The Suppression Of Free Speech In Britain

In 1984 a British headmaster, Ray Honeyford, wrote an article for “The Salisbury Review” where he questioned the values of multiculturalism, which he deemed to be segregationist rather than “inclusive”.

Mr Honeyford, a brave, decent and completely apolitical man was driven to write the article by his belief that young ethnic children were being badly let down educationally, and that their future life chances were being sacrificed for Leftist political gain.

Mr Honeyford was chased from his job amid accusations of racism in a carefully orchestrated political alliance of the hard left coupled with various ethnic-minority spokesmen.

Whether this contributed solely to future anti-racist legislation is unclear, but it certainly played its part.

In 1986 new legislation was passed to counter the rhetoric of such men as Ray Honeyford in the form of the Public Order Act 1986, Section 17 of which clarified racial hatred as being:

“..hatred against a group of persons in Great Britain defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins.”

Section 18 clarified racist behaviour as:

“The use of words or behaviour or display of written material intended or likely to stir up racial hatred.”

The maximum penalty for any individual found guilty of contravening this act was two years imprisonment.

In 1993 a young black male called Stephen Lawrence was allegedly (legally speaking) stabbed to death by a gang of five white youths in Eltham, south London.

The case was seriously mishandled by the police which led to media hysteria and an investigation by Sir William Macpherson who subsequently published a seminal study in 1999 known as the Macpherson Report which, in addition to labelling the police as “institutionally racist” gave birth to eighteen words which have been used by the British authorities to clamp down on any speech critical of any minority group. The exact wording is as follows:

“A racial incident is one that is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.”

In 1998 the Crime And Disorder Act 1998 extended the maximum jail sentence over and above normal sentence times if racial aggravation was used in crimes up to and including murder.

In 2006 the Racial And Religious Hatred Act 2006 was passed which classified religious hatred along the same lines as racial hatred and extended the jail sentence for transgression to seven years.

2006 also saw the introduction of the Equality Act 2006 which swept away the Commission For Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission and replaced then with a single entity called the Commission For Equality And Human Rights or CEHR.

In 2007 the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill was passed, with an amendment that bought homophobic hate crime in line with the definition of racial or religious hatred, including a maximum jail sentence of seven years.

In addition to the above legislation, Britain has also seen the introduction of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, both of which have been used to suppress freedom of speech in the UK.

Ray Honeyford was fortunate that none of the above legislation was in place when he transgressed the racial thought police in 1984. Other people have not been so lucky.

Robin Page, a television presenter, was arrested in 2002 for inciting racial hatred when he stated that people living in the countryside, and who supported fox hunting, should be granted the same rights as blacks, gays and lesbians. The police claimed they had received reports from distressed persons unknown, although it seems likely they acted on their own volition.

Fourteen-year-old schoolgirl Codie Stott was arrested over a “racial incident” in 2006, after she asked to be moved to a different discussion group where her fellow pupils actually spoke English. She was released without charge but only after spending several hours in the cells where her DNA was taken.

Much to the chagrin of the Muslim Council of Britain, Robert Kilroy-Silk was not prosecuted for inciting racial hatred after he described Muslims as suicide bombers and limb amputators in a 2004 Independent newspaper article. The police wanted to prosecute but were advised by the Crown Prosecution Service there was insufficient evidence. Despite this, Kilroy-Silk still lost his job as a television show host.

In 2006, Nick Griffin, Chairman of The British National Party was acquitted (at the second time of asking) over inciting racial hatred, after he publicly accused Islam of being a wicked and vicious faith. His acquittal, after Muslims were deemed a religion rather than a race, was the prime motivation for the religious aspect to be introduced into The Racial And Religious Hatred Act 2006.

The blogger Lionheart has now been arrested and bailed on charges of inciting racial/religious hatred. If found guilty, he faces seven years in prison. We await news of this with hope rather than certainty as to the possible prosecution. His crime? He detailed the activities of Muslim criminals in the Luton area. I have read his blog and nowhere does he call for deportation of, or violence toward, British Muslims.

A retired couple, Joe and Helen Roberts were warned by Lancashire police in 2005 that their request to display Christian literature alongside homosexual rights pamphlets at their local council offices was discriminatory and homophobic, that they were walking on eggshells and that they were almost guilty of a hate crime. Much as Lancashire police wanted them to be guilty, they would have to wait a couple of years for the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2007 to be enacted in order to criminalise them.

Author Lynette Burrows was cautioned by the Metropolitan Police in 2006, for suggesting that male homosexuals did not make ideal adoptive parents. This was in the build up to the introduction of the rights of homosexual males to adopt children, built into The Equality Act 2006 which was passed without the necessity of asking whether homosexual males were more likely to commit child abuse than heterosexual couples, which according to Family Research Council they overwhelmingly are. (Note: this report has been censored).

In 2005 Maya Ann Evans was arrested for reading out the names of British soldiers killed in the Iraq war whilst standing next to the Cenotaph, a memorial to the war dead close to the House of Commons. In so doing, she contravened section 132 of The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 which had purportedly been enacted to prevent terrorist attacks at the seat of British government.

The use of anti-terrorism legislation has now spread to local councils who use it to spy on essentially law abiding people who may have lied about their post code in order to obtain a place at school for their children, but was used most famously when Walter Wolfgang was detained by police under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. His crime had been to attempt to rejoin the Labour Party Conference of 2005, having been physically ejected for daring to heckle a speaker over the war in Iraq.

The latest attempt to muzzle free speech occurred in Birmingham in May 2008, when two Christian preachers, Arthur Cunningham and Joseph Abraham, were warned by a Muslim police community support officer that handing out Christian literature in a Muslim area was a “hate crime” and could lead to their being beaten up if they dared to return. West Midlands Police refuse to apologise for this incident.

What should be apparent by now is the proclivity of the of the newly politicised British police to crack down on any dissent from indigenous Britons if they voice their concerns over any matter relating to race, religion of a non-Christian bent, gender or sexuality, all of which run counter to traditional Western civilisation.

This is the culture war in all its glory. The myriad laws passed in recent years are simply there in order to stifle discussion, let alone dissent, in the Liberal/Lefts ongoing war against that which they hate – indigenous European, Christian, heterosexual families.

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. Nowhere is this maxim more apparent than the approach by the police to areas where Islam is at fault and the indigenous European innocent.

No imams exposed in Channel 4’s Undercover Mosques programme have been prosecuted under any of the legislation outlined above. In fact, the West-Midlands police force attempted to prosecute Channel 4 themselves for inciting racial/religious hatred by dint of their sheer temerity in broadcasting footage of Muslims calling for the overthrow of the West and the murder of homosexuals and the infidel kuffir.

Although this article is about the UK and not Europe, it seems inevitable that we will be subsumed by Brussels when the Lisbon Treaty is ratified early in 2009, so will leave you with a quote from Terry Davis, Secretary general of the Council of Europe, in the aftermath of the brutal crack down against SIOE and Vlaams Belang in Brussels last September as to the future of free speech in Britain, or such as is left anyway:

“It is very important to remember that the freedom of assembly and expression can be restricted to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This applies to everyone in Europe including the millions of Europeans of Islamic faith, who were the main target of today’s shameful display of bigotry and intolerance.”

One cannot caveat freedom of speech. It exists or it does not. In Britain we must come to accept that it does not, and we must make every effort to ensure that in the future, it does.

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.

Cool War - Warm War - Hot War. Part 2

Part 2.

THE POLITICAL/PROPAGANDA WAR

The second strand of the cool war is the political/propaganda war, which we are also losing. Whether this is this because our ruling elites are terrified of Islamic aggression, harbour a loathing of the West bordering on the suicidal, or exhibit ignorance verging on the criminally negligent is not completely clear at the present moment, but may yet be discovered at some future Nuremberg style war trials.

As “The Religion Of Peace” bombs, beheads, maims, murders and rapes it’s way around the globe, the citizens of the West find themselves inhabiting some sort of parallel universe where the daily evidence placed before their eyes is flatly contradicted by their own liberal ruling elites. Western politicians appear to have appraised the situation and made a decision, based on short-term political expediency, to side with an alien culture that promises violence rather than their own indigenous people, who peacefully – to date - accept pretty much anything.

The attempt by Western liberals to portray Islam as the religion of peace is nothing short of pathological. In a sane world this would not be possible, but the West is no longer sane and this is the message promulgated by our political, media and educational establishments.

The Muslim radicals, acutely aware of what would happen if Christians emigrated en-mass to say, Saudi Arabia, and behaved as they themselves do in the West, can only rub their eyes in amazed disbelief at not only what they are able to get away with, but the subsequent debased reaction from their victims, manifested in the cringing appeasement of Western elites as they apologise for their wicked existence and prostrate themselves before Allah.

Prostrate themselves before Allah! What a typical example of reactionary, right wing, racist hysteria the liberal/left will shriek, but how does one explain the following?

When Islamic terrorists blow us up in skyscrapers, trains, metros and buses, the ruling elites immediate response is to ask what wrongs the West must surely have perpetrated in order to attract such animosity. If no particular wrong can be found, our politicians will try to explain it away as the result of poverty and oppression, and should that prove to be false, then some past act of Christian aggression from the 11th century, or the full moon, or Europe’s dreary weather, or anything, simply anything, save the one simple, unpalatable truth: Jihad for the sake of Allah in pursuit of the Global Caliphate.

After 9/11, the FBI asked the terrorist linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to provide "sensitivity training" for their agents, whilst in the wake of the 7/7 transport bombings in London, leaders from the Muslim Brotherhood were asked to help draft the new anti-terror laws, which included the notification of Muslim communities prior to any police raids, the requirement by the police to remove their shoes and socks before entering a Muslim house, times when they could and could not carry out said raids, and the stipulation that police dogs were strictly “canina non grata.”

In France, the Muslim street riots of 2005 led to French politicians promising more money for the banlieus and agreeing to turn a blind eye to the Sharia courts, the honour killings and the polygamy carried out within them. In Belgium, native socialist sympathisers have allied themselves with Islam and now politically dominate Brussels, where they use this political clout to ban demonstrations protesting Islam’s growing political control in Europe.
In Holland, 2006, the Dutch justice minister, Piet Hein Donner had no objection to Sharia law being imposed, providing it was 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.”

In Spain the Madrid train bombings ushered in a new era of dhimmified government more in tune with Islam’s demands and in Britain, after yet another transit bombing by the religion of peace, Hazel Blears, the Home Office Minister, immediately set up a committee to advise and “reassure” Muslims on the “Islamophobic” backlash (which never materialised) and said: "What we have discussed today is the need to teach the true nature of Islam, which is about peace and love."

The legislation emanating from the European Court Of Human Rights has meant terrorists wanted for questioning in Egypt and Syria are allowed to remain free in Britain, lest they be tortured if their extradition were granted, whilst Oriana Fallaci, whose passionate love for Italy and democracy was proven in her resistance against Mussolini’s fascist state, was forced to die in exile in America, even as the Italian courts pressed for her extradition to face charges contravening EU laws on racism and xenophobia.

Her crime? She wrote two deeply moving books, The Rage And The Pride and The Force of Reason, lamenting the death of her beloved Italy and it’s replacement by resurgent Islam. If she had sought refuge in any EU country, she would have been forcibly extradited by Europol under another new EU law, The European Arrest Warrant, and tried by Eurojust, who along with Europol now possess powers that override those of nation states; their personnel also covered by diplomatic immunity. These people were not fit to wait on her table; the idea that she had to flee them is obscene.

When Jewish graveyards were desecrated in France and Germany a few years ago, the EU instigated a report, assuming it was the work of the Neo-Nazi “right”. When it turned out, all too predictably, to be the work of the followers of Muhammed, the report was quietly shelved and replaced with one six months later, exonerating the Muslims. Or to use Oriana Fallaci’s words, “the sons of Allah.”

When investigations (Daily Mail, 23 Nov 2005. No link) suggested that some 2,000 young Muslims – annually - attend terrorist training camps in Britain for unarmed combat training, the politicians and media tell us that it is only a tiny minority of Muslims who wish us harm, a lie countered by Daniel Pipes who has a web page devoted to surveys revealing the true extent of support for radical Islam. The politicians and the media, who prefer to call Pipes an extremist, ignore this site.

The manipulative tactics of EU politicians do not stop at mere misrepresentation; they also use their new laws to curtail free speech. The rights of Freedom Of Assembly, and Freedom Of Expression, as ordained by the EU, do not hold up to close inspection. The attempt to hold a demonstration in Brussels on 9/11 2007 was thwarted lest our freedom of expression interfere with Islam’s freedom not hear it. Terry Davis, the socialist Secretary General of The Council of Europe, put out the following press release:

“It is very important to remember that the freedom of assembly and expression can be restricted to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This applies to everyone in Europe including the millions of Europeans of Islamic faith, who were the main target of today’s shameful display of bigotry and intolerance.”

One cannot pick and choose freedom of speech, it either exists, in which case one lives in a democracy, or it does not, and one does not. Islam is not simply a religion; it is also a political ideology. The EU has therefore made the protest of a political movement illegal. This is totalitarianism.

When Nick Griffin of the BNP predicted - before the London transport bombings of 7/7 - that Britain would be attacked, that the terrorists would be home grown “British boys” and that Islam was a “wicked, vicious faith,” he was prosecuted and tried not once but twice in an attempt to jail him for inciting racial hatred. When he was found not guilty, the government’s response, at the behest of Muslim leaders, was to bring in a new law, The Racial and Religious Hatred Act under which they could be more confident of jailing him the next time he correctly predicted a terrorist attack and accused Islam of being wicked and nasty.

Contrast this with the surreal antics of the British police when radical imams were exposed calling for the overthrow of the West in Channel 4’s undercover dispatches program. The immediate response of the police was not to prosecute the imams for sedition and incitement to racial hatred, but the makers of the program themselves! By drawing attention to genuine racial and religious hatred, Channel 4 was accused of inciting racial hatred. This is more than merely bizarre; this is insane.

To date, not one of the Islamic preachers has been tried and prosecuted, despite calling for the murder of Jews and homosexuals, the beating of women and the subjugation of the infidel kuffir. A BNP member calling for the death of “niggers” would quite rightly be arrested and prosecuted, whilst I, as a white European Christian “kuffir,” can be abused in a similar vein with impunity. This situation is fast becoming intolerable.

When Muslim radicals see this craven appeasement they become, quite naturally, emboldened. Despite being a significant minority, they are aware that they can punch well above their weight, which in Britain now means pushing for Sharia schools and a semi Sharia state.

In February 2007, The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) issued a 72 page manifesto demanding that British schools adopt Islamic guidelines. These included pretty much everything you would expect of a school in Saudi Arabia, including veils for ALL female students, full-length swimming costumes for boys, and separate wash areas for Muslims. The report, which was available at the MCB website has since mysteriously disappeared.

Dr Bari, the Secretary General of the MCB, also thinks the British should adopt arranged marriage, recruit 3,000 Muslim policemen in London to “restore trust,” attend Muslim institutions, stop drinking and gambling and accept Muslim dress codes, saying: “That is another thing the British should learn from us, modesty is attractive.”

If Europeans try to resist further Muslim immigration, they are liable to fall foul of being labelled xenophobic, which under EU laws can carry a prison term of up to three years. If the native British resist the MCB’s ongoing Islamisation of their country then they could, in Bari’s words, only be compared to Nazi Germany. In other words: Peace On Our Terms, as prescribed by Islam and the EU.

Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Islamic movement banned in Middle-Eastern countries and dedicated to bringing about a global Islamic Caliphate, was supposed to be banned by the British government in the wake of the 7/7 bombings. It has not, and one if it’s leaders actually works in the Home Office’s Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Needless to say, membership of the BNP would preclude you from such a position.

Whilst we are busy denying our culture, Islam is busy promoting theirs. If they run into difficulties, a simple accusation of racism tends to make any potential resistance disappear, whilst our appeasement, increasingly mandated by legal requirement, is one part of our culture that Islam has no problem interacting with. The result of their aggression, combined with their tactical awareness of how to use our appeasing liberalism against ourselves, has bought them a great many political concessions, where our culture and our civilisation is forced to bow to theirs.

Halal food is served in many public institutions, swimming baths have Muslim only sessions, crosses are removed from public areas, Christmas is downplayed lest it upset Muslim sensibilities, the Holocaust is dropped from school curriculum’s’ as it opposes the Holocaust denial that Muslim children are taught at home and in the mosques. The police drastically lower their entry standards in order to fill racial quotas and then stand idly by as street preaching imams promote death and destruction to the West, spurred into activity on occasion only to arrest members of the native population who heckle or attempt to take photographs.

The EU passes laws criminalizing the indigenous population if they speak out, backed up by national governments that do the same. The police arrest us on the slightest pretext yet ignore genuine hatred emanating from Islamic preachers, and our politicians appear to have tacitly accepted that peace can only be bought off via our appeasement. Living in Europe is becoming a wholly surreal experience that defies logic and reason as we slowly sink into state enforced Dhimmitude.

The various councils, parliaments, brotherhoods and associations, all prefixed by “Muslim” are driven more by political ambition than religious empathy, and their advance is both remorseless and relentless. The political parties representing the indigenous peoples of the West are retreating, apologising, appeasing and betraying. We are not just losing the political war. We are being annihilated.

To be continued in part three: The Propaganda War.

Cool - War - Warm War - Hot War. Part 1

Part 1.

If there is one issue on which the liberal/left and I can agree, it is that neither party wishes to see another war in Europe. My personal feeling is that the suicidal belief systems of the Western elites will not only lead to war, but - as an added bonus - also serve as a virtual blueprint on how to subsequently lose it. Such a paranoid outlook of course, is not shared with those of the spiritually enlightened left.

They are more in tune with the European Union’s motto, “United In Diversity” which in truth is more a phrase of liberal wishful thinking than one grounded in reality. There are several groups of people who would testify to this; notably the Serbs, Croats and Muslims of ex-Yugoslavia, the non-Muslim Africans in the Sudan, the Jews of Israel and their dwindling remainder in the Middle East, the Tutsis and the Hutus, the Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland or even the Flemish and Walloon populations of Belgium itself - to name but a few.

In fact, it would be hard to find a phrase exhibiting such an awe inspiring example of utter historical ignorance coupled with sinister Orwellian doublethink, save perhaps for “Arbeit Macht Frei” the “welcome” sign above the gates of Auschwitz concentration camp.

It should never be forgotten that the Nazi party were the one time allies of the Communists, those moral free “egalitarians” whose present day ideological progeny now run the European Union on unelected soft totalitarian fiat, unashamed that their motto harks back to the sloganeering of genocidal regimes and unaware, apparently, that they are setting the wheels in motion for future genocidal conflict.

What the liberal/left palpably fail to realise, is that not only must our present policy of “United In Diversity” - manifested as it is, in mass immigration and multicultural relativism - inevitably lead to war, but that we are already at war on many fronts, and we are losing all of them.

A full scale war between Islam and the West, should it materialise, will be the “Hot War” that must logically follow the “Cool” and “Warm” wars currently being waged in Europe specifically, and the West as a whole.

The cool war is carried out on a number of fronts and is made up of the culture/civilisation war; the political/propaganda war; the demographic/immigration war; the territorial war; the faith war and the knowledge war. The warm war is made up of terrorism, jihad, and the end game of total war, described by James Burnham in his book Suicide Of The West as: “Political control over acreage.”

THE CULTURE / CIVILISATION WAR:

The culture/civilisation war has been ongoing for several decades, but appears to be reaching it’s peak in the attitude of not only the vitriolic hatred shown toward the West by radical Islam, but by the liberal elites of Western societies as well, who appear to perversely loathe their own people and their own culture.

On Sep 8 2001, the UN held a conference in Durban, under the heading: “The United Nations Conference Against Racism, Racial Intolerance And Xenophobia.” America, aware of the impending anti-Western hate mongering, declined to join them, but the best of the rest of the West were arrayed in force. America’s suspicion turned out to be remarkably prescient. The event turned into a hate fest.

Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro, was introduced to rapturous applause as: “The leader of the most democratic country in the world” whilst Robert Mugabe, the altogether barmy President of Zimbabwe, taking a well-earned rest from the persecution of his white and black countrymen was similarly cheered to the rafters in his denunciation of the white imperialist oppressor; his ovation only surpassed by that offered up for the Syrian Prime Minister’s denial of the Holocaust.

Britain’s Tony Blair, France’s Lionel Jospin, Canada’s Jean Chretien and an aesthetically displeasing assortment of Europe’s great and good, beat their collective breasts in time with the rhythmic thudding of the anti-racist bongo drums, offering no counter-arguments such as the ethnic cleansing of whites from Zimbabwe, or the imprisoning of Aids victims in the Cuban “socialist paradise,” choosing instead to raise their soft, bruised hands aloft and proclaim “Yes, you are correct. We are white, we are Western and we are GUILTY!”

The UN’s Mary Robinson declared the event a great success. The oppressors and the oppressed packed their bags, paused briefly at the airport to exchange a little more brown hatred for white guilt, and went home. Forty-eight hours later, Muslim terrorists flew three hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, thus ensuring celebrations all over the non-Western world, indeed even within the West itself, where Muslims danced in the streets and liberal Western intellectuals crowed that America had finally been given the bloody nose she so manifestly deserved.

No doubt those noted anti-racists, Mugabe and Castro, danced until dawn, such vitriol and hatred for the first world from the third being nothing new. But even with 9/11 on top of the obscene appeasement in Durban, our liberal elites still refused to admit to themselves that their culture was any better than that of Islam’s. Nothing personifies this more than the controversy caused by the remarks made by (the then) Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, who, in the wake of the 9/11 Islamic terrorist outrages, stated:

“We must be aware of the superiority of our civilisation, a system that has guaranteed well-being, respect for human rights, and – in contrast with Islamic countries – respect for religious and political rights.”

Such a statement, at such a time, should not have been controversial. After all, how could Western Civilisation possibly be held as the moral and cultural equivalent of Islam - a religious and political ideology that orchestrated and celebrated the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent men, women and children in the name of Allah?

But controversial it turned out to be. No sooner had the words left his lips than a bevy of European politicians rushed to denounce his heresy. Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, said: “I can hardly believe that the Italian Prime Minister made such statements!” whilst Jean Christophe-Filori, the spokesman for the European Commission, added: “We certainly don’t share the view expressed by Mr Berlusconi,” and to round off a positively surreal day of reality denial and anti-Western loathing, Italy’s centre left opposition spokesman, Giovanni Berlinguer, called the statement “eccentric and dangerous.” Faced with such an onslaught, Berlusconi was forced to retract his factually correct statement within a matter of days.

Such anti-Western sentiment is no longer merely confined to the mindset of our ruling elites. By successfully infiltrating the educational establishments, the liberal/left have captured the most important section of society that any wannabe totalitarian regime could wish for; the unformed minds of unquestioning small children, upon whom they could indoctrinate and brainwash to their hearts content.

The liberal/left culture war in our schools and universities has been carried out over at least four decades, and has been extraordinarily successful. Targeting children as young as three in order to "unlearn" racism, young Westerners’ have been persuaded that their history is one of national imperialism, Christian imperialism, white privilege, oppression, genocide and racial brutality. They have been brainwashed into believing that their country, race, religion, culture and history – or more succinctly, the very essence of their being - is not something to be proud of, but something to be ashamed of.

This is a powerful and potentially lethal form of disarmament. Wars have always been fought over four basic impulses: the acquisition of territory, the subjugation of a race or tribe, the subjugation of a religion and the subjugation of a culture. If young Westerners are as ashamed - as they say they are - of their country, race, religion, culture and history, then they will not be particularly keen to even verbally defend them, as is the case today, let alone to fight and die for them. As, no doubt, was the intention.

Some may say the removal of reasons to fight can only be a good thing, that it will lead to peace and prosperity for all men, for all time. But multiculturalism does not work that way. Whilst we are shamed into perpetual appeasement, the non-European and non-Christian groups within the West are taught the exact opposite. Their cultures and their religions are held up as paragons of virtue, they are taught to think and act as distinct racial or religious groups, whilst being encouraged to believe that any difference in civilisational success between their culture and Western culture is due solely to their historical and present day oppression by the prejudiced West.

As wars are traditionally fought by males, so another vital part of the culture war is to remove the natural aggression prevalent amongst boys and adolescents. To this end, young Western males are encouraged - nee forced - to lay down their toy guns, end their games of cowboys and Indians, cease taking part in competitive sport with it’s inevitable winners and losers, and instead to play with dolls, get in touch with their “inner selves,” develop their “self esteem” through the “medium of dance” and to express their “emotions” in “empathy workshops.”

Christina Hoff Sommers details this obscenely sexist social engineering in The War Against Boys, where she writes:

‘There are now conferences, workshops and institutes dedicated to transforming boys. Carol Gilligan, professor of gender studies at Harvard Graduate School of Education, writes of the problems of boy’s masculinity. “We’ve deconstructed the old version of manhood, but we’ve not yet constructed a new version…” In the spring of 2000 the boys’ project at Tufts offered five workshops on “Reinventing Boyhood” where the planners promised emotionally exciting sessions: “We’ll laugh and cry, argue and agree, reclaim and sustain the best parts of the culture of boys, whilst figuring out how to change the terrible parts.”

Christina goes on to quote the words of “gender experts” at a meeting made up of feminists from Harvard, Wellesley and Tufts:

“It may be too late to change adult men. Boys on the other hand are still salvageable – providing one gets to them at an early age.” As one keynote speaker said, “We have an amazing opportunity here, Kids are so malleable.”

Gloria Steinem is of the same opinion, once saying: “We badly need to raise boys more like we raise girls.”

This evil social engineering is now par for the course in the West - but it gets worse. When little boys’ rebel against this warped ideology of enforced feminisation, they are diagnosed with various psychiatric disorders and “ritalinned” to the eyeballs in an attempt to chemically achieve what brainwashing could not. In Britain, some 60,000 children, principally of course boys, now suffer this abuse.

Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man is not usually known for the last man part of the title, but I think he was implying the last man to be the last “alpha male,” that patriarchal upholder of masculinity so despised by the perverse Marxist mindset that now controls our educational establishments. Whenever a potential alpha male rears his patriarchal little head, our quasi-Marxist educators reach for their psychoanalytical Rolodex and the keys to the drug cabinet.

This does not happen within the Muslim faith schools, the madrassahs and the mosques, where masculinity is pushed to the other extreme. Whilst little Western boys learn about the merits of femininity, and become, as Ann Coulter so wonderfully puts it - “girly men” - little Muslim boys learn about male dominance, violent jihad and the superiority of Islam over the infidel kuffar.

As the little Muslim boys grow into adolescence, there are any number of mosques they can attend to further reinforce their ideology. It is no longer a secret that many of the 2,000 mosques across Europe are funded to the tune of 90 billion dollars by Saudi Arabia, that they promote extreme Saudi Wahhabism and actively encourage violent jihad against the West.

If the entire world was full of feminised men then perhaps we could, as the liberal/left persistently shrill, “give peace a chance,” but in a continent of Western girly men and masculine Muslim Jihadists, it is obvious who has the upper hand. As feminists (male and female) continue with their social engineering of Western boys, whilst refusing to condemn the inculcated aggression of Muslim boys, one is led to conclude that this is not simply a case of typical short-sighted liberal stupidity, but a deliberate attempt to further negate the ability of Western males to recognise the threat before them, let alone stand toe to toe with the enemy.

One peculiar aspect along with the feminisation of boys is the concurrent “masculinisation” of girls and young women, who are no longer encouraged to become housewives and mothers. Instead, they are brainwashed into dressing in men’s clothes, entering the work place and embarking on careers; the proceeds from which should be spent on the latest “must have” baubles and trinkets so beloved of both magpies and women’s’ lifestyle magazines.

A little harsh, a little sexist some might say, but it is important that is said nonetheless. Western women have put careers before children, and as a result - for the first time in the history of womankind - we are no longer replacing ourselves. If we did this for long enough we would become extinct, leading one to believe, quite naturally, that such a deviation is unnatural. Masculinised women, as well as feminised men, have become denatured.

Does this denaturing of the Western people matter? Well, yes it does; it is of supreme importance. The driving force of all living organisms is reproduction and survival. Western women have ceased to reproduce at a replacement level, thereby giving the hard left just the excuse they needed to foment revolutionary change in the Christian, capitalist West - which they eagerly carry out via the importation of inalienably alien third world immigrants with a history of anti-Western aggression.

Whilst Western women have forgotten nature’s law of reproduction; Western men - brainwashed into Dhimmitude and unable to comprehend invasion when they see it - have similarly forgotten what it takes to survive. If one asked an anthropologist the likely future for a species that spurned nature’s most fundamental requirement, he would answer with one word – extinction.

If the coming war was fought only by the products of our liberal establishment, then look out Vienna. Feminised men will find the singing of Beatles peace songs whilst performing androgynous dance moves singularly ineffective as a defence mechanism when confronted with scimitar wielding bearded fanatics. When our backs are to the wall, the feminists will look to the currently smeared alpha male types – if there are any left – for their defence.

And they had better hope that there are. Feminists have little appreciation of the “spoils of war” mentality Should Europe fall to Islam, the peculiar feminist theory that ALL penetrative sex is rape, would suddenly become not just a hazy memory, but a longed for return to the good old bad old days, when Western men were still men and it was just the desert roaming camels looking nervously over their humps with an air of doleful resignation.

It is no bad thing to remove the impulse for war from the minds of Western man, but to do so whilst actively encouraging mass immigration from the third world and to simultaneously inflame their tribalism and resentment, smacks not simply of double standards, but the deliberate importation of one increasingly radicalised group at the expense of an indigenous population, brainwashed into appeasement.

What would have been obvious to previous generations of men, those who lived through or shortly after WW11, is no longer obvious to the brainwashed and feminised Western male. The inhabitants of European nation states have allowed an utterly alien culture to cross their territorial border, dismantle their culture, colonise their cities, rape their women and blow them up; all the while calling for the overthrow of the West. If European males think this is something to “celebrate” as liberal/left orthodoxy would imply, then we are in terrible trouble. Perhaps if I shout it loudly enough, they may hear me:

“You are not engaging in some mutual act of multicultural tolerance. Your country is being invaded!”

As a final note; what should be all too apparent is that the civilisational war against the West is not carried out by external forces, but by our own rulers, against their own people. This is of course, wholly unprecedented in the history of mankind.


To be continued.

I have only covered one small aspect of the assault, both from without and within, against the West. This may yet run to three or four articles.

The Coming Third World War

When Francis Fukuyama wrote The End of History and the Last Man in 1993, it was to argue that Western liberal democracy and free market economics meant an end to warfare within the west, and by default, the end of history.

Fukuyama was drawing on Winston Churchill, who stated: “The history of man is war” thus allowing Fukuyama to propose that a future consisting of perpetual peace meant an end to history itself, history being simply a narrative of warfare, conquest and re-conquest, rather than which queen succeeded which king and on which date.

This idea that warfare within the west is now a thing of the past seems to be shared by an overwhelming section of Western people, reared as they are, on a diet of enlightened tolerance and historical ignorance.

In 1990 it would have been relatively difficult to argue with Fukuyama’s prophecy. The West, excluding the inevitable frictions that came with the break up of the Soviet Union, was clearly not going to engage in the type of politics that led to the two world wars, whilst the demise of Communism meant an end to the global proxy wars between Russia and America.

What Fukuyama failed to realise however, was that the ingredient for yet another war to end all wars, was already in place. The cultural clashes between fascism, communism and liberal democracies had simply been replaced with another culture that would inevitably clash with the Western host cultures - Islam.

Wars do not simply spring out of nowhere. Although the causes may be relatively complicated, they require only a few very basic ingredients which when blended together, placed in a pressure cooker on gas level 5 and left to boil unattended, can have only one result.

The first of these, self evidently, is an enemy, without which a chef cannot even begin to prepare his feast gastronomique. Some may argue that Islam is not our enemy; such an entity being radical Islam, a relatively small component of Islam overall. Possibly so, but this rather misses the point that Western liberal democracy is Islam’s enemy, as they tell us over and over again, through word and deed.

The death and destruction wrought throughout the West in recent years is not because Islam, in some childlike, well-intentioned yet misguided way, wishes to assimilate with us, it is because Islam wishes to take us over. We, obviously, do not wish to be taken over, so we must be prepared to resist an enemy, or be prepared to submit to an enemy, the point being, that there is, with absolute certainty, an enemy.

The fact that it is radical Islam as opposed to moderate Islam is immaterial. In WW11 Germany was our enemy, not the Nazis, just as Islam is our enemy today and not radical Islam. I am sorry to have to say this, but war entails polarisation of differing races/religions, the pieties of multiculturalism are reserved only for times of peace.

The second ingredient for war is anger and resentment amongst a unified mass majority. Despite the breadth of difference between Christian, post-Christian, Jew, agnostic, atheist, male, female, homosexual and heterosexual, the common thread that unites the people of the liberal West is no longer what we are, but what we are not. We are not Islamic, and voluntarily, never will be.

And we are getting angrier by the day as we watch the television news, read the newspapers and listen to Islamic rhetoric calling for the overthrow of the West; a call apparently supported by our ruling elites who choose to clamp down on their indigenous people who dare to complain, rather than the perpetrators themselves.

Despite the best efforts of the vast, state funded, race relations industry, the glaring evidence suggests one stark, unpalatable fact; Islam and the liberal West are incompatible. The utopian multiculteralist view that we can all get along is belied by the fact that as Islam keeps on trying to blow us up, so “Islamophobia” continues, quite naturally, to grow.

When police chiefs speak of “heightened racial tensions” and in the case of France “low level civil war” they speak volumes of our current predicament. When Islam moves into an area and the indigenous inhabitants move out, this too speaks volumes. We do not, indeed, apparently cannot co-exist, a parlous state of affairs even whilst Westerners have the means and the territory to move away, but what happens when that escape route is removed?

Unfortunately, the birth rate differentials coupled with massive Muslim immigration and growing indigenous emigration suggest that this escape route is only temporary. Many European cities are on the brink of Muslim majorities already; within the next twenty years this will only escalate with increasing rapidity. At some point in the not too distant future, Europeans will have nowhere left to run.

Just as Islam is intransigently opposed to Western liberal democracy, so Western liberal democracy is intransigently opposed to Islam. The West in the case of “within borders” religious conflict is a demographic juggernaut compared to Islam today, but this can change very quickly as I argued in part 1 of a recent article. Within twenty years we will see two juggernauts of equal size, travelling in opposite directions on the same side of the road with the all too obvious result; collision circa 2025 or earlier, depending on their speed.

And it is as simple as that. Western Europe in 1990 did not have the ingredients necessary to bring about another war, but in 2007 we have the only ingredients necessary to ensure it. Two intransigent enemies, one demographically shrinking, the other demographically – and literally - exploding, both sides drawing their lines in the sand, and of course the simmering anger, fear and resentment that comes with such a scenario.

This situation reminds me of A E Housman’s words, describing the year 1914:

“Europe is a powder keg. The Germans are gripped by fervent nationalism, the British feel afraid of German expansion….the French still remember the bitter defeat of 1870. Germany enters into a pact with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but that empire is being torn apart by ethnic tensions and it will take just one spark to ignite a European war on an unimaginable scale…”

Plus ca change plus c’est la meme chose, as they once said over a game of chess and chain lit gauloises in the avant garde cafes of the Paris banlieus’. History repeats itself, a fact not lost on the realists of the “right”, but lost in the fluffy mists of time to the liberal/left.

Perhaps a more recent quote might jolt them from their multicultural reverie, taken from Alastair Finlan’s book The Collapse of Yugoslavia 1991-1999 which details the civil war that killed 250,000 people, the majority of whom were civilians, out of a population of 10 million.

“In 1991, almost overnight, an ethnically diverse region that had enjoyed decades of peaceful coexistence descended into bitter hatred and chaos. Communities fractured along lines of ethnic and religious affiliation and the resulting fighting was deeply personal, resulting in brutality, rape, torture, genocide and ethnic cleansing.”

Yugoslavia was a small country, the death toll would have been much higher were in not for the intervention of external forces. Continental Europe has close to half a billion inhabitants. Should war start, there is no way on earth that any external force can stop it. And it need not be constrained to Europe; would a nuclear-armed Pakistan sit idly by? Will Iran or Syria possess a nuclear capability and would they use it against Israel? Would America then become involved? Would our need for oil necessitate the invasion of the Middle East? How would Turkey respond to that?

Unlike the First World War, given our nuclear weapons, this really could be the war to end to all wars.

Such an apocalyptic scenario should give the liberal/left pause for thought. Is such a possibility really worth this peculiar multicultural experiment of forcing two disparate cultures together, in a perverse attempt to prove history and present day reality around the non-Western world, wrong?

Even the most vacuous multiculteralist would have to admit that religious war is a possibility, but what percentage chance would he admit to? Suppose it was only 1% - is that a risk worth taking? My only question to him would be “would you fly on a passenger jet that had a 1% chance of crashing, and if you would not, why do you think it acceptable that your children will inherit Armageddon based on a statistical chance of death that you yourself would not take?”

The completely unknown Serbian, Gavrilo Principe, provided the spark that ignited the First World War, when he assassinated the Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand in the little known town of Sarajevo on June 28th 1914.

In the Europe of 2007 the ingredients for the Third World War are in place, save for Islamic demographics, an issue rapidly being addressed. Will it be a Dwayne Sproat or an Achmed Al-bubba, acting as the present day Gavrilo Principe, who sparks it?

A Brussels Perspective

There has been a great deal of electronic ink spilled over the banning of SIOE’s proposed demonstration on September 11 in Brussels. The on-off-on again situation seems fairly complicated, but a few simple questions need to be asked.

The first is this:

Does SIOE have a legitimate claim in their belief that the traditional culture of Europe is being detrimentally undermined in favour of the non-secular culture of Islam?

Ten years ago, little was heard of Islam in Europe. Today, we can read endless proven stories of segregated swimming pools, Halal meat served in public institutions, religious studies in schools operating with an anti-Christian and pro-Islamic bias, areas of European cities operating under Islamic law, a blind eye turned to polygamy and police forces failing to uphold the law of the land for fear of violence, choosing instead to clamp down on indigenous Europeans who speak out.

Whilst all of this is happening, Saudi Arabia is pumping billions of dollars into the building of Mosques within which imams call for the overthrow of the democratic West, to be replaced by a global Islamic Caliphate. Their propaganda is eagerly absorbed. 40% of Muslims in Britain wish to see their adopted country run under Sharia law.

Princeton History professor, Bernard Lewis, believes that the demographic imbalance between Muslims and indigenous Europeans will bring about an Islamic Europe this century; a scenario admitted by European leaders such as Swedish integration minister Jens Orback, who has stated, “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”

All of the above is evidence of an existing and accelerating Islamisation of Europe.

SIOE’s claim is therefore legitimate.



Is SIOE a legitimate movement?

SIOE is a legal entity. It’s website carries no inflammatory or racist remarks, it does not call for an end to Muslim immigration, nor the deportation of Muslims from Europe. It exists, in it’s own words, “to combat the overt and covert expansion of Islam (not Muslims) in Europe,” and condemns racism as “the lowest form of human stupidity.” It has no history of violence or incitement to racial hatred and has made no suggestion that this will change in the future.

SIOE is therefore a legitimate movement.



Does mayor Thielemans have a legitimate cause for banning the demonstration?

The reasons he has given to date are:

One: The local Muslim community in Brussels will be offended by the presence of SIOE and may react violently.

Two: That SIOE and it’s supporters, by their mere presence in Brussels, will contravene Belgian and European Union law regarding incitement to racial hatred, as laid down by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.

In argument of his first reason, mayor Thielemans can only turn down a march, based on security reasons, if the local police had so advised him. As the police gave their permission, mayor Thielemans has gone beyond the remit of his office.

As regards his second reason, both Belgian and EU law allow the Freedom of Peaceful Assembly. There is no law or precedent that allows Thielemans to pre-judge the actions of a peacefully planned demonstration, especially if it’s organisers have no history of violence.

If any instances of incitement to racial hatred were shown on the day, then those individuals should be arrested, and if the organisers overtly supported those arrested, then the march should be disbanded.

But that can only happen on the day. It cannot be pre-judged.

Both reasons are therefore illegitimate.


To sum up, a legitimate body (SIOE) in pursuance of a legitimate belief, having followed the correct legal procedures, have now illegitimately been denied their citizens right to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly.

As such, under Belgian and EU law, the human rights of the SIOE and it’s thousands of supporters have been illegally violated.

I would therefore make the following suggestion:

A Class Action lawsuit be filed on behalf of SIOE and its supporters at the European Court of Human Rights, against mayor Thielemans and the Belgian City Council, in the amount of one hundred million Euros.

And yes, I am serious.

Democratic Europe R.I.P.

It was not just the events taking place in Brussels on September 11 2007 that indicated the end of democracy in Europe. Rather, the manhandling and arrest of passive, besuited, middle aged men was simply the final statement - after a long history of incremental authoritarianism - by our ruling socialist elites that a new totalitarian order now controls an entire continent.

What took place yesterday should be viewed from several different angles. To fundamental Islam it was a great fillip to their dream of a global caliphate, to the supporters of SIOE it was not the success we had hoped for, and to the socialists it was a comprehensive victory.

The mainstream media largely ignored the event. The few outlets that did report on it remarked only that a handful of far-right activists had been arrested at an anti-Islam demonstration. The BBC did not think such an event even warranted television coverage, relegating the story to its web site. Here in Britain, the Times, Telegraph and Mail failed to report on it at all.

Journalism appears to have no eye for a story these days. The events of yesterday were not - as the MSM have implied - simply about a few right-wing wackos with an inbuilt hatred of the religion of peace; it was far more importantly about freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, or more succinctly, democracy.

And democracy was trampled on in Brussels yesterday. In the heart of the European Union’s capital city, democracy was trashed, abused and violated. The MSM’s response, rather predictably, was to ignore it or spin it to the detriment of those who took part.

The socialists, leftists, liberals, call them what you may, will be rubbing their hands in glee today. They have silenced those who disagree with their ideology through a mixture of intimidation, smear, media blackout, and have done so in a totalitarian manner reminiscent of the Nazis or the Communists.

To put yesterdays events into perspective let us look at some unarguable facts. SIOE and Vlaams Belang are legally established movements operating within a democracy. The reason for their demonstration may not have been to the taste of our European political elites, but the gradual erosion of Europe’s culture and heritage in the face of Islamic expansion is a reality nonetheless. In a democracy, a legitimate movement with legitimate concerns should be allowed to make those grievances known in a public manner.

The demonstration was banned under the mischievous pretence of provoking a violent Muslim reaction and/or its supporters were in contravention of European laws pertaining to racism and xenophobia. This ban was subsequently upheld at the appeal court.

I have read some comments suggesting that if the march was banned then it is no surprise that arrests were made. This is true, but it rather misses the point that if a differing political viewpoint can be criminalised in the Europe of 2007, then democracy is over, dead, ceased to exist, shuffled of this mortal coil. Europe is an ex-democracy.

The argument that one cannot legally protest may carry some weight - in certain instances - in a democracy. A demonstration in favour of executing homosexuals, Jews and adulterous women should have arguments against it, but I do not think it should necessarily be banned. If such truly revolting people wish to draw attention to themselves, then so be it. Forewarned is forearmed, as they say.

This was not the case yesterday. Vlaams Belang and SIOE exist to counter such barbarous ideology. That the socialist elites find such an idea repugnant speaks volumes about their own moral consciousness, but repugnant ideas do not a justified ban make. The demonstration was banned because our rulers do not like our political viewpoint. No more and no less. This should not happen in a democracy and cannot possibly be upheld in a court of law unless that court is totalitarian in nature.

But happen it did. Ergo, Europe is no longer democratic. One cannot have partial freedom of expression. It is all or nothing, pace Voltaire. It is the primary function of a democracy and without it no society can be called democratic.

I know I am repeating myself, but I cannot make this point strongly enough: A legitimate movement with a legitimate grievance was illegitimately but legally banned by a politically motivated mayor and a politically motivated court, after which black clad, politicised state enforcers, armed with water cannons, batons and dogs, arrested and dispersed legitimate demonstrators because they held a differing political viewpoint.

This was the story that our lazy, ineffectual MSM missed yesterday. Equipped with helicopters, cameras, satellite feeds, reporters and a vast network of contacts they missed the emergence of a totalitarian Europe. And make no mistake about it, the events leading up to, and of, yesterday, was just that. On September 11th 2007 Europe became a totalitarian dictatorship.

Sensationalist you think? Can one really argue that Europe, run by unelected Marxists and ex-Communists, has failed to make fully clear their determination to disallow, by any means possible, democratic opposition to their vision of some unprecedented multicultural utopia in their unholy alliance with Islam, a political creed which hates Western civilisation almost as much as our rulers themselves?

To any liberal readers who think this is one of my usual right wing rants, consider the following press release statement from socialist Terry Davis, the Secretary General of The Council of Europe:

“It is very important to remember that the freedom of assembly and expression can be restricted to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This applies to everyone in Europe including the millions of Europeans of Islamic faith, who were the main target of today’s shameful display of bigotry and intolerance.”

In other words, lie back and think of Europe as Islamisation proceeds apace. If you try to resist, via your Citizens Human Rights, we will criminalize you. You may only have freedom of speech as long as it fits into the caveats we have built into the constitution.

So, if we can agree that Europe is now totalitarian, where does this leave us? Well, there are dictatorships and there are dictatorships. If a peculiar interest in train timetables and invading far flung African countries was your bag, then Mussolini was a relatively benign sort of chap to rule your country. In post WW1 Germany, a political, social and economic madhouse, then even Adolf Hitler ticked a few boxes. Where it led them however, we know only too well.

Both of the aforementioned dictators had mass support (not majority, but mass nevertheless) from their indigenous people, both rebuilt their economies before total power went to their heads, and both acted, initially, in the interests of their historical culture, heritage and people. When I say that at least they started out on the right foot, I am in no way defending them. I simply point out the facts.

The reason for doing so will become apparent. If Islam, (or radical Islam if you are reality deficient) were compared to any previous ideology, then it could only be compared to the Nazis. Both wished/wish to establish a global empire, eradicate the Jews, eradicate the homosexuals, thought women fit only for bearing children, cooking and church, brooked no opposition to their ideology, indeed seemed to positively enjoy murdering it’s apostates, and worshipped The Glorious Leader, be he the Fuhrer or the Prophet.

And into that pot we can add Communism, built on the ideal of supposed egalitarianism, it resulted in genocide, economic failure and environmental, social and spiritual devastation.
Now, to the well-balanced mind, such ideologies should be avoided like the plague, but the liberal/left appear to have embraced them both. The European Union is run by Communist manqué’s and they are utilising Europe’s new Nazi Party, Islam, to further their dream of absolute power.

Europeans today however are not living in the shattered economies and societies that bought Hitler and Mussolini to power. We live in unprecedented wealth and comfort; we have no need of totalitarianism to solve our economic problems and we certainly have no need for a totalitarian regime to actively bring about future social problems.

Our situation today is almost mind boggling in its perversity. A peaceful – a peace that came at the expense of millions of dead – society that wishes only to be left alone, has had an alien culture undemocratically inflicted upon us and an alien culture that is unrepentantly vociferous in its call for our overthrow and subjugation.

This culture of Islam - Europe’s new Nazi party - is growing as we are shrinking and poses a clear and present danger to our children and grandchildren. It is genocidal in its ambitions, which effectively means that indigenous Europeans would, if Islam came to power, be the new Jews of Hitler’s Germany. Each and every one of us; homosexual and heterosexual, feminist and housewife, Jew, Catholic, Protestant, agnostic or atheist, conservative or liberal, black or white.

And they are aided and abetted by Europe’s new Communists - albeit with a love of capitalist money in their own pockets - the European Union and their apparatchiks, who outlaw public displays of unease about our children’s future via totalitarian means.

Has it really come to this? The devils pact of Islamism and Communism are now the dictatorial rulers of Europe? Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and Mussolini were guilty of not only destroying the lives of their enemies; they ultimately destroyed those they purported to represent. Europeans are now faced with the astonishing and terrifying prospect of being dictatorially controlled as an enemy of the state, not it’s friend, and when we see what totalitarian regimes do to their friends, let alone their enemies, we should be extremely, if not obsessively, concerned.

So what can we do? Firstly, we must play our rulers at their own game. The EU is obsessed with the varied doctrines of tolerance, feminism, racial prejudice, equality and Human Rights, and this is how we must fight them if we are to make any discernable difference to our future.

I have spoken to many people who feel that “Stop The Islamisation Of Europe” is a provocative banner that smacks of racial/religious intolerance. They are foolish and naive, but they are probably in the majority in our brainwashed isles. We must appeal to the majority.

If European socialist leaders can ban a demonstration on the grounds of racism and xenophobia, then we will have to adjust to the fact that if such marches go ahead, they will receive little public support, and should therefore be discontinued.

Demonstrations should not take place on any September 11th’s and certainly not on weekdays, firstly to counteract any bans, and secondly to attract more numbers.

The next demonstration should be organised by a movement called “For A Democratic Europe” or something along those lines. Its primary aim should be about freedom of speech and no mention should be made in advance of Islam. On the day, under the name of free speech, the supporters could carry banners reading “Democracy Not Theocracy” - “No To Honour Killings” – “We Disagree With Colonisation Everywhere” – “Is The EU Totalitarian” – “Free Speech For Europeans” – “Equal Rights For Muslim Women” – “Homosexual Rights Before Religion” etc etc.

What happened yesterday played into the totalitarian’s hands. Vlaams Belang should not have been in attendance, not because they are of the evil right, but because they have already been tainted by the liberal media. Also, SIOE’s banner and ideology was used against us, causing both the ban and a cleverly worded threat of retaliatory violence, which put many people off. Or at least I can only hope that was the reason for the low turnout.

This is not some liberal, non-confrontational desire to dilute our message. We must get our message out and this is the only way of doing it. I submit the idea of such a feeble demonstration for two reasons. Firstly, if we can advance our cause through mass demonstrations that circumnavigate the EU dictators then that is at least a start.

If we cannot, and I suspect that we cannot, then we will know where we stand. The era of men in suits debating our future will have come to a close. We will be alone, abandoned by our traditional leaders and without a new leader of our own. But that is easily remedied. Once we know what we need to do, then we will do it and until we are forced to admit that this is our final recourse, it will be one we ignore. When the written word, speech and the democratic process can no longer be relied upon to bring about change, then words will be replaced with physical deeds.

We didn’t start this, but by sheer weight of numbers we can finish it. As of yesterday, European politics was bought down to the level of the Reds V the Brownshirts. There are no Brownshirts as yet, but there are potentially millions of us. Standing in our way are a few thousand socialists, who, not known for their bravery, will become even fewer when they realise what they have unleashed against themselves.

Do these socialist lunatics have any idea of our violent history? They appear to betting that we will not fight for territory, religion or culture. On this they are possibly right, but we will, surely, fight for our children. The idea that a continent of half a billion people will allow a handful of Communist manqué’s, in alliance with a very small minority (today) of bearded Nazis, to dictatorially browbeat us into submission, when we have the unarguable knowledge that our failure to retaliate will wreak destruction upon our children and grandchildren is simply too fantastical to possibly be true.

Isn’t it?

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

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.