush. A great many of them go home every night to nubile young Brazilian boys, just as every self respecting socialist mayor is expected to do.
Mad Monty then explained why he had a photograph of Fat Freddie in his pocket. It turns out that on some EU farmers junket to Brussels in the 90’s, he had got very drunk, gate crashed a lesbian wedding ceremony for German MEP Lissy Groner and her unnamed girlfriend (did Ms Groner take the girlfriends name I wonder?) and found none other than Fat Freddie Thielemans conducting the ceremony.
Anyway, to cut a long story short, photos were taken, hence his possession of the damp, but still shockable picture in his pocket. I asked him why he carried out around with him, to which he replied that he used it as a means of inducing labour in recalcitrant cows when all else had failed.
“Better the old bitch die of shock, than a calf die inside her” as he so eloquently put it.
Returning to mayor Thielemans sexuality for a moment, I have recently been given a clipped out article from a very hungover Mad Monty, which suggests that Fat Freddie may not be heterosexual after all. According to the Brussels Evening Echo, an unattractive, corpulent individual, in possession of a luxuriant moustache, was spotted rooting around in the back alleys of the adolescent (built only fifteen years ago) Arab Quarter of downtown Brussels, red faced, sweating profusely and singing the anthem to the Red Flag.
This may or may not have been mayor Thielemans, and I would like to state, quite unequivocally, that to my mind, unpalatable though it may be, I am convinced he is heterosexual.
Mayor Thielemans is many things: The charge of being hideously ugly would have a difficult defence in a court of law, as would monstrously fat, or even viciously treacherous. But I do think we need to draw a line somewhere, and that somewhere is his sexual proclivity, be it procreative or passive. After all, if it turned out that he was indeed homosexual, what would his local voters make of that?
Given his varied physical problems, I think the least we can do is to maintain that mayor Thielemans is heterosexual, no matter what evidence comes to light in the coming months. I should hate to think of the lovely Freddie, swaying gently by his feet from a lamppost in years to come, surrounded by swarthy men loosing their Kalashnikovs into the air, whilst small boys with long memories hit his sad, podgy face with slippers, his magnificent moustache drooping poignantly downward.
C. Paul Weston
Thursday, 12 April 2007
Is European Civil War Inevitable by 2025? - Part Two
Is European Civil War Inevitable By 2025? – Part Two
Part one of this article was an explanation of why our ratio of combat age native Europeans V European Muslims could decline from 18:1 today, to 2:1 by 2025. These figures are largely irrelevant if one believes that Islam can peacefully co-exist within the West, but if such a scenario is simply a multicultural fantasy then we will shortly face a situation unprecedented in the history of mankind.
Europeans have been conditioned from an early age to celebrate diversity and multiculturalism, resulting in our genuine ability to co-exist with peoples of significantly different cultures. But, rather than what we want, is this what Islam wants? Islam is as mono-cultural as mono-cultural gets. How can they possibly live in a liberal, multicultural society?
Islam expanded via the sword. Within decades of erupting out of the deserts of 7th Century Arabia it had conquered Palestine, Persia, Egypt, India, North Africa and Spain; it’s opponents paralysed in the face of fanatical violence. It was only in 732 that Charles Martel stopped this frenetic Islamic expansion at the battle of Tours, in France.
In the 13th century Islam rose again. In 1452 they finally conquered Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, and within 100 years added Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Albania, Romania and Hungary to their empire. Attempts to take Vienna failed twice, before Jan Sobieski finally routed the Ottoman’s Islamic army in 1683 at the Gates of Vienna. The Ottoman Empire gradually fell apart after this defeat, and most occupied European countries reclaimed their independence. Christian Europe had largely prevailed.
But now, in the 21st Century, Islam is back and wants what it has always wanted; a global caliphate. This time, unlike their previous attempts to overthrow the West militarily, they are already within Europe, well funded, radicalised, rapidly expanding, and as their numbers grow, so grows the violence they perpetrate, as we have seen all over Europe within the last few years.
And not only within Europe; Islam is engaged in religious conflict all around the world, from America, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Kashmir, India, Russia, the Lebanon, Palestine, etc etc. Wherever Islam comes into contact with non-Islam there is conflict.
In each and every country, one glaring reality stands out. It is always Islam as the aggressor, even when they are in a minority of 5% such as Thailand, a country sliding inexorably toward civil war. Such is the prevalence of Islamic violence that Samuel Huntingdon, author of The Clash Of Civilisations coined the phrase “Islam’s bloody borders” the violence of which is represented by Gates Of Vienna’s animated Bloody Borders project which identifies Islamic terrorist activity since 9/11.
Why do Islamists do this? Because they are commanded to, it is as simple as that. To be a Muslim means to obey the Koran, within which there are numerous commands to wage Jihad, or Holy War, against the infidel. Granted, there is no single explicit command, but it is possible to interpret many as such, which is exactly what radical Imams are doing all across the West. Unlike a modern day Christian’s tenuous relationship with the Bible, Muslims adhere to every edict of the Koran as slavishly as they did in the 7th Century. Unfortunately for us, the principal edict is to conquer all non-believers.
To this end there are now some 2,000 Mosques in Western Europe, many of them funded directly by Saudi Arabia to the tune of 90 billion dollars in which Imams - trained or imported from Saudi Arabia - preach extreme Wahhabism. They call for the overthrow of the West, and promote suicide bombing and martyrdom. Channel Four recently sent an undercover reporter into various Mosques in the UK, which exposed Imams in their call for Holy War against the West, which can be seen here on Youtube. CNN also ran an interview with Al-Muhajiroun’s Anjem Choudray, where he calls for Sharia law in Britain. He also prophesised that the Islamic flag will fly over 10 Downing Street.
The concept of Sharia law is not fully understood by the majority of Europeans. Under it they could be killed if they refused to convert to Islam or accept second-class status known as Dhimmitude. Homosexuals could similarly be killed, apostates killed, adulterous woman stoned to death, whilst limbs could be amputated for stealing. 40% of British Muslims wish this to be introduced.
What percentage of that 40% are young males? Muslim women have a great deal to be unhappy about under Sharia law, whilst older Muslims are far less radicalised than the young. It is quite possible therefore, that young males with a favourable view of Sharia constitute a higher figure than the 40% suggests.
So, Islam has a history of attempted Western conquest, and a present day policy of global domination, for which they are happy, in countries such as Sudan, to perpetrate genocide. In the West, their Jihadist rhetoric is accompanied by large-scale violence such as 9/11, the London tube bombings, the Madrid train bombings, and the lesser violence such as the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the indescribable torture and murder of Ilan Halami, the rape of European women as described by Fjordman, the civil unrest in France, where police claim they are in the midst of a civil war, and the death threats made against politicians who speak out against them, such as Gert Wilders.
Faced with this relentless tidal wave of Islamic aggression, what is the response of Europe’s ruling elites? Craven submission is the answer. In France the politicians promise more money for the banlieus, within which Sharia law operates and no white European dare set foot. In Spain they gathered in squares after the Madrid train bombing and held candle-lit peace vigils, before voting out their Government and replacing it with one more in tune to the Islamists demands. In Holland, the Dutch justice minister, Piet Hein Donner has no objection to Sharia law being imposed, providing it is done democratically, and in Sweden, integration minister Jens Orback declared: “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”
After the London tube bombings, the government’s immediate response was to worry not about the English, but about the terrible oppression the perpetrators must have suffered from in order to commit such a crime. Much to our rulers dismay, the “fabulous four” were educated and middle class; their drive was Islam, not oppression. In British schools the Holocaust is no longer taught because it runs counter to the Holocaust denial beliefs of Muslims, whilst British historian David Irving was imprisoned for holding the same views as that of the Muslims. Our teaching unions are also of the opinion that the idea of teaching British values is racist, and the BBC is so viciously anti-Christian and pro-Islamic that there is simply not the space here to detail it, it requires an article on it’s own, and a lengthy article at that. (This is one of the more imponderable pathologies the BBC exhibits, considering the corporation has more than it’s fair share of homosexuals and feminists.)
There are many, many more examples of Islamic aggression and European appeasement, but the general thrust is one of overwhelming submission on our part. European politicians are clearly terrified of Islam. As well they might be. So, what can be done? Can Islam be contained, or is Europe drifting inexorably to all out civil war?
Essentially, there are five options. The first is that Islam integrates within Europe’s liberal democracies and we all live happily ever after. This scenario takes no account of the moral sewer that Liberal policies have turned Europe into; a Europe which Islam, quite understandably, views with revulsion. Nor does it take into account that Islam today is the same as Islam in the 7th century. Why should they reform now? Given the increasing radicalisation of Muslim youth and the disturbing numbers who agree with terrorist activity, this scenario is only possible within the mindset of deluded, ignorant liberals, whose naiveté is suicidal in the extreme. Option one can therefore be discounted.
The second option is that Islam quietly takes over demographically through sheer weight of numbers, and Europe is islamised under Sharia law. Bernard Lewis and Mark Steyn think this inevitable, Steyn being of the opinion that any country capable of the type of appeasement prevalent in Europe today, is also a country incapable of rousing a defence. Although this is a possibility, it is unlikely we will not fight back, so option two can also be discounted.
The third option is that Europe wakes up to the danger it is in and expels all it’s Muslims. This is not going to happen; the European Union positively embraces Islam, as noted in Bat Ye’Or’s book Eurabia (thankfully abridged by Fjordman). Not only does the EU have no intention of such an action, they will not even stop further Islamic immigration. The 2.2 million predominately Muslim immigrants they wish to bring into Europe each and every year up to 2050 is a done deal as far as they are concerned.
Indeed, in an extract from this disturbing report published by the European Policy Centre, the EU seeks immigration not only for economic reasons but also for social reasons: “However, the arguments against immigration remain dominant in the political debates of many European countries, and must be taken seriously and challenged if immigration is to keep its place on the social and economic agenda.” Whilst this attitude prevails we can discount option three.
The fourth option is that moderate Muslims reclaim their peaceful religion from the “fundamentalists”, who, as we are told over and over again by our media, are not representative of Islam. But where exactly are these moderate Muslims, what power do they wield within Islam as a whole? When have we seen marches and protests organised by them, waving banners reading “Not in my name” or “Not in the name of Islam?” They are as cowed by the radicals as are our politicians, or perhaps they are in agreement with them, but are squeamish when it comes to spilling blood. The only face of Islam we see or hear in the West is that of the violent Jihadist. As such, option four can be discounted.
The fifth option is that we resist the Islamic take over, and fight back. I disagree with Lewis and Steyn, who both appear to think Europe will roll over and submit. The wholesale and unprecedented racial and cultural transformation of a continent with a history of violent warfare will simply not happen without confrontation.
As options one, two, three and four can therefore be discounted; we are left only with option five, to fight. Whilst it is unfortunate that we should be confronted by an expanding, youthful culture with a set of beliefs they will die for, just at the time we are demographically declining, ageing, and apparently only believe in shopping, celebrity and alcohol, does not mean that we will not fight. We will simply have to. Not for domination, but for survival.
The history of man is essentially a history of warfare, where territory, tribe or religion drives the impetus for conquest. That our ruling liberal elites in the West today believe that history, current reality and the law of nature no longer apply to us, does not mean the end of warfare, rather, it simply makes it easier for those who wish to wage war against us. The idea that wars are a thing of the past is so fantastical that only liberals, who place fantasy over reality, could believe it.
Islamic terrorist activity is being constantly thwarted by European intelligence services, but over the next ten years some of these Jihadists will slip through the net and carry out their next atrocity. Although most Europeans are still in a deep liberal sleep regarding Islam, this will not last. By 2017 the tensions between Europeans and Islam will be nerve jangling and will be accompanied by ever-stricter government controls to keep societal order.
Somewhere between 2017 and 2030, during a period of heightened tension, Islamists in either France, Holland or Britain will blow up one church, train or plane too many, and we will retaliate. They will then retaliate, the police will be unable to cope, the army will be drafted in but will find themselves massively outnumbered and outflanked, civilians will be massacred and so a civil war will start.
When the violence starts for real, each and every person, be they moderate or extremist will be forced to take sides, and moderate Muslims will of course take the sides of the extremists. It will be a war entirely different to Europe’s previous wars, which were fought by standing armies along clearly delineated lines. Next time, it will initially be civilians, armed not with tanks and machine guns, but with knives, bombs and terror, who will fight it.
I say initially, because although the army will be of little use in the beginning, they will certainly be capable of forming an impregnable line, behind which the native Europeans, unused to knife fighting, will flee and re-group. And then, enter America, as always, Europe’s saviour. Whilst Europe’s navies blockade the ports, America will deliver weaponry to the Europeans against which Islam will have no response. Whilst they are being annihilated in response to the butchery they carried out in the early days of the war, Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Iran will threaten a nuclear response. If they do, they too will be annihilated.
Such is the future brought about by multiculteralist liberals. Not only will they be responsible for bloodshed unseen even in the last century, they will also be responsible for the extinction of Islam. In 1907 no one could see the coming carnage, whereas in 2007 all educated people with a knowledge of history can see the inevitable coming war. Quite how large it becomes is of course beyond any prediction, but rather than being merely a European war, it could well become a global nuclear war against Islam; and one they have no hope of winning.
Such a scenario is unimaginable to the vapid multiculteralist, but it is their actions, past and present, which will bring it about. One can hardly blame Islam for wishing to dominate the world, but one can certainly blame liberals for giving them the geographical means and ideological confidence whereby they feel that it is actually possible. Will they attempt it? On a small scale, with their ratio of 18:1 they are attempting it now. How do you think they will behave with a ratio of 5:1 let alone 2:1?
The liberal response to an article such as this is to make accusations of hysteria and paranoia. To those, I would say only one thing: Rather than leave sneering one line comments, write a 1,000 word article as to why the scenario outlined above is not inevitable, incorporating reality rather than ideology. I believe it is utterly inevitable, and a tragedy for the West, for Islam, for all of mankind. Please refute it. I really would like it not to be the case.
Part one of this article was an explanation of why our ratio of combat age native Europeans V European Muslims could decline from 18:1 today, to 2:1 by 2025. These figures are largely irrelevant if one believes that Islam can peacefully co-exist within the West, but if such a scenario is simply a multicultural fantasy then we will shortly face a situation unprecedented in the history of mankind.
Europeans have been conditioned from an early age to celebrate diversity and multiculturalism, resulting in our genuine ability to co-exist with peoples of significantly different cultures. But, rather than what we want, is this what Islam wants? Islam is as mono-cultural as mono-cultural gets. How can they possibly live in a liberal, multicultural society?
Islam expanded via the sword. Within decades of erupting out of the deserts of 7th Century Arabia it had conquered Palestine, Persia, Egypt, India, North Africa and Spain; it’s opponents paralysed in the face of fanatical violence. It was only in 732 that Charles Martel stopped this frenetic Islamic expansion at the battle of Tours, in France.
In the 13th century Islam rose again. In 1452 they finally conquered Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, and within 100 years added Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Albania, Romania and Hungary to their empire. Attempts to take Vienna failed twice, before Jan Sobieski finally routed the Ottoman’s Islamic army in 1683 at the Gates of Vienna. The Ottoman Empire gradually fell apart after this defeat, and most occupied European countries reclaimed their independence. Christian Europe had largely prevailed.
But now, in the 21st Century, Islam is back and wants what it has always wanted; a global caliphate. This time, unlike their previous attempts to overthrow the West militarily, they are already within Europe, well funded, radicalised, rapidly expanding, and as their numbers grow, so grows the violence they perpetrate, as we have seen all over Europe within the last few years.
And not only within Europe; Islam is engaged in religious conflict all around the world, from America, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Kashmir, India, Russia, the Lebanon, Palestine, etc etc. Wherever Islam comes into contact with non-Islam there is conflict.
In each and every country, one glaring reality stands out. It is always Islam as the aggressor, even when they are in a minority of 5% such as Thailand, a country sliding inexorably toward civil war. Such is the prevalence of Islamic violence that Samuel Huntingdon, author of The Clash Of Civilisations coined the phrase “Islam’s bloody borders” the violence of which is represented by Gates Of Vienna’s animated Bloody Borders project which identifies Islamic terrorist activity since 9/11.
Why do Islamists do this? Because they are commanded to, it is as simple as that. To be a Muslim means to obey the Koran, within which there are numerous commands to wage Jihad, or Holy War, against the infidel. Granted, there is no single explicit command, but it is possible to interpret many as such, which is exactly what radical Imams are doing all across the West. Unlike a modern day Christian’s tenuous relationship with the Bible, Muslims adhere to every edict of the Koran as slavishly as they did in the 7th Century. Unfortunately for us, the principal edict is to conquer all non-believers.
To this end there are now some 2,000 Mosques in Western Europe, many of them funded directly by Saudi Arabia to the tune of 90 billion dollars in which Imams - trained or imported from Saudi Arabia - preach extreme Wahhabism. They call for the overthrow of the West, and promote suicide bombing and martyrdom. Channel Four recently sent an undercover reporter into various Mosques in the UK, which exposed Imams in their call for Holy War against the West, which can be seen here on Youtube. CNN also ran an interview with Al-Muhajiroun’s Anjem Choudray, where he calls for Sharia law in Britain. He also prophesised that the Islamic flag will fly over 10 Downing Street.
The concept of Sharia law is not fully understood by the majority of Europeans. Under it they could be killed if they refused to convert to Islam or accept second-class status known as Dhimmitude. Homosexuals could similarly be killed, apostates killed, adulterous woman stoned to death, whilst limbs could be amputated for stealing. 40% of British Muslims wish this to be introduced.
What percentage of that 40% are young males? Muslim women have a great deal to be unhappy about under Sharia law, whilst older Muslims are far less radicalised than the young. It is quite possible therefore, that young males with a favourable view of Sharia constitute a higher figure than the 40% suggests.
So, Islam has a history of attempted Western conquest, and a present day policy of global domination, for which they are happy, in countries such as Sudan, to perpetrate genocide. In the West, their Jihadist rhetoric is accompanied by large-scale violence such as 9/11, the London tube bombings, the Madrid train bombings, and the lesser violence such as the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the indescribable torture and murder of Ilan Halami, the rape of European women as described by Fjordman, the civil unrest in France, where police claim they are in the midst of a civil war, and the death threats made against politicians who speak out against them, such as Gert Wilders.
Faced with this relentless tidal wave of Islamic aggression, what is the response of Europe’s ruling elites? Craven submission is the answer. In France the politicians promise more money for the banlieus, within which Sharia law operates and no white European dare set foot. In Spain they gathered in squares after the Madrid train bombing and held candle-lit peace vigils, before voting out their Government and replacing it with one more in tune to the Islamists demands. In Holland, the Dutch justice minister, Piet Hein Donner has no objection to Sharia law being imposed, providing it is done democratically, and in Sweden, integration minister Jens Orback declared: “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”
After the London tube bombings, the government’s immediate response was to worry not about the English, but about the terrible oppression the perpetrators must have suffered from in order to commit such a crime. Much to our rulers dismay, the “fabulous four” were educated and middle class; their drive was Islam, not oppression. In British schools the Holocaust is no longer taught because it runs counter to the Holocaust denial beliefs of Muslims, whilst British historian David Irving was imprisoned for holding the same views as that of the Muslims. Our teaching unions are also of the opinion that the idea of teaching British values is racist, and the BBC is so viciously anti-Christian and pro-Islamic that there is simply not the space here to detail it, it requires an article on it’s own, and a lengthy article at that. (This is one of the more imponderable pathologies the BBC exhibits, considering the corporation has more than it’s fair share of homosexuals and feminists.)
There are many, many more examples of Islamic aggression and European appeasement, but the general thrust is one of overwhelming submission on our part. European politicians are clearly terrified of Islam. As well they might be. So, what can be done? Can Islam be contained, or is Europe drifting inexorably to all out civil war?
Essentially, there are five options. The first is that Islam integrates within Europe’s liberal democracies and we all live happily ever after. This scenario takes no account of the moral sewer that Liberal policies have turned Europe into; a Europe which Islam, quite understandably, views with revulsion. Nor does it take into account that Islam today is the same as Islam in the 7th century. Why should they reform now? Given the increasing radicalisation of Muslim youth and the disturbing numbers who agree with terrorist activity, this scenario is only possible within the mindset of deluded, ignorant liberals, whose naiveté is suicidal in the extreme. Option one can therefore be discounted.
The second option is that Islam quietly takes over demographically through sheer weight of numbers, and Europe is islamised under Sharia law. Bernard Lewis and Mark Steyn think this inevitable, Steyn being of the opinion that any country capable of the type of appeasement prevalent in Europe today, is also a country incapable of rousing a defence. Although this is a possibility, it is unlikely we will not fight back, so option two can also be discounted.
The third option is that Europe wakes up to the danger it is in and expels all it’s Muslims. This is not going to happen; the European Union positively embraces Islam, as noted in Bat Ye’Or’s book Eurabia (thankfully abridged by Fjordman). Not only does the EU have no intention of such an action, they will not even stop further Islamic immigration. The 2.2 million predominately Muslim immigrants they wish to bring into Europe each and every year up to 2050 is a done deal as far as they are concerned.
Indeed, in an extract from this disturbing report published by the European Policy Centre, the EU seeks immigration not only for economic reasons but also for social reasons: “However, the arguments against immigration remain dominant in the political debates of many European countries, and must be taken seriously and challenged if immigration is to keep its place on the social and economic agenda.” Whilst this attitude prevails we can discount option three.
The fourth option is that moderate Muslims reclaim their peaceful religion from the “fundamentalists”, who, as we are told over and over again by our media, are not representative of Islam. But where exactly are these moderate Muslims, what power do they wield within Islam as a whole? When have we seen marches and protests organised by them, waving banners reading “Not in my name” or “Not in the name of Islam?” They are as cowed by the radicals as are our politicians, or perhaps they are in agreement with them, but are squeamish when it comes to spilling blood. The only face of Islam we see or hear in the West is that of the violent Jihadist. As such, option four can be discounted.
The fifth option is that we resist the Islamic take over, and fight back. I disagree with Lewis and Steyn, who both appear to think Europe will roll over and submit. The wholesale and unprecedented racial and cultural transformation of a continent with a history of violent warfare will simply not happen without confrontation.
As options one, two, three and four can therefore be discounted; we are left only with option five, to fight. Whilst it is unfortunate that we should be confronted by an expanding, youthful culture with a set of beliefs they will die for, just at the time we are demographically declining, ageing, and apparently only believe in shopping, celebrity and alcohol, does not mean that we will not fight. We will simply have to. Not for domination, but for survival.
The history of man is essentially a history of warfare, where territory, tribe or religion drives the impetus for conquest. That our ruling liberal elites in the West today believe that history, current reality and the law of nature no longer apply to us, does not mean the end of warfare, rather, it simply makes it easier for those who wish to wage war against us. The idea that wars are a thing of the past is so fantastical that only liberals, who place fantasy over reality, could believe it.
Islamic terrorist activity is being constantly thwarted by European intelligence services, but over the next ten years some of these Jihadists will slip through the net and carry out their next atrocity. Although most Europeans are still in a deep liberal sleep regarding Islam, this will not last. By 2017 the tensions between Europeans and Islam will be nerve jangling and will be accompanied by ever-stricter government controls to keep societal order.
Somewhere between 2017 and 2030, during a period of heightened tension, Islamists in either France, Holland or Britain will blow up one church, train or plane too many, and we will retaliate. They will then retaliate, the police will be unable to cope, the army will be drafted in but will find themselves massively outnumbered and outflanked, civilians will be massacred and so a civil war will start.
When the violence starts for real, each and every person, be they moderate or extremist will be forced to take sides, and moderate Muslims will of course take the sides of the extremists. It will be a war entirely different to Europe’s previous wars, which were fought by standing armies along clearly delineated lines. Next time, it will initially be civilians, armed not with tanks and machine guns, but with knives, bombs and terror, who will fight it.
I say initially, because although the army will be of little use in the beginning, they will certainly be capable of forming an impregnable line, behind which the native Europeans, unused to knife fighting, will flee and re-group. And then, enter America, as always, Europe’s saviour. Whilst Europe’s navies blockade the ports, America will deliver weaponry to the Europeans against which Islam will have no response. Whilst they are being annihilated in response to the butchery they carried out in the early days of the war, Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Iran will threaten a nuclear response. If they do, they too will be annihilated.
Such is the future brought about by multiculteralist liberals. Not only will they be responsible for bloodshed unseen even in the last century, they will also be responsible for the extinction of Islam. In 1907 no one could see the coming carnage, whereas in 2007 all educated people with a knowledge of history can see the inevitable coming war. Quite how large it becomes is of course beyond any prediction, but rather than being merely a European war, it could well become a global nuclear war against Islam; and one they have no hope of winning.
Such a scenario is unimaginable to the vapid multiculteralist, but it is their actions, past and present, which will bring it about. One can hardly blame Islam for wishing to dominate the world, but one can certainly blame liberals for giving them the geographical means and ideological confidence whereby they feel that it is actually possible. Will they attempt it? On a small scale, with their ratio of 18:1 they are attempting it now. How do you think they will behave with a ratio of 5:1 let alone 2:1?
The liberal response to an article such as this is to make accusations of hysteria and paranoia. To those, I would say only one thing: Rather than leave sneering one line comments, write a 1,000 word article as to why the scenario outlined above is not inevitable, incorporating reality rather than ideology. I believe it is utterly inevitable, and a tragedy for the West, for Islam, for all of mankind. Please refute it. I really would like it not to be the case.
Tuesday, 10 April 2007
Is European Civil War Inevitable By 2025?
If I were to tell you that within twenty years, Europe could find itself engaged in a civil war so bloody it made WWII look like a bun fight, you might logically consider me a candidate for the men in white coats. You would be wrong however. Based on the demographic evidence collated for this article, such a scenario looks not merely possible, but inevitable. In 2005 European males aged 20-40 outnumbered Muslim males of a similar age by 18:1. By 2025 this ratio could drop to a mere 2:1.
There is a common misconception that a significant erosion of our present 95% non-Muslim European majority could not possibly occur for many decades to come. People such as historian Bernard Lewis, a man whose views on Islam are held in high esteem, exacerbate this. When he made his prediction in 2004 that Europe would be Islamic by the end of the century, he did so on the basis of an overall Muslim majority.
Although such a dire prediction is shocking, it does not force us into a position where urgent steps need to be taken to alleviate such a future. We will not be here at such a distant point and can therefore presently reject as overly extreme the actions necessary to prevent it. Suppose though, that contrary to Professor Lewis’s benign view of a “democratically Islamic Europe”, Europe’s Muslims felt unwilling to wait another 80 years to expand their caliphate via the voting booth, and decided instead to take Europe through force.
In this scenario our majority is rapidly eroded due to a number of factors. In 2005, European males aged 0-19 (those capable of fighting in twenty years time) accounted for only 10% of their total population. Muslim males in the same age bracket accounted for 23% of theirs. These figures can be seen HERE (John, can you link to the excel sheet somehow?) and are extracted from the population pyramids compiled by the US Census Bureau 2005. (These figures represent all the countries in continental Europe, rather than EU member states alone).
In addition, the Muslim population, with it’s birth rate of 3.5 children per women effectively doubles it’s next generation, whilst the European birth rate of 1.5 children per woman ensures the next generation is 25% smaller than that of it’s parents.
This loss of almost 1/3 of tomorrow’s generation necessitates massive immigration in order to prop up our welfare states, the majority of which is set to come from Muslim countries. According to the Daily Telegraph the UN predicts Europe will need to take in 2.2 million immigrants per year, through to 2050.
Once the Muslim population climbs over 3% of the population in Western countries, native Europeans start to emigrate. The Dutch, French, Germans and British are leaving in unprecedented numbers, as noted in a Daniel Pipes article entitled Europeans fleeing Eurabia which should be read in conjunction with this article.
If it is really true that up to 40% of Muslims wish to see Europe operating under Sharia Law, then the ingredients for a European V Islamic civil war are already in place, save Muslim weight of numbers; an issue being rapidly resolved. By 2025 the combination of factors mentioned above will lead to such a massive transformation in Europe’s demographic make up that Islam may well have sufficient numbers to confront us.
I first read Pat Buchanan’s book Death Of The West three years ago, which opened my eyes to the demographic imbalance between the birth rates of native Europeans and Muslim immigrants. Although full of doom and gloom, Buchanan never ventured a particular opinion on the likelihood of a full-blown war, perhaps due to the likely backlash from Muslims in America.
This omission was partly rectified by Mark Steyn in America Alone where he does mention war as a possible scenario, but neglects to predict any particular decade. Indeed, he seems to be of the opinion that Europe will acquiesce without any resistance at all. Much as I respect Mr Steyn, I believe he is utterly wrong about this. Europeans have a history of warfare; it is unlikely we will roll over without a fight.
If a Europe V Islam civil war is a possibility, then it is clearly prudent to look at the demographics of the particular section of our population who will actually fight it: Males aged between 18-40. The ratio of these potential combatants in 2005 was 18:1 in our favour.
Now, 18:1 appears to be a number that we can cope with, albeit with a certain amount of low-level violence, but what happens when that ratio becomes 10:1 or 5:1? What would be the likely result, for example, if twenty-five European chartered accountants were confronted by five machete wielding Jihadists? The answer is fairly predictable; they would run away, to file tax returns another day.
Suppose though, that inside each accountant’s briefcase, lurking alongside their blackberries and slide rules was a machete twice the size of the Jihadists preferred tools of trade? Same answer, they will still seek to escape. Knife fighting to the death is not on the curriculum at the East Midlands College of Accountancy and Equality, nor is it in the temperament of average European males, be they football hooligans with a penchant for fisticuffs let alone accountants.
Conversely, when a solitary but fully armed US Marine finds himself confronted by five machete wielding Jihadists, it’s fairly safe to say he will recount the ensuing events to his comrades the following morning. The Jihadists, on the other hand, are more likely to have had an up close and personal chat with Allah, prior to salaciously indulging themselves amongst their newly acquired harem of celestial virgins.
Which brings me to the point of this article. 5:1 is no guarantee that the majority will win and 5:1 is where we will find ourselves long before 2025. When I started looking at these figures, I anticipated that the numbers necessary for a civil war - based on today’s 18:1 - would not be in place until well into the second half of this century, but I was wrong. By 2025 Europe could find itself with a potential combatant ratio of 2:1 as shown in the following extrapolated figures, with the figures rounded up or down:
Year 2005 – Overall Population.
Total Population: 519 million
Non-Muslim European population: 494 Million.
Muslim population: 26 Million.
Ratio: 19:1
Year 2005 – Males Aged 20-40
Non-Muslim European population: 70.3 Million.
Muslim population: 3.9 Million 1
Ratio: 18:1
Year 2025 – Males Aged 20-40
Non-Muslim European Population: 53.4Million
Muslim Population: 5.9 Million
Ratio: 9:1
This ratio of 9:1 is not hypothetical; the people it represents are already here in our maternity wards and schools. It does not however, represent the true picture of 2025. Europe’s welfare states need a constant supply of workers to dependants, a situation that requires immigration due to feminism’s legacy of career before children. The aforementioned UN report suggests that Europe will require 2.2 million immigrants per year, with the majority coming from Muslim countries. When these extra 28 million immigrants are taken into account the figures look as follows.
Year 2025 – Males Aged 20-40
Non-Muslim European Population: 53.4 Million
Muslim Population: 10.1 Million 2
Ratio: 5:1
As these numbers slowly change the character of Europe, many Europeans will simply pack up and leave, a situation occurring already in unprecedented numbers in countries such as Holland which has a 6% Muslim population, one of the highest in Western Europe. According to the Telegraaf an estimated 121,000 native Dutch emigrated in 2006 compared to only 30,000 in 1999. The demographic profile of these emigrants was well educated, 35-44 with good incomes. Their exodus represents a massive 4.5% of their entire age group. In one year.
In Britain, with a lower Muslim percentage but a higher incidence of terrorist activity, more than one in two wish to emigrate. So, to take an overly conservative figure of emigration amongst 20-40 year olds running at a mere 1% per annum, the figures would look as follows.
Year 2025 – Males Aged 20-40
Non-Muslim European Population: 44.6 Million
Muslim Population: 10.1 Million
Ratio: 4:1
In the event of civil war erupting, does anyone seriously think that Turkey would remain on the sidelines? By 2025 there will be some 12 million Turkish males of fighting age. They will
probably be part of the European Union well before then, but if not, it is unlikely that the necessity of a visa will stop them from crossing the border in aid of their fellow Muslims. Should this transpire, the figures are as follows:
Year 2025 – Males Aged 20-40
Non-Muslim Population: 44.6 million
Muslim population: 22.1 million
Ratio: 2:1
Third world immigration into Europe is quite possibly an issue that politically correct Europeans will grudgingly accept; the Islamification of Europe is another matter entirely and I have seen nothing in the rhetoric or physical actions of European Muslims to suggest this is not their aim. Europeans will not allow this to happen, the politicians in suits will find themselves usurped by the men in the streets. This is why these numbers are so important.
And these numbers are probably worse than I suggest here. As events unfold, the 1% trickle of European emigration I cite could well turn into a flood. Daniel Pipes thinks an exodus of the bourgeoisie a distinct possibility. Also, I am not a demographer3, so I have no idea how to factor in the children of the millions of immigrants predicted to arrive year on year through to 2050. In addition, the majority of immigration is likely to be made up 20-40 year olds, so the 15% figure of their total between now and 2025 could be only half of the true number.
Finally, what statistical advantage do fanatics prepared to die for their cause have over post Christian Europeans? Unless things change, Europe will find itself with a mere 2:1 advantage within 18 years, and a 5:1 advantage within the next ten. I wouldn’t like odds of 5:1 let alone 2:1, and the argument that moderate Muslims will not become involved is specious; once a few tit for tat atrocities are committed, everybody will be forced to take sides.
The ramifications of these figures will deeply affect Europe over the next ten years, which I will discuss in part two of this article.
Copyright: Paul Weston 2007
Note 1: The US Census population pyramids suggest countries with high birth rates - i.e. Muslim - are made up of 23% male 0-19 year olds, and 15% male 20-39 year olds. These are the percentages used for this article in the regrettable absence of census figures.
Note 2: I have taken the immigration rate as being 70% Islamic, and used 15% of this figure to arrive at the number of males aged 20-40.
Note 3: I am neither a demographer nor mathematician. Due to this, there are slight inconsistencies in the excel spreadsheet accompanying this article, although they do not affect the overall figures. One example is my use of 20-40 year olds rather than 18-40 year olds, purely as an ease of projection. Should there be any professional demographers reading this, perhaps they could build a spreadsheet acceptable to scholars. These figures need to be in the public domain and discussed at the highest level.
There is a common misconception that a significant erosion of our present 95% non-Muslim European majority could not possibly occur for many decades to come. People such as historian Bernard Lewis, a man whose views on Islam are held in high esteem, exacerbate this. When he made his prediction in 2004 that Europe would be Islamic by the end of the century, he did so on the basis of an overall Muslim majority.
Although such a dire prediction is shocking, it does not force us into a position where urgent steps need to be taken to alleviate such a future. We will not be here at such a distant point and can therefore presently reject as overly extreme the actions necessary to prevent it. Suppose though, that contrary to Professor Lewis’s benign view of a “democratically Islamic Europe”, Europe’s Muslims felt unwilling to wait another 80 years to expand their caliphate via the voting booth, and decided instead to take Europe through force.
In this scenario our majority is rapidly eroded due to a number of factors. In 2005, European males aged 0-19 (those capable of fighting in twenty years time) accounted for only 10% of their total population. Muslim males in the same age bracket accounted for 23% of theirs. These figures can be seen HERE (John, can you link to the excel sheet somehow?) and are extracted from the population pyramids compiled by the US Census Bureau 2005. (These figures represent all the countries in continental Europe, rather than EU member states alone).
In addition, the Muslim population, with it’s birth rate of 3.5 children per women effectively doubles it’s next generation, whilst the European birth rate of 1.5 children per woman ensures the next generation is 25% smaller than that of it’s parents.
This loss of almost 1/3 of tomorrow’s generation necessitates massive immigration in order to prop up our welfare states, the majority of which is set to come from Muslim countries. According to the Daily Telegraph the UN predicts Europe will need to take in 2.2 million immigrants per year, through to 2050.
Once the Muslim population climbs over 3% of the population in Western countries, native Europeans start to emigrate. The Dutch, French, Germans and British are leaving in unprecedented numbers, as noted in a Daniel Pipes article entitled Europeans fleeing Eurabia which should be read in conjunction with this article.
If it is really true that up to 40% of Muslims wish to see Europe operating under Sharia Law, then the ingredients for a European V Islamic civil war are already in place, save Muslim weight of numbers; an issue being rapidly resolved. By 2025 the combination of factors mentioned above will lead to such a massive transformation in Europe’s demographic make up that Islam may well have sufficient numbers to confront us.
I first read Pat Buchanan’s book Death Of The West three years ago, which opened my eyes to the demographic imbalance between the birth rates of native Europeans and Muslim immigrants. Although full of doom and gloom, Buchanan never ventured a particular opinion on the likelihood of a full-blown war, perhaps due to the likely backlash from Muslims in America.
This omission was partly rectified by Mark Steyn in America Alone where he does mention war as a possible scenario, but neglects to predict any particular decade. Indeed, he seems to be of the opinion that Europe will acquiesce without any resistance at all. Much as I respect Mr Steyn, I believe he is utterly wrong about this. Europeans have a history of warfare; it is unlikely we will roll over without a fight.
If a Europe V Islam civil war is a possibility, then it is clearly prudent to look at the demographics of the particular section of our population who will actually fight it: Males aged between 18-40. The ratio of these potential combatants in 2005 was 18:1 in our favour.
Now, 18:1 appears to be a number that we can cope with, albeit with a certain amount of low-level violence, but what happens when that ratio becomes 10:1 or 5:1? What would be the likely result, for example, if twenty-five European chartered accountants were confronted by five machete wielding Jihadists? The answer is fairly predictable; they would run away, to file tax returns another day.
Suppose though, that inside each accountant’s briefcase, lurking alongside their blackberries and slide rules was a machete twice the size of the Jihadists preferred tools of trade? Same answer, they will still seek to escape. Knife fighting to the death is not on the curriculum at the East Midlands College of Accountancy and Equality, nor is it in the temperament of average European males, be they football hooligans with a penchant for fisticuffs let alone accountants.
Conversely, when a solitary but fully armed US Marine finds himself confronted by five machete wielding Jihadists, it’s fairly safe to say he will recount the ensuing events to his comrades the following morning. The Jihadists, on the other hand, are more likely to have had an up close and personal chat with Allah, prior to salaciously indulging themselves amongst their newly acquired harem of celestial virgins.
Which brings me to the point of this article. 5:1 is no guarantee that the majority will win and 5:1 is where we will find ourselves long before 2025. When I started looking at these figures, I anticipated that the numbers necessary for a civil war - based on today’s 18:1 - would not be in place until well into the second half of this century, but I was wrong. By 2025 Europe could find itself with a potential combatant ratio of 2:1 as shown in the following extrapolated figures, with the figures rounded up or down:
Year 2005 – Overall Population.
Total Population: 519 million
Non-Muslim European population: 494 Million.
Muslim population: 26 Million.
Ratio: 19:1
Year 2005 – Males Aged 20-40
Non-Muslim European population: 70.3 Million.
Muslim population: 3.9 Million 1
Ratio: 18:1
Year 2025 – Males Aged 20-40
Non-Muslim European Population: 53.4Million
Muslim Population: 5.9 Million
Ratio: 9:1
This ratio of 9:1 is not hypothetical; the people it represents are already here in our maternity wards and schools. It does not however, represent the true picture of 2025. Europe’s welfare states need a constant supply of workers to dependants, a situation that requires immigration due to feminism’s legacy of career before children. The aforementioned UN report suggests that Europe will require 2.2 million immigrants per year, with the majority coming from Muslim countries. When these extra 28 million immigrants are taken into account the figures look as follows.
Year 2025 – Males Aged 20-40
Non-Muslim European Population: 53.4 Million
Muslim Population: 10.1 Million 2
Ratio: 5:1
As these numbers slowly change the character of Europe, many Europeans will simply pack up and leave, a situation occurring already in unprecedented numbers in countries such as Holland which has a 6% Muslim population, one of the highest in Western Europe. According to the Telegraaf an estimated 121,000 native Dutch emigrated in 2006 compared to only 30,000 in 1999. The demographic profile of these emigrants was well educated, 35-44 with good incomes. Their exodus represents a massive 4.5% of their entire age group. In one year.
In Britain, with a lower Muslim percentage but a higher incidence of terrorist activity, more than one in two wish to emigrate. So, to take an overly conservative figure of emigration amongst 20-40 year olds running at a mere 1% per annum, the figures would look as follows.
Year 2025 – Males Aged 20-40
Non-Muslim European Population: 44.6 Million
Muslim Population: 10.1 Million
Ratio: 4:1
In the event of civil war erupting, does anyone seriously think that Turkey would remain on the sidelines? By 2025 there will be some 12 million Turkish males of fighting age. They will
probably be part of the European Union well before then, but if not, it is unlikely that the necessity of a visa will stop them from crossing the border in aid of their fellow Muslims. Should this transpire, the figures are as follows:
Year 2025 – Males Aged 20-40
Non-Muslim Population: 44.6 million
Muslim population: 22.1 million
Ratio: 2:1
Third world immigration into Europe is quite possibly an issue that politically correct Europeans will grudgingly accept; the Islamification of Europe is another matter entirely and I have seen nothing in the rhetoric or physical actions of European Muslims to suggest this is not their aim. Europeans will not allow this to happen, the politicians in suits will find themselves usurped by the men in the streets. This is why these numbers are so important.
And these numbers are probably worse than I suggest here. As events unfold, the 1% trickle of European emigration I cite could well turn into a flood. Daniel Pipes thinks an exodus of the bourgeoisie a distinct possibility. Also, I am not a demographer3, so I have no idea how to factor in the children of the millions of immigrants predicted to arrive year on year through to 2050. In addition, the majority of immigration is likely to be made up 20-40 year olds, so the 15% figure of their total between now and 2025 could be only half of the true number.
Finally, what statistical advantage do fanatics prepared to die for their cause have over post Christian Europeans? Unless things change, Europe will find itself with a mere 2:1 advantage within 18 years, and a 5:1 advantage within the next ten. I wouldn’t like odds of 5:1 let alone 2:1, and the argument that moderate Muslims will not become involved is specious; once a few tit for tat atrocities are committed, everybody will be forced to take sides.
The ramifications of these figures will deeply affect Europe over the next ten years, which I will discuss in part two of this article.
Copyright: Paul Weston 2007
Note 1: The US Census population pyramids suggest countries with high birth rates - i.e. Muslim - are made up of 23% male 0-19 year olds, and 15% male 20-39 year olds. These are the percentages used for this article in the regrettable absence of census figures.
Note 2: I have taken the immigration rate as being 70% Islamic, and used 15% of this figure to arrive at the number of males aged 20-40.
Note 3: I am neither a demographer nor mathematician. Due to this, there are slight inconsistencies in the excel spreadsheet accompanying this article, although they do not affect the overall figures. One example is my use of 20-40 year olds rather than 18-40 year olds, purely as an ease of projection. Should there be any professional demographers reading this, perhaps they could build a spreadsheet acceptable to scholars. These figures need to be in the public domain and discussed at the highest level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)