Coffee, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Eurabia, Islamification of Britain, Islamisation of London, Mark Steyn, Multiculturalism, Pamela Geller, Rihanna Muslim, Sharia, Western world
I was browsing in the Piccadilly branch of Waterstones the other week, looking for a textbook for my coursework when I (inevitably) got distracted and headed to the politics section. There, the same thing annoyed me which has annoyed me countless times before: the absurd number of books about Islamic terrorism.
Almost every book addressing Islamic-Western relations these days seems to dwell centrally on the issue of terrorism, Jihadism, and al-Qaeda, and nothing else. The few honourable exceptions to this (Mark Steyn’s wonderfully savage ‘America Alone’, and Fallaci’s ‘Force of Reason’), I have already read.
Why aren’t more books dedicated to addressing the real problems caused by Islamic immigration? The problems which are a 24/7 issue and affect the vast population, as opposed to those – like terrorism – that are only freak occurrences affecting a few?
I began to write an essay about something I call ‘Muslim Social Terrorism’ a few months ago. The essay became so long that I’m going to try and extend it into a book. But the definition is simple and so I’ll explain it here.
If you’re a British kaffir living in Bradford, Oldham, Sparkbrook, Tower Hamlets or some other place undergoing Islamisation, you’ll no doubt be rather pissed-off about the whole affair. But if I was to ask for a list of reasons for your opposing the local Islamic presence, I’m almost certain (correct me if I’m wrong) that words like ‘terrorism’, ‘Jihad’ and even ‘Sharia’ wouldn’t feature very highly among them.
More likely your answers would include terms like ‘intimidation’, ‘immaturity’, ‘aggression’, ‘sexual abuse’, ‘stalking’, ‘loitering’, ‘benefit cheating’ etc… etc…
These are not, as some Counter-Jihad authors suggest, tactics of Jihad. Muslims don’t smash bus shelters, or wolf-whistle schoolgirls to further their religion. These things are rather the inevitable side-effects of allowing a talentless, backward people to dwell in an innovative, progressive society.
Muslims tend to be a social nuisance often because they couldn’t become anything else even if they wanted to. The Muslim condition is innate and the reasons why are worth elaborating upon.
Wit, charm and depth of personality are not developed like a language. Personality cannot be either taught or learned. Rather it is developed subconsciously through human experience. A personality is the legacy (good or otherwise) of trial and error, success and failure, pleasure and pain, evolved over many years from the cradle upwards. The personality one has by the age of university (18-30) is the direct product of youth-experience. If a man has a happy childhood, this will show in his twenties. If he has an unhappy childhood, this will show likewise. But in both cases, the individual can still develop a creative, fulfilled and decent character. If we are all pressed by the same culture, whatever shape we are left in will usually be compatible with some kind of constructive adulthood in that culture. For all our distinctions we know there are other people like us out there, who will find us or we will find them.
This is plainly not the case with Muslims. Their youth is not suited to anything we are used to. They are socially stunted from an early age and their character is never developed to be compatible with the society they will one day have to work or study within.
There are many factors which contribute to this.
Even in the Western world, Muslim youths are reared in large but suffocatingly tight families, whose windows are lined with the bars of rigid tradition. Irony and advanced humor can never genuinely develop in these conditions. For the average Muslim there are no meeting points with freedom available before late-adolescence and by then it is too late.
Until University, a Muslim’s daylight is spent in an all-Muslim school, his evening in a Muslim home, his weekend at some all-Muslim family get-together, and on the rare occasion he has reason to leave the prison of his family, it will be with a Muslim friend whose family is known to his own.
The end product of this horrific process is not something either socially desirable or able to be reformed.
At any University there are countless cases of a Muslim who has been given his first taste of non-Muslim life. Having been raised in a dark-room of tradition, he is plunged suddenly into the flashing light of Western liberty. He sincerely thinks he’ll be fine. He usually has some crude knowledge of his country – but only via artificial mediums like television and music. Lacking a real developed personality, he fails. He doesn’t understand why he fails, but he fails.
This total incompatibility lies behind all the real problems of Islamic immigration. Social Terrorism is the fallout from the clash of Muslim inadequacy and Western sophistication. It lies behind the grooming, rape, bullying, stalking, and aggression so typical of Muslim migrants.
Unlike Jihadist Terrorism, Muslim Social Terrorism affects everyone.
Most Muslims cannot integrate, even though many want to. This is why, despite the huge Muslim presence in Universities, most young Muslim graduates are unemployed or on benefits. The skills themselves are not the issue. Muslims can be bright and complete degrees in complicated scientific areas of study. They may even do the job they qualify for well during the early weeks, and earn merit for efficiency. But their inadequacies will sooner or later present themselves.
I knew an English student who had studied pharmaceutical science. After completing his degree, this chap went to work at a branch of a popular pharmacist in South London. His work-mates were evenly split between Eastern-European migrants and British born Muslims. The Eastern-Europeans kept to themselves after work, but the Muslims, as would be expected, competed amongst themselves for the attention of the Brit.
On the few occasions our fellow went for an after-work coffee with the Muslims, he reports that the difference in behavior between then and the hours of work, was truly staggering.
“In the day” he said, “They did their job like everyone else. They were polite and mechanical. But then when work finished, they became like children. Babies almost. They liked to talk about things I used to joke about with mates in Year 5. They giggled nervously around women, and when we were safely distant from work after hours, they would talk about the female customers in the most horrible way. Calling them ‘slags’ was routine.”
This is, of course, to be expected. The surface of a grown-up Muslim may be professional, respectable and hard-working, but his emotional deformities are always bubbling just below the surface, and beneath the gloss of financial achievement, they remain children.
Crucially here, we have a problem that is separate from Islam itself. Even if these young men who have been raised for another culture, abandon their religious beliefs and make an honest effort to integrate, this will not resolve the issue. They will still be unable to function without friction in any advanced Western atmosphere. The stunted Muslim-raised personality cannot hope to compete with that of a well-developed non-Muslim, even if belief in Islam is subtracted from it. We cannot furthermore expect people to be second-class citizens in a civilized country.
Consequently any sensible solution to the Muslim threat must include (as a first rather than a last step) the orderly segregation of socially-developed citizens away from those of Islamic design. The latter cannot be integrated and even if they could be, it would not be desirable. For these reasons, I am not a fan of movements aimed at converting Muslims to Christianity. The damage inflicted by a strict Islamic upbringing cannot be undone.
I am still waiting for an anti-Muslim movement to arise which takes such things into account; a movement which understands that the real problems of Muslim immigration are social and not political and consequently require harder, less-political actions to face them down. The EDL degrade themselves when they use dumb slogans like ‘No Surrender to Al-Qaeda!’. Al-Qaeda is a spent force, whose leaders are taken out by drones on a daily basis. But even were they not, they would not care a jot about young lads in Durham or Stoke-on-Trent. The main beef of Bin-Laden’s terror-network was with America, Israel and the House of Saud, not Hanley Council.
We must be serious. The problem is serious, and it shows no sign of going away.