Notes on the Islamisation of London IV


, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


I remember walking a couple of months ago down the long, grey length of Whitehall to meet a family member who was going to show me the Churchill War Rooms complex near the Palace of Westminster.

Before I got as far as our arranged meeting spot, I came upon a small demonstration at the side of the road. You can tell a demonstration in London from quite some distance by the fluorescent police jackets that swarm around them like a protective blur of lasers. (Ever since the student riots of a few years back, protest has been disgracefully restricted in the capital).

As I got closer, that familiar, idiotic word ‘Islamophobia’ emerged in bold type on the cardboard placards held by those gathered. The symbology of the Socialist Workers Party was also apparent, with issues of its newspaper stacked for sale on the stalls. Interested by all this, I took a couple of the leaflets being handed out. Slickly designed and rich in detail, they demanded that Britain end the “media persecution of Muslims”, informed us that “Muslims have feelings too”, and suggested that the government “Sanction Burma” (Note: there has been a long-standing confrontation in Burma between the Buddhist majority and the Islamic minority. I don’t know enough about Burmese politics to say who is at fault there. Either way, it’s hard to imagine how we could sanction Burma any more than we do at present.)

Most of the demonstrators were White. Some were Whites in headscarves (and try and think of a more depressing sight than that). All had the skinny, malnourished look Leftists always tend to present as if preparing for a socialist famine.

Not having much time to hang around and scoff at this nonsense, I walked on to meet my Auntie and spent a pleasurable and informative afternoon wandering through the underground bunkers. This complex is a very inspiring one and if your imagination is powerful enough, you can strongly recall the dramatic feel of the period. I thanked my auntie and she returned to rural Kent.

Before I travelled back to Putney, I decided to go and see Piccadilly Circus; not to do anything but just to see it, magnified in neon against the black evening. This little spot in London has been a favourite of mine ever since I came to visit with my dad as a child. I used to like standing in front of the giant TDK corner display and imagining myself in an American city. It seemed like the most modern part of the capital until I discovered Canary Wharf.

Anyway, the most direct route to Piccadilly on foot involved passing through the district of Soho – a much-exaggerated den of vice and sinfulness in West Central London. This area contains many of London’s sex clubs, brothels, drug dens, strip-clubs, Jazz bars and gay establishments. In particular, a narrow parade called Old Compton Street provides the central focus for LGBT life in the capital and England more broadly.

As you can appreciate, it was something of a shock in this environment to hear voices of the urban style, and even more surprising to find those voices to be the emanations of a group of bearded Asians. There were three men, about mid-twenties at a guesstimate; crooked noses and skinny jeans. As soon as I appreciated what they were saying, the mystery of their presence dissipated. They had wandered in the area to make a religious point.

“That’s a gay shop!” one barked in a nasal tone in reference to a store selling fetish underwear. “That means they must be gay! Queers! Fucking Queers!”, to which his fellow hyenas giggled madly.

The long lines of homosexuals arrayed outside the Admiral Duncan pub and other nearby bars stared at the Asians in nervous silence. Some wore expressions of shock, others of anger.

The manner of these chaps suggested alcoholic intoxication. Though it might be a shock to some, this isn’t untypical, I’m afraid. There have been many reported cases of Islamists partaking in that which they forbid others and while we’re near the subject, not just alcohol…

They soon wandered off towards Chinatown, leaving the street to recover its debauched enthusiasm.

I found it odd then and odd now that there is such a disconnect between the Left on issues like this. The Leftists on Whitehall would have embraced the Muslims who went on to harass innocent people in the evening, and even at that later scene would have apologised for them rather than let people draw their rational conclusions.

In this respect, they remind me of nothing so much as the underclass owner of a mad-tempered pit-bull. The pit-bull terrorises the neighbourhood, attacks children and barks all night long, and yet the owner, having no community spirit, assures those concerned that he “isn’t always like this” and warns them away from generalising.

I should add that as regards the politics of homosexuality, I am stubbornly agnostic. I have known gay men and women in my life and have never felt the twitch of homophobia. I appreciate the concerns of the majority on the subject, but I’ll let other people argue those points in detail.

But whatever may be said about homosexuality and the UK gay community in particular, they are part and parcel of the city I live in and I will always stand with them (or any other community for that matter) when they are faced with such a hideous and uncivilised enemy.


ISIS and the SS


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Ever since ISIS/Islamic State began rapping at the doors of Baghdad and its beheadings first blackened the pages of Western print, media commentators have inevitably been searching for a way to describe the organisation to the common, apolitical everyman. It now seems they have settled on the following unconvincing and unpoetic summary:

“Like al-Qaeda, but worse.”

While faintly accurate, this really doesn’t get at the truth about ISIS. Nor (for that matter) does my own article ‘ISIS: al-Qaeda on Steroids’. The comparison with Bin Laden’s organisation I now believe to be generally misleading.

ISIS is something altogether new and its methods and aims almost unprecedented. Perhaps the only way to describe it appropriately is to use the well-worn example of the Nazis.

I would posit that the Nazi Wehrmacht – the Germany army under Nazi command – is roughly analogous to al-Qaeda, whilst ISIS is closer in spirit and practice to the Schutzstaffel or SS.

There are many reasons for this but one in particular. Put simply, al-Qaeda – like the Wehrmacht – fought for conventional, semi-rational goals. al-Qaeda sought to expel Western militaries from the Muslim world. The Wehrmacht fought to defend and enlarge the Nazi empire. Neither of these objectives are beyond comprehension to the outside observer and neither give any hint of madness in those who formulated them.

The SS meanwhile was a completely different beast. Himmler transformed the SS from an unremarkable bodyguard division into a secretive spiritual order charged with a unique, historic destiny. It became an elite racial cult, replete with rituals, codes and quirks of initiation. The SS considered themselves the appointed and rightful rulers of the European meta-race and the last hope it had against the ‘Asiatic hordes’ of Russia.

These objectives are plainly not reasonable or rooted in a rational interpretation of the world.

As with the SS, so it is with ISIS. The fighters of Islamic State believe themselves to be divinely ordained agents of the apocalypse. Their flag – the Black Banner – plays a central role in the eschatological drama of the Islamic end-times.

The Hadith most quoted in relation to the Black Banner (or ‘Black Standard’) is the following:

“Our Prophet (saas) told; “Black banners of Ibn Abbas appear from the East.” That is to say, among the Arabs those with black banners appear. After they proceed for a while, again this time a smaller group with black banners appear from the East (the Middle East). They fight against a man from the descend of Abu Sufyan and come under the obedience of Hazrat Mahdi (note: the promised saviour of Islam).”

The ‘Black Flags’ prophecy is the primary motivation of the ISIS leadership. The activities they endorse (unlike those of al-Qaeda) have nothing to do with removing the House of Saud from power or punishing America for its acts of imperialism. They are telescopically aimed at bringing on the end of the world and the mystical victory of Islam over rival religions and sects.

The Jihadis with Black flags believe they possess a divine mandate to cause chaos across the world – the bloodier and more random the better- in order to bring on the final Day of Judgement.

Irrational beliefs pave the way for acts of astonishing cruelty. The SS shot men, women and children into ditches without a moment’s reflection. Today it was reported that a phone seized from a dead ISIS fighter had photos of a beheaded baby. I’ll repeat that: a beheaded baby.

The historians have mourned for decades that we (the allied nations) did not have the knowledge of what was occurring in the Eastern territories. Had we known all the details at the time, the consensus claims, we could have (and perhaps would have) taken out the machinery of the Holocaust from the sky.

We have no such excuses today, as bearded Einsatzgruppen stalk their way through Kurdish villages and towns.


Intimidation Reconsidered.


, , , , , , , , , ,


Last year, it was reported in the media that groups of Muslims were patrolling the streets of North and East London with a view to deterring what they considered ‘un-Islamic’ behaviours. These so-called ‘Muslim patrols’ were said to harass local people for such crimes as openly carrying alcohol or looking as if one had consumed it, eating pork, or (as regards women) dressing in a manner unsuited to the expectations of Sharia.

Whilst these patrols have since faded from the news headlines, the response they provoked remains very much alive. For many months now, ‘Christian patrols’ have walked the same areas of London at night ready to oppose acts of Muslim intimidation. Many – if not all – of these demonstrations are organised by nationalist organisations like Britain First, and most of the volunteers are former or current members of the EDL.

Now, while as a Londoner I like very much the idea of direct action, I feel rather ambivalent about some of the details here. One has to wonder whether a ‘Christian patrol’ has within it a different, corrosive potential.

I’ve said before that the answer to Radical Islam is not Radical Christianity. We don’t want to become the kind of crusader civilisation the blockheads of ISIS imagine we already are. A state run along theocratic lines would be as undesirable with blue-eyed, Dutch enforcers as with enforcers of any other kind. The dark age in the West was every bit as savage and untenable as that which envelopes the Muslim world today.

Still, (and here I suppose I flirt with ‘hate-speech’) one must be honest and say that intimidation (as an idea) is not something to necessarily throw out with the bathwater.

It is (in my opinion) only appropriate that a Muslim feel the same discomfort walking down a Western high street in a burka as I would feel walking down a Saudi high street with a hot dog. I don’t belong there and they don’t belong here. Everything they stand for, we oppose. Everything they oppose, we embrace. This is the most straightforward clash of cultures since the British army faced the Zulu.

We must make Muslims uncomfortable and also make them understand beyond any doubt that their acts of violence can be repaid in kind at short notice. Even in London, we still retain the numerical advantage. If they amass against us, how much more convincingly can we amass against them?

The valuable minorities of London are far from wedded to their current alliance with the Muslims. The Black community understands deep-down that Islam would outlaw many of their cultural (and subcultural) practices and that they could only ever be second-class soldiers in any future alliance with it. The most rational interests of the Jews and Hindus are likewise inclined to our cause.

So let’s upgrade the concept of a Christian Patrol to something more universal; a Western Patrol, primed and ready to defend our rights and pleasures by all means.

I’m not a completely literary animal. I am a young man and physical confrontation, with its bruises, shocks of pain and thrilling pulse, is something I rather enjoy. We can’t possibly shy away from it. If we do, our streets will fall to those who do not.


Have You Read the Qur’an?


, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Last week, a commenter on this blog stressed how important it was for those concerned with the resurgence of Islam to read the Qur’an in its complete form. He was correct to do so, and his recommendation is sound.

I bought a Qur’an many years ago – the Penguin translation by NJ Dawood – and read most of the Suras in a random order. This was before I started writing about Islam, and my only motivation in visiting the text was to see how intolerant it was against Women. As you’ll know, there is a notorious Sura titled ‘Women’, and this contains most of the references to sexual equality in the whole work. The most famous passage from this chapter is undoubtedly verse 4:34 –

“Men have authority over women because God has made one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, forsake them in beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them”.

It’s strange to think that it was 1400 years ago that some gentleman in the Arabian desert wrote these words, and yet every detail in his articulation now affects over a billion living citizens of the world. The sentence “They guard their unseen parts…” has by-itself chosen the dress for a massive portion of female humanity. That person in the desert, scraping these words onto the bones of an animal, or onto papyrus or stone tablets, decided then what a Muslim woman in Leicester will wear today. Such are the giddying quantum mechanics of history.

As for examples of the promotion of violence, we are rather spoilt for choice. The anti-Islam writer Daniel Pipes collected the following excerpts:

“Regarding infidels (unbelievers), they are the Muslim’s “inveterate enemies” (Sura 4:101). Muslims are to “arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere” (Sura 9:5) for them. They are to “seize them and put them to death wherever you find them, kill them wherever you find them, seek out the enemies of Islam relentlessly” (Sura 4:90). “Fight them until Islam reigns supreme” (Sura 2:193). “Cut off their heads, and cut off the tips of their fingers” (Sura 8:12).

I’ve no longer got my copy of the Penguin translation. I think I gave it to Age Concern just before I left for University. I will re-order the same volume and would strongly advise anyone concerned about Islam to order a copy too. It is hugely irritating to have one’s Islamophobia returned with the remark “You don’t know anything about Islam”. That was never true. I discovered as much as I need to about the Islamic religious system many years ago.

Nevertheless, a good knowledge of Qur’anic quotation is vital to successfully conduct a live argument with the faithful. A Muslim does not consider this text as Christians consider the New Testament. Muslims devoutly believe that God wrote the Qur’an and that every sentence must be the absolute truth. Given its purported author, Muslims also hold that it cannot be argued with or re-interpreted. It must be followed without question. This makes Qur’anic criticism by far the most effective means of confronting Islam as a manner of life and thought.


Malala: A Question of Credibility.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


So, the world’s favourite teenager Malala Yousafzai can now add a Nobel Peace Prize to the Taliban bullet as things she has famously received and which qualify her as a global political sage. Does her talent for passively receiving things ever end?

Perhaps Yousafzai might next get run down by a lorry driven by a White Supremacist and immediately become spokesperson for Western race-relations.

I don’t enjoy having to use this silly tone to speak of someone so young. I must use it though because feelings are being demanded of me that I don’t have. I am being ordered to feel awe for someone who hasn’t achieved anything and who is being fattened by book-deals and political funds.

The institution responsible for the latest cheque in Yousafzai’s swelling bank account comes as no great shock. The Nobel Peace Prize committee has suffered for many years now from a dire lack of credibility. Ever since the awarding of the honour to (the then virginal) President Barack Obama, the honour has had a light, floaty, cosmetic feel to it – almost as if it was a means of political expression rather than of reward.

The choice of Yousafzai belongs undoubtedly to the same downward trend.

I should clarify that I don’t have anything personal against Malala. Or at least no more than I have against professional psychics, internet healers or astrologers. She is the kindly target of a storm of stupid emotion. That’s all. It’s not something I can either encourage or endorse.

Nevertheless, it has been uncomfortable to witness people I respect (friends among them) fall for Yousafzai’s sweet-smelling hypnotic. There have even been arguments put to me that I am somehow ‘jealous’ of the political starlet, or that I resent her for other base motivations. That is the purest nonsense. Malala is obviously cashing in at a furious pace, but this is no more offensive to me than the success of any other celebrity. What does miff me is that while Victoria Beckham or Miley Cyrus do not (rightly) enjoy either moral respect or political credit, Malala receives them by the bucketload. And for what?

If Yousafzai truly wanted to earn the respect and power she already possesses, she would leave Britain and return to her native Pakistan. She would stand as a Pakistani MP or set up a local organisation dedicated to the right of children to attend school there.

What possible use can she be to her professed cause in Birmingham or New York? The West is in no need of being lectured on the right of education. We already have that in place and have for some time.

Perhaps behind all the public virtues presented by Ms Yousefzai there is just a normal girl growing steadily accustomed to the pleasures of money, silk curtains and chauffer driven limousines.


Delayed Thoughts on Osama Bin Laden.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Those who read the child-killer Anders Behring Breivik’s manifesto following his misadventure in Oslo were understandably quick to accuse the murderer of hypocrisy for his stated admiration of Osama bin Laden. How could a man so virulently anti-Islam and willing to confront Islamism speak in a positive voice about the leader of al-Qaeda?

It actually makes sense the more you think about it. Indeed, I think I also feel a twinge of respect for the 9/11 ringleader (as hideous as that sounds). You only have to read his notorious ‘Fatwa against America and Israel’ to realise the wildcat millionaire was by-and-large on the money about Western-Islamic relations.

Bin Laden recognised, long before most, that Islam and modernity were (and are) incompatible and that (eventually) one must make way for the other. He knew that the only way Islam could reassert itself as an alternative to modern living was through huge waves of violence; that Islam will have to outdo the modern world in savagery if it cannot (and it cannot) compete in terms of economic growth or cultural vibrancy. Most importantly, he also knew that there is a dark place in human nature that respects violence, even of the most horrid and savage kind and that this respect can sometimes overcome the rational part of the mind that values banks, music stores and coffee shops. It is out of ignorance of this that we are shocked by the pampered London Muslims who abandon Kensington, iPhones and PlayStations for Syria and Iraq. Bin Laden understood only too well the ancient, occult lure of the primitive and all its apparent ‘purity’.

I suppose bin Laden was also (though we are loathe to admit it) something of a freedom fighter. It’s not pleasant to acknowledge, but bin Laden was exactly correct about American policy in the Gulf. It was (and is) deeply hypocritical of America to posture about democratisation in the Middle East whilst at the same time maintain a relationship with a hand-severing despotism in Riyadh. And to be sure, were bin Laden’s aims limited to the liberation of his homeland from the House of Saud, it wouldn’t have been crazy for liberals to have supported him.

He was not limited to such noble aims of course, despite what the Left occasionally argues. He wanted an Islamic superpower under his direct command, primed to target and bully the free world for outlandish demands. Those who replace him maintain those aims, but lack entirely the reason he undeniably possessed.

It serves all the while to remember this though. Bin Laden was a monster, but the sleep of reason that gave birth to him was our own.


Gay Marriage in Saudi Arabia: Prospects and Obstacles.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


As I write, the passage of the Gay Marriage bill in Saudi Arabia still hangs tensely in the balance. Opposition from the religious establishment shows no sign of relenting with peaceful protests held overnight in Jeddah and Riyadh.

Meanwhile, supporters of the bill have delivered a petition with over a million signatures to the office of domestic affairs in Jeddah. The government has promised to consider both sides carefully.

Divisions between the two sides have been civil but impassioned and both feel strongly that they are on the brink of triumph.

Abu-Majid, a prominent advocate of gay liberties and executive of Saudi Gay Empowerment Committee (SGEC), said to reporters:

“This is obviously very tense. It’s also hugely exciting. The vote could go either way but I have faith it will be in the right direction: Forward. This is a chance to show the world the true progressive spirit of the Saudi people. Our values can help to lead the world.”

Meanwhile, across the ideological barricades, Sheikh Mohammad Sulayyil claimed his camp was the better placed to succeed.

“We represent the conservative majority in this country” he said “.. the silent majority, who oppose the desecration of marriage but are too polite to make their voices heard. We are a progressive, friendly society, but this is one step too far.”

Asked whether he harboured any hostility toward homosexuals (a frequent allegation by the SGEC), Sulayyil responded resolutely; “Of course we don’t. You cannot hate anyone in Islam. We love and care for homosexuals. We wish only that they respect our believes as well as their own.”

Despite observers predicting a close result, the ‘yes’ faction has easily been the most high-profile to date, with celebrities from throughout the Kingdom lining up to demonstrate their support for the bill. The 30 year old Lesbian actress Aafreeda Aftab has spoken at rallies up and down the country, accompanied by such LGBT superstars as Mohammad Badaidah, Abdul Laqiya and Osama Bin Haroum.

Some events in support of the bill have more dramatic than others. Laqiya and Haroum courted controversy by French-kissing in Medina during the Hajj season. Some clerics deemed this to be inappropriate behaviour and letters of complaint were written to various elected officials. Both actors may face a small fine if officials concur with the motion.

Within religious circles the debate has been particularly profound, with liberal and female imams taking a cautious stand in favour of tolerance and hard-line clerics stating frank opposition.

One thing is clear. Whichever way the result goes, the bill threatens to redefine the traditional identity of this gilded Kingdom and cause waves through the settled political landscape.


(That my satire here is almost see-through exposes how alien the Saudi world is to the one we inhabit).

Act One (Postponed).


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


The day I begin writing this post has seen armed metropolitan police storming properties in West London (not more than 15 minutes tube journey from my house). Those resident there are said to have been planning the opening act in the terror wave against European targets that is almost sure to arrive in revenge for EU involvement in the war against IS.

The area (Ladbroke Grove) is familiar to me. I was walking around those streets the other weekend. Who knows, I may have brushed against the budding militants as I strode about, happy in my ignorance that this part of London is now a haven for violent cavemen.

I predicted some weeks ago that a terror wave will soon blaze across Europe, targeting mostly capitals and dense population centres. I’m afraid that prediction has only been strengthened by these arrests. The police have done a heroic service by preventing this attack, but another attempt is inevitable. Such is the risk of the age. No Londoner can be sure, as we rock back and forward on the subway train, that our carriages will not dissolve into fresh blood and white fire.  

Nevertheless, I can take this occasion to remind the scum who plot to shed my blood and that of my neighbours; we are not afraid of you. This beautiful city, this thousand-ringed tree of history decorated with sparkling merit, shall expel you as soon as it finds a singular voice. And that is only a matter of time…


The Uniqueness of Muslim Evil.


, , , , , , , , ,


If religions were psychotropics (and there are some who argue as much), Christianity would probably be classified as a euphoriant, Buddhism as a sedative and Islam as a deliriant.

Of course, I don’t believe religions are actually as simple or as rudely artificial as chemical compounds, but that isn’t to say that some of the effects of religions aren’t fairly easy to attribute back to their sources. In the Islamic world in particular, extremes of human dysfunction appear to be part of cultural character. And in the West, acts of violence without sense, committed without provocation, and in a ritualistic manner almost always have a Muslim practitioner. Put simply, there are certain lows of behaviour that Westerners do not sink to, even at our most criminal and so are now the identifying stamp of a different origin.

Last week for example, it was reported that an African-American male (Alton Nolen, 30) had beheaded a colleague at the Oklahoma food plant where he was employed. Soon after the first report entered the headlines, the second shoe dropped clatteringly to the floor; Nolen was a Muslim convert.

A month prior to this, in Edmonton, London, an 82 year old woman named Palmira Silva was found decapitated in her garden. The police soon arrested the chief suspect, Nicholas Salavadore, 25 – said to be a black, Muslim convert.

Last year, in Jersey City, two Coptic Christians were brutally killed and decapitated for ‘unknown’ motives. The killer was a 28 year-old American Muslim.

There are many other examples I could use, stretching further back in time than we would care to assume, but the point is already made. The importation of Muslims into the West has imported with them the threat of a specific, particularly nasty kind of behaviour.

I’ve used beheadings as an example, but the issue is much broader than that. I could have mentioned the Muslim branding of underage girls on their backside to denote ‘ownership’, or I could talk about the Muslim who forced his White girlfriend to wear a device allowing him to track her movements. The list is long and eventually desensitising.

Beheading is appropriate as an example because the cases mentioned above were often solved by the public even before the police released information. When the London and Oklahoma cases were first reported (in raw, undetailed form), the commentators on the internet all ‘knew’ what kind of person was responsible long before they had any grounds on which to base their presumption.

Beheading is also appropriate as an example because it requires a very peculiar and hysterical type of aggression. It’s been a very long time indeed since its last state-sanctioned use in the West. Our elites, as cruel as they have been and can sometimes still be, grew to be repelled by such actions. They evolved to concede that to do such horrible things was (and is) at odds with a society capable of doing great things.

The contemporary resurfacing of the bestial is therefore directly tethered to Muslim migration.

You might well react to this with a ‘You don’t saaay..” but I’m afraid not everyone yet accepts it. Writing in the Daily Telegraph, the neuroscientist Professor Ian Robertson sought (in vain) to universalise the local evils of Islamist behaviour:

“As Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria butcher thousands of “infidels” and carry off their women and children into slavery” he wrote “…many in the West are inclined to see this as an unique outcrop of Islamic fundamentalism. Yet after overrunning a Bosnian town on 11th July 1995, Bosnian Serb – ostensibly Christian – forces, cold-bloodedly massacred 8,000 Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica. Hutu genocide of Tutsi in Rwanda, Khmer Rouge mass-murder of Cambodian city-dwellers, Nazi genocide of Jews, Gypsies and the disabled…. the list of savagery is as long as it is profoundly depressing.”

I find these comparisons somewhat disingenuous. The Bosnian situation was far more complex than most historians (particularly those in the victor nations) ordinarily concede. During the disintegration of Yugoslavia, there were uncountable atrocities on both sides, including many by Muslim forces determined to re-Islamise a Christian country that had been contended for by both religions for centuries. The narrative of Serbian Nazis and Muslim civilians is wilfully deceptive. The Serbs were faced with losing their most important and historically precious territory – Kosovo – and for no better reason than recent demographic changes. It would be as if Leicester was to declare a Hindu city-state and American intercede on its behalf.

The Khmer Rouge and Hutu genocides meanwhile are not Western and do not deserve comparison with the modern civilised world. The only valid example Robertson manages to offer is the Nazi Holocaust and the Nazis are the only manifestation of European culture that can ever be justly compared to the Islamism of today.

Still, for some strange reason, I can’t quite be comforted by the thought that Europeans once fell into habits of bestiality alike the ones we now import for ourselves. If Nazi Germany was still a country, I doubt we would grant its citizenry the right of migration while they still upheld the beliefs of their native land. This is exactly equivalent to the situation of Muslim migration to the Western World.

Such is the tragedy of the times. The West has paid a high price in blood and silver to reform the character of its citizens and overcome and expel the forces of hell… only to let the agents of its renewal back in.


Time Will Radicalise Us All.


, , , , , , , , , , , ,


I’ve been accused (more than once) of living in a fantasy land when it comes to my preferred solution to the Islamic colonisation of Europe; namely, an organised deportation of the colonisers.

‘It could never happen!’ they say, ‘Be serious!’, ‘We’ll never drum up support for it!’

To these concerns I must say again that the scale of a problem is not an argument against trying to solve it.

To put the matter bluntly, I find almost all mainstream commentary on the Islamisation of Europe pitiably incomplete. Writers tend to run boldly only two thirds of the distance required, stumbling at the last, apparently frightened into slowing down. It identifies the problem in studious (sometimes even tedious) detail, but does so like a poet mourning destruction for the sake of art, with no intention of affecting the future.

I don’t do this simply because I am not resigned to the Islamisation of Europe. I want to stop it. And I won’t blink or shiver when faced with the actions necessary to achieve that.

While the wholesale Islamisation of the British Isles may never occur, the fate of our largest cities is no longer in doubt. We are at a fork in the road, with two branches leading to two separate futures. In one future, London (and the other large cities) become as Islamised as Beirut. In the other, they retain a Western (and perhaps even British) aspect.

As to which future becomes established depends on whether radical action is taken over the next few years. The demographic advance of Muslim communities will make the task of maintaining our cultural sovereignty ever more radical with time. The kindest answer is to stop the colonisation while it is still small and manageable.

As regards a mass-deportation of Muslims from the UK, one must describe very explicitly what is under consideration; the forceful evacuation of entire families and the overcoming of native protest. I know how different this hypothetical Britain would be to the one we love – but it is precisely this Britain which is being allowed to shrivel and die because of our fear of action.

The women in veils who waddle down our streets are fish out of water. The prayer-capped men who threaten shops selling alcohol are fish out of water. They will lose little by being placed back into the sea.

And anyway, I believe the movement of events will come to change your mind in the end. Time will eventually radicalise us all.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 186 other followers