Does It Have to Get Worse to Get Better?

Tags

America, America 911, BBC, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, EDL, English Defence League, Eurabia, Europe, France beheading, ISIS, ISIS Beheading, Islamic State BBC, Islamic State Wikipedia, Islamification of Britain, Islamophobia, Kuwait Mosque, Muslim, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Tunisia attacks

• First published on this blog in June, 2015

An argument beloved by the extremes of the right-left spectrum proposes that the short-term success of the opposing side is ultimately good for their own; in other words, that the dystopia they intend (ultimately) to make impossible has first to occur before it can be permanently forbidden.

In our case, this would be to say that the Islamisation of Europe has to quicken, the terror attacks multiply and the general abuse of our population intensify if we are to prevent a future in which such events cannot be opposed at all.

I suppose as arguments go, this one has a whispering, seductive quality to it. To a youthful and excitable temperament especially, easily thrilled by the idea of civil unrest and bad news, it will seem an obviously fine idea, since it guarantees (in fact requires) action and blood, broken glass and the rumble of boots.

But does it really hold water?

Well, today, following a Ramadan sermon by the shaggy beatnik “Caliph” Al-Baghdadi, terrorists have attacked civilians in three different countries. In Tunisia, Gunmen massacred at least 37 tourists relaxing at a beach resort. In France, some poor soul has been murdered, his head left – covered in Arabic script – on a spike. And in Kuwait, the perennially despised Shia have been blown up while praying in a Mosque.

All of the attacks are thought to be the actions of the Islamic State.

This triptych of evil certainly says something about the expansion of IS’s reach. And I think we can all agree that it qualifies as things ‘getting worse’. But have we been empowered by this day of carnage? Are we in a stronger position now than yesterday? I’m not so sure.

Most of the people intelligent enough to understand the reality of Islam already understand it. Faced with the daily progress of Jihad, you would have to be blind, deaf, mute and stupid to resist the conclusion that Islam is violent. And once that main point is understood, further outrages become progressively less shocking.

For this reason I doubt today’s events will have changed anybody’s mind. At least in the West…

In the nation of Tunisia, I think some progress will be made in the coming weeks. Although the point is often exaggerated by eager multi-culturalists, the Tunisians really are a more liberal, relaxed, ‘European’ people than their neighbours. Images of the city afflicted by today’s massacre (Sousse) remind me of destinations in Sicily and Greece. Only the captions below reveal their African location.

As one would expect, this reputation is jealously guarded by Tunisian liberals for whom an event like today’s must be infuriating. While they are in this mood, and should they stumble across this site, I would like say the following – The elimination of Islam from your country is the only failsafe cure for the misery that oppresses you. You have a beautiful Mediterranean homeland, one that many Westerners could be made jealous of. Be bold and change your allegiance while you still have a culture worthy of the name.

As for us in the West, the ‘things have to get worse before they get better’ argument is contradicted (repeatedly) by reality. Van Gogh’s stabbing didn’t bring us any closer to a solution. Lee Rigby didn’t. Rotherham didn’t. Charlie Hebdo didn’t. Today’s events won’t either. The attention span of the average Westerner is diminishing with every fresh atrocity, just as one would logically expect it to.

To rouse people into direct and decisive action will take initiative. It is no use waiting around for things to reach rock-bottom, and then like a phoenix, bounce back to a previous vitality. That is simply not realistic.

If you have the gift of organisation, organise a protest. If you have the gift of eloquence, write letters, start a blog or compose a petition. And when it is asked of you to state your grievance and preferred solution, be open and unafraid about it. Tell them you wish to preserve the Britain of comedy, poetry and freedom, and resist a Britain of Salat, Sawm and Jihad.

Keep the faith in victory too. When the future exerts its terrible pressures, our house shall stand. Theirs shall fall.  

D, LDN.

Advertisements

Normalising Muslim Britain

Tags

BBC, Blog, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, EastEnders, Facebook, Islam, Islam and the West, Islamification of Britain, Islamisation of London, moderate, Moderate Muslims, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, trum, trump, Twitter, wordpress

• First published on this blog in January, 2016

The presence of Islam in 21st century Britain is no more natural or inevitable than the presence of Sikhism in Chile. It’s worth repeating this fact whenever possible or appropriate. This is because many fake liberals continue to push the argument that Islamophobes such as you or I are somehow unworldly, retrograde, or unrealistic for opposing Muslim settlement in the contemporary West.

Some commentators go even further, saying that far from being a new and foreign element in our society, Islam is a traditional part of Europe, citing irrelevant factors like the antique conurbations of Muslim Sicily, Malta or Andalucía. Islamic influence, they claim, can be found in Europe’s system of law, code of social ethics, philosophy, medicine, architecture and geography. Given that this is so, why shouldn’t Muslim Pakistanis, Turks or Arabs live in present-day Leeds or Stockholm? They are as responsible for the greatness of these places as the natives…right?

No. Not right at all. It is certainly true that Islam’s Andalusian Golden age imparted a great number of ideas to European elites, many of which are now claimed as entirely and originally European. However, such contributions were mostly limited to disciplines of what we would now call ‘academia’ and in-any-case are dwarfed many times over by the influence of European ideas on Muslim civilisation. Do Europeans have the moral right to settle in Muslim countries on that basis? No, of course they don’t. And vice versa.

Leftists like to push the myth of European-Islamic co-development for one reason above all; they think it will normalise the presence of Islam in Europe and erase the memory of a Europe without Islam. For if the Muslim presence in Europe can be made to seem normal, traditional or ancient, objections to it will naturally seem irrational, unreasonable and unrealistic.

Another way the same effect can be achieved is via the media, and especially the screen media. Over Christmas, like most Britons, I found myself slouched in front of the television for extended periods of time. During that time I witnessed an astonishing barrage of British Islamic subject matter. There was the Citizen Khan Christmas special on BBC One (Note: CK is a woefully unfunny Muslim sitcom). There were the quiz shows with a disproportionate number of Muslim contestants, many of whom wore Hijabs or prayer caps. There was Eastenders – perhaps the most popular show in Britain today – with gripping plotlines involving characters called Shabnam, Kush, Tamwar, Masood, Fatima, Kamil and Ali. National (and even more so) local newsreaders and weathermen/girls were disproportionately Muslim. And so on. Over time, this normalises something abnormal; the slow bleed of east into west; the merging of two contraries into a single untenable consensus.

This is new. This is unnatural. And this is not something we should be tolerating.

D, LDN

Hooray for Sweden and Denmark!

Tags

asylum seekers, asylum sweden, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, denmark eu, EU, european union vote, migrant crisis, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, refugees or migrants, Sweden, sweden denmark, sweden deportations, sweden eu, sweden yes

A peculiar modern stereotype insists that the nation of Sweden is more deeply infected with masochism and political correctness than all the other nations of Europe. According to this caricature, Swedes are absurdly tolerant, pathetically naïve and feminised beyond repair, a fact that can explain the mass immigration of Muslims into the Kingdom in recent years.

Is it accurate? I don’t think so. While Sweden certainly has a more extreme feminist base than, say, Great Britain, there is no clear evidence that the country is populated by suicidal masochists. That portrait is an internet myth, more rooted in the age-old misperception of Sweden as a magical land of naked, blonde rationalists. Sweden is actually a very normal European country, with the same imbalance of naivety over realism as afflicts every major Western state.

And just in case that isn’t convincing, my contention has been supplied with fresh vigour this past week by the announcement that the Swedish government plans to deport 60,000 (sixty thousand) Muslim ‘asylum seekers’ – without compensation or right of appeal – in the coming months.

Needless to say, when I first heard of this, I was enraptured. It is perhaps the first piece of good news since the migrant crisis began. After this, my already elevated mood was further raised by the news that Denmark is also to carry out its own mass-deportations in the near future, albeit on a lesser numerical scale than its northern sibling. Hurrah and Huzzah! It might not be the whole job, but it’s a bloody good start.

The coming deportations are good news for many reasons besides the obvious pleasure of seeing invaders packed onto plane. One, not mentioned yet by the media, is that it will set a precedent of mass-deportation for the whole of Europe to take advantage of at a later point. Given that physical removal of problematic Muslim citizens is surely the only failsafe way of securing our societies against Islamist terrorism, this precedent could hardly be more timely.

Of course, removing 60,000 people from a Western nation (presumably to relocate them back in the third world) will be a long, occasionally chaotic process. There will be opposition, indignation, locking of arms, and waving of placards. Facebook campaigns will surely be launched to keep certain individuals within ‘their’ adopted communities. And so on. It is nevertheless imperative that the project is a success. If it fails, the whole idea of restoring Europe’s balance of cultural power will be lost, and the suggestion of it forever demonised.

That the countries embarking on this action are Scandinavian, and thus respected by liberals across the globe, makes the prospect of success greater than it otherwise would be. This is for the simple reason that international socialists have no better examples of its workability than the regimes of the Nordic peninsula. Will the likes of Michael Moore or Bernie Sanders really want to bad-mouth the left-wing success stories of Sweden and Denmark? If they did so, surely that would cast doubt on the viability of mass-immigration and political-social liberalism in general…?

Away from the liberal clique, I would guess that most Western observers wish this project the fairest of winds.

D, LDN

Horny, Absurd, Priceless: The Europe We Love

Tags

belgian, belgian orgy, brussels, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, EU, Europe, Facebook, France, Islamisation of London, Multiculturalism, new years eve, No to Turkey in the EU, orgies, orgy in belgium police lockdown, Paris, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, terror lockdown in brussels, Terrorism, Twitter

The revelations (or perhaps they are still accusations) that members of the Belgian police force engaged in a sex orgy during the lockdown of Brussels a few weeks ago (prompted by credible reports of an ISIS terror-plot) initially made me laugh. I laughed raucously, along with everyone else, muttering between giggles things like ‘ah Belgians’, ‘ah Europeans’, or even (with conscious inaccuracy) “ah French people’. This is the kind of behaviour English people expect from Continentals. We lazily imagine the citizens of France, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands (in particular) to be laid-back, cheese-eating nudists; sex-crazed, free-loving atheists; adulterous young poets or elderly lotharios etc.. Such pleasant stereotyping is as old and as traditional as the ingredients of a Cornish pasty.

But after laughing, I was soon overcome with sadness. I couldn’t help but contrast the lovably liberal antics alleged with the reason for their supposed practitioners coming together in the first place. If the charges are true (and I have no way of knowing either way), then the contrast is at once horrifying and revealing. European people of the 21st century engaging in the ultimate acts of liberated modernity, all while their society is menaced by those who would execute a woman for showing too much elbow. When these two ways of living are placed so dramatically and starkly side by side, I can’t help but feel an intense protective anger for my civilisation as a whole.

We are as far away from the Muslims as can possibly be imagined. They are right to call us infidels; for by the standards of their doctrine, we are actively flouting every rotten thing they stand for. We cannot possibly reconcile the Belgian way of life – with all its transgression and experiment – with the Flintstone prohibitions and prudishness of the Salafist (my spellcheck is being Islamophobic here – suggesting I mean ‘salami’) hordes. And I don’t think this incompatibility has ever been expressed so clearly, so beautifully as it was in the situation described.

I love and value the European mindset; the relaxed, pot-smoking, Sartre-reading, café-haunting intellectualism that is so superior to the stuffy Victorianism of our own. I would miss it terribly were it to vanish, or be vulgarised into a spiked fascism of necessity (as may happen in the future).

In tune with this, Bill Maher, US comedian and master of contradiction, caught my attention last year when he reported his fear that European tolerance was under threat from Islam, and not just its political stability or security. This is surely the main issue for us going into this new year. Indeed, this is the great challenge for our generation. To fight effectively against the virus afflicting our society, while preserving the very cause of our infection; namely, our tolerance, our brightside thinking and openness to new ideas.

How I miss Pim Fortuyn more with every year that passes! He saw this all so clearly. But he’s gone now, gone for good, and we have no leader with the clarity of mind to lead us into battle.

Happy New Year.

D, LDN

Western Attention Deficit Disorder

Tags

add, adhd, adhd adhd, BBC, Britain First, cartoon, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, DTMW, europe africa australia, Facebook, facebook twitter, family guy Islam, glenn, ISIS, ISIS ISIL, Multiculturalism, Muslim, Muslims, Muslims in Europe, Paris, Paris Attacks, paris ISIS, politics, social media, south park Islam, Twitter, YouTube

Just over a year ago (last October) I wrote an article entitled ‘Is Jihadism Becoming Accepted?” (google to read it in full). After the Paris attacks of last week, and given the length and intensity of the reaction to them, I believe I am justified in recycling some quotes from it.

“During this process of Islamisation…” I began “…a good way of gauging the will to resist in the general population is to monitor the speed of recovery after each individual Muslim outrage; that is, how long it takes for the public to resume its usual apathetic mood after being shocked anew by a terror attack or comparable scandal involving Muslims…”

I then gave a brief history of terror outrages (against Western targets), noting that each reaction was briefer than the one before… “The pattern here is obvious: Years, then months, then weeks, then days… Jihadism – it seems – is becoming assimilated into everyday Western life. This is potentially devastating and for several reasons…Most of all it is because shock and anger are integral to the psychology of human resistance.”

Now, a question: Do you believe the reaction to the Paris attacks of this month has been more proactive, severe or long-lasting than the reaction to the Charlie Hebdo shootings of last January? Personally, I don’t believe so.

Indeed, facebook gimmicks and a few cruise missiles aside, there has been very few political consequences. While, for 24 hours or so, the world was undoubtedly transfixed on the Bataclan carnage, a few days more reduced the event to fish and chip paper. Compare this to the years of outrage over 9/11, the months of outrage over 7/7, the weeks of outrage over Lee Rigby, and the 5 or 6 days of outrage over Charlie Hebdo. While more people dislike – even hate – Muslims than ever before, there is a diminishing vibrancy and intelligence in their emotions. Perhaps needless to say, this is gravely worrying.

Whatever else can be said about Muslims, one cannot say that they are forgetful. Indeed, we are still being attacked in retribution for the re-conquest of Andalusia, the Balfour declaration and the publishing of the Satanic Verses. Muslims remember. They hold grudges. The Western mind, by contrast, is easier to distract than the mind of toddler loaded up on Jelly beans. Whether to facebook, twitter, youtube, xbox or football, Western attention flees from unpleasant realities, having given them only the briefest glance in the first place.

This must change if we are to survive. If terrorism becomes an accepted part of our culture and everyday lives, we will lose the will to do anything decisive or conclusive about it. Religious violence is not acceptable in the modern world, and nor is it inevitable, natural or ‘the way things go’. It is exceptional, horrid and shocking and must remain so to our imagination.

D, LDN

Islam in Europe Can’t Work

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, Barack Obama, BBC, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, ISIS, ISIS paris, ISIS responsibility, ISIS twitter, Islam Europe, Islam in Europe, Islamic State, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Paris, Paris Attacks, paris attacks reaction, paris bombs, paris facebook, paris terrorist attacks, United States

What a breathless charge of hatred Friday evening saw… The sheerest malevolence driving towards the innocent at a hundred miles an hour. The chaos left behind is nightmarish. Bodies strewn on the streets; sporting events and classical concerts cancelled, morgues inundated with cooling bodies, clouds of gunsmoke and burnt explosives washing over the streets of Sartre, Husymans and De Beauvoir. 127 people (this is the figure at the time of writing) have perished, most of them young, most of them middle-class. We can assume from such data that many of them will have been liberal, even towards Islam. How cruel, how very awful it is that they have been made to depart in the process learning the vital truth of our age.

What truth? The truth that Islam is violent – and that Muslims are themselves violent in proportion to how much credence they give their religious beliefs. This is the unvarnished reality. I am very tired of hearing the ‘not all Muslims are terrorists’ talking-point. While terrorists don’t yet comprise a majority in the Ummah, the true proportion is markedly higher than the 2-3% fabricated by our political elite. You don’t need to be dead on the ground, surrounded by shards of glass and puddles of blood to be called a terrorist. All suicide bombers were alive once. They smiled once. They had jobs once. Likewise, many ‘ordinary’ Muslims walking beside us today will end up trying to kill us. As to why they behave this way, the lies simply won’t work anymore. Beyond all those block-headed and absurd analogies with abortion clinic bombings, the truth remains that Islamic violence really has no equivalent in other faiths. Most religions have modernised, re-examined their doctrines and tamed their believers. Islam, by terrible contrast, actively resists even the most moderate alterations to its foundational dogmas. For this reason, the modern world must resist its incorporation as actively as one would resist imbibing a fatal poison.

Have we learnt anything new from Paris’s nightmare? Not really. ISIS has today claimed responsibility for the attack, but this was largely a waste of energy. We knew who was responsible from the moment the story broke. Indeed, since we have opened our borders to ISIS-infested Syria for the best part of a year, the only wonder is why this hasn’t happened before now.

While some of our head-in-the-sand celebrity class may have learnt a lesson, the chances are it’s already been beaten out of them. The respected comedian Jason Manford, a very liberal personality, had his whole Facebook profile deleted after posting the following ‘outburst’:

“Slaughtering innocent unarmed people for what? Families and children enjoying life, theatre, meals? For what? In whose name? Are you doing this in the name of your God? Cos I’ve got news for you. If you think your ‘God’ is gonna reward you for this type of atrocity then your God is a massive cunt. I hope you are all caught and murdered in a similar agonising way you fucking scumbags.”

I can’t see much to be ashamed of in Manford’s reaction. Can you? But that doesn’t matter. We are expected – commanded even – to forget the facts, overlook the well-established reality, and make sure not to offend the people cocking AK-47s in toilets waiting to launch massacres. All else is fascism.

This kind of mass-folly is unsustainable. Europe will always be incompatible with Islam. On this matter, the people already know better than the government. Moderating propaganda will always be futile. Instead of lying to us, our elected representatives (in step with the public) must be brave, come together and talk without censorship about the unpleasant realities of Islamic immigration.

Only when we admit to having a problem can we begin to do something about it. And after Paris, Rotherham, New York, Washington, Madrid, Jerusalem, Tunisia, Benghazi, London, Glasgow, Moscow, Mumbai, Sydney, Beslan, Fort Hood, Stockholm and Argentina… anyone who denies that we have a problem is a fool at best, an enemy at worst.

D, LDN

Cumberbatch, Please…

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, cumberbatch, cumberbatch immigrants, cumberbatch islam, cumberbatch migrant, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Facebook, facebook twitter, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, shakespeare, tiwtter, Twitter, United States

I have never understood the appeal of English actor Benedict Cumberbatch, and given his recent remarks on the hoodlum invasion of Europe, I don’t think I ever will…

In case you have yet to hear – last week, after a performance of Hamlet in which he starred, Cumberbatch provided something of foul-mouthed encore, lecturing the captive audience on the needs of Middle Eastern ‘refugees’. Begging the governments of Europe to do more for them, he climaxed with the juvenile and decidedly un-Shakespearean words “Fuck the politicians!”.

In the private universe of the remarkably overrated, misshapen vegetable-headed fool, the British commitment to take in 20,000 hoodlums was parsimonious. Though Cumberbatch didn’t put an figure on his desired influx, by implication it must number somewhere in the hundreds of thousands, amounting to a dramatic and permanent (and completely unwanted) alteration of our national-cultural make-up.

When this fit of anti-logic was reported in the press, almost every comment beneath every article contained the same point: Why doesn’t Cumberbatch himself take in refugees? It is an obvious and simple reaction, requiring little reflection, and yet can anyone really argue with it? As far as he has made known, Cumberbatch has not taken in a single soul since the crisis began, and has made known no plans to do so either. And for all his demands for donations, I know of no large contribution made in the actor’s (quite ridiculous) name.

What is Cumberbatch asking of us here? Let’s remind ourselves., lest we feel moved to accuse ourselves of overreaction. Mr Cumberbatch is asking us to take in hundreds of thousands of single Muslim men of military age. By and large, they are NOT Syrians, but a ragtag assortment of burdens lifted from every country in the Muslim world (the largest contingent is said to be from Afghanistan – a country we have already done so too much for). Such people (as Cumberbatch will surely be aware) have no moral right to enter Europe, and do so not out of misery, but out of greed. Furthermore, since the majority are devout believers in the worst religion in the world, they will – if allowed in – create further refugee crises in towns and cities across Britain. Will the actor sympathise with these exiles too?

Cumberbatch’s moral position, as well as being stupid, borders on treason, and is well within the borders of ingratitude. The culture of Europe, the same cultural flowerbed from which Cumberbatch’s beloved Shakespearean theatre sprouted, is being sown with salt. He should be ashamed of himself for partaking in the desecration of the only civilisation that values him, that can fully appreciate his work, would tolerate his lifestyle, and that continues to pay his scandalously bloated salary.

He won’t be ashamed, though, will he? For he belongs to a liberal cosmopolitan elite that is becoming ever more detached from everyday reality, from the urban ghetto and from the common man. His opinion is worthless. His suggestions are insane. By rights, his career should now be over.

D, LDN

What Would Bismarck Do?

Tags

American Liberty, Christian, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Facebook, Germany, germany europe, invention of germany, iron, iron and blood, iron chancellor, iron man, iron man p, Islam, Italia, Italy, Jews, machiavelli, Multiculturalism, nation, Nationalism, Otto Von Bismarck, Paris, Patriotism, polish, pride, reunification of germany, state, Sweden, Twitter, unification of germany, War

A few years ago, I was enjoying a lazy evening in my university library when I noticed that an essay was due for the following day. I had been completely unaware of it until then (having been absent on the day it was set). To my further anxiety, I noted that I was also unaware of its subject, the Father of Germany – Otto Von Bismarck.

I can be excused for the latter offence, I think. In British schools, we are taught an extremely limited curriculum (usually covering only the Holocaust, Henry VIII and Slavery in any detail). Bismarck was a familiar name to me, as it is to most people, but I had never been given a reason to make him any more vivid or lifelike in my imagination.

Needless to say, I got no sleep that night, spending the whole period in the library, pumped full of machine coffee and knee deep in a pile of thick, dusty books. But despite the anxious mood in which I was prompted to discover it, the story of Bismarck has proven enduringly fascinating to me. More than anyone in European history, Bismarck seemed to have been a living embodiment of the romantic ideal – Nietzsche’s ‘Ubermensch’, Carlyle’s ‘Great Man’, Machiavelli’s ‘Prince’ – a superman of reality, gifted far beyond the ordinary and with a drive to succeed that dramatically alters world history. There wouldn’t even be a ‘Germany’ without Bismarck, without his deviousness, intellect and personal strength. He is the author of Germany. Germany is his magnum opus. What other major country can call itself the product of one man’s cunning?

I believe the elephantine heroism exhibited by Bismarck goes some way to explain the quintessentially Germanic reverence for strong leaders (a reverence which, of course, went terribly astray in the 20th century). Bismarck was the proof of the German type. He demonstrated what a German could achieve. In this regard, he can be compared to Abu Bakr, the Muslim leader who conquered most of what is now defamed as the ‘Muslim World’. Bakr, like Bismarck, demonstrated an ideal – an ideal which Muslims try (in vain) to emulate right up to the present day (see, Bin Laden, Baghdadi, Zarqawi etc…). They are unwilling to accept that Bakr was a one-off giant, unrepresentative of the human average. Hitler and the Jihadists are thus products of the same delusion.

Still, unlike Bakr (a talented barbarian), Bismarck still has lessons to teach the leaders of the civilised world. For example, what would a man like Bismarck do in the context of the Euro-Islamic war? Let’s speculate now with the aid of three famous Bismarck quotes.

“A conquering army on the border will not be stopped by eloquence.”

This saying could hardly be more timely. As in Bismarck’s tinderbox era, Europe today finds itself under a long and potentially devastating siege. This time, the conquering army is not composed of other Europeans, but represents a detachment of our most ancient geo-cultural rival. Bismarck is surely correct to say that eloquence, reason and speech-making are bladeless weapons, useless in times of war and crisis. What we need is a physical, material blockade, strong enough to keep the hordes from advancing on our cities. In the case of the ‘refugee’ invasion, we should be deploying a massive, pan-European military force to Southern and South-Eastern coastlines. Anybody who shows up and is unable to prove they are Christian or of another non-Muslim minority faith must be turned away. If they try to rush the borders after being warned, they should be shot. That’s what war is like.

“With a gentleman I am always a gentleman and a half, and when I have to do with a pirate, I try to be a pirate and a half.”

Bismarck here uses ‘pirate’ to mean barbarian. He is correct to say that one should adjust one’s manner and values depending upon the force one is faced with. Since with Islam we are faced with a force of barbarism, we need not be overly civilised in defending ourselves.

“The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia.”

As regards European politics, this is a timeless truth. No attempt to secure Europe is feasible if it does not factor in the influence of Russia. To have thought otherwise is the foundational error of NATO. If Islam is to be kept at bay, Russia must be incorporated into our security structure and provided with a role reflecting her size and innate capabilities.

Though the age of Great Europeans has passed, their words and wisdom remain as relevant and necessary as in their own time.

D, LDN

The Danger of Corbyn

Tags

America, American Liberty, blair, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Communism, corbyn, corbyn national anthem, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Europe, Facebook, Immigration, Islam, Islamification of Britain, Islamism, jeremy corbyn, Labour, labour party uk, labour threat to, left-wing, Leftism, Liberalism, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, politics, Scotland, socialism, United States, War

In a striking video uploaded to YouTube last week, the Conservative Party brands new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn a ‘threat to the national security of the United Kingdom”, offering as evidence video footage of the squirrelly Marxist using phrases like “Our friends in Hamas” and “Our friends in Hezbollah”, as well as his now notorious lamentation of the death of Osama Bin Laden. At the time of writing, the video has received hundreds of thousands of ‘hits’, and has been broadly praised – both within and outside of labour’s swelling (but ridiculous) suburb of the imagination.

But just how dangerous is Corbyn really? Isn’t it true that the English press often exaggerates opposing viewpoints in order to discredit them, and that the scepticism inspired by this record has a reputation of being proven correct…? Yes. That is true. But on this occasion, the wolf is as real as they come.

Much has been made of the fact Mr Corbyn refused (during a service to remember the fighter pilots of WW2 – ‘The Few’ who prevented the occupation of Britain and the genocide of its Jewish population) to sing the national anthem. Commentators on both sides of the political arena have wondered aloud whether a secret republican agenda exists on Corbyn’s timetable. At the very least, they note, it seemed a profane gesture of disloyalty to the Queen, and one that can only have been deliberate. What did he mean by it? Why not just say ‘God Save the Queen?’ – does it even matter?

I think personally that it does – in this context. This is because Jeremy Corbyn, over his long, ignoble career, has never displayed a sign of real affection for the United Kingdom. His support for enemy forces in times of war represents no recent degeneration of his personality. He has always spoken warmly of the IRA despite its endless campaign of random violence against the English public. His ‘friendship’ with Hezbollah and Hamas marks only the latest phase in a lifelong campaign of anti-Zionist fire-eating. And though rumours of anti-monarchism seem as yet unfounded, Corbyn’s socialism remains of the solidly internationalist variety.

How can we possibly expect such a man to act in the national interest of the country? How can we expect a man who considers national borders to be constructs of the imagination to treat this nation with special favour?  We can’t, of course. We really can’t.

Since his election, Corbyn has selected a shadow cabinet of the sheerest rabble imaginable. Among the better known are the anti-White bigot Diane Abbott (a woman rumoured to have dated Mr Corbyn in his more tender years) who now counts as Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, John McDonnell, the notorious – if supposedly repentant – apologist for Irish terrorism, who now counts as Shadow Chancellor and the arch feminist Angela Eagle, who is now Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.

This is joke politics. This is an ill-conceived throwback to the oil-starved, rubbish-strewn, strike-crippled days of the late Seventies. No-one in their right mind would vote for it. But what if those not in their right mind are the majority? What happens then?

Well, if Corbyn become Prime Minister, the following calamities will be visited upon us. We shall lose our prized (and much envied) partnership with the United States. Immigration will go through the roof. Anti-terror measures will be eliminated, leaving the population at risk to attack from ISIS cells. The already decimated British military will be reduced to a purely ceremonial force. The entrepreneurs (upon whom we all depend for our continued prosperity) will be chased overseas by leaping rates of tax. Far-right political parties will be brought back from the dead, threatening the harmony of English civil society… The end of Britain, in other words. The end of everything we value and have ever worked for.

Corbyn must be stopped and stopped quickly. We cannot simply lie back and rely on the ‘good sense of the British electorate’ when that good sense is not yet proven to be typical. If a friend of yours expresses support for Corbyn, you should react in the same way you would if they expressed support for al-Qaeda. Support for Corbyn must be characterised as not only wrong, but treasonous and extreme. Because that is what it is. Treasonous and extreme.

D, LDN

Germany Bites the Cyanide Capsule

Tags

BBC, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, EDL, edl edl, Eurabia, Facebook, Germans, germany migrants, germany migration, Islam, Islamism, Kurds, merkel germany, migrant crisis Islam, migrants, migration, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, syrians, Turks

The gravity of the news that Germany will take an estimated 800,000 ‘refugees’ (in fact, migrants) this year must be given a context in order to be understood. First, one must appreciate that Germany has the lowest fertility rate in Europe and one of the lowest fertility rates in the world, persistently hovering around 1.2 – 1.4 children per woman. For comparison, the average fertility rate in Middle East and North Africa is 3.7 children per woman. Germany’s ‘birth dearth’ is also not a new phenomenon but one that has persisted for over two decades. The effect of this is that Germany’s population (if we factor out immigration) is now declining with each passing year, leaving a worker-retiree ratio that is economically unsustainable.

This context goes some way to explain Chancellor Merkel’s bizarre eagerness in accepting a massive injection of working-age migrants. In Syria – the homeland of most of the coming influx of ‘refugees’ – the fertility rate is 2.8 children per woman, more than double the fertility rate of native Germans. This injection of blood is therefore likely to bear much fruit over the coming decades, leading ultimately to a boost in Germany’s overall fertility rate and an improvement in its worker-retiree ratio. Economically (if only economically), one can make a case for this. It is hugely important that Germany – an industrious economic power and the engine of Europe – avoids becoming a depopulated wilderness. It will be remembered that Japan, although now getting back on its feet, suffered enormously from mass infertility in previous decades. The cost to an economy of a rapidly diminishing labour force can run into the hundreds of billions.

But a nation, it has been said many times before, is more than an economy. Culture, faith, social type and regional character are equally vital to its continued prosperity. A strong market index is hard to appreciate if the country hosting it has been fragmented into a thousand warring hatreds. And with this policy Germany is running just that risk.

The 800,000 Syrians will quickly reproduce into millions, leaving Germany’s bio-cultural make-up eternally altered. Towns and cities across the country will be partly or fully Islamised, their valued eccentricities painted over with state-sponsored ‘harmony’ initiatives and equality workshops. Islamic conversions – in the playgrounds, the prisons and street – will blur the boundary of the native and the alien, in turn threatening the concept of ‘Germany’ itself (a notion already bruised from 100 years of political upheaval).

And then there is crime. My girlfriend, Anja, derives from and still resides in Dortmund, Rhine-Westphalia. She has told me many times (usually in a sunken and maudlin tone of voice) about the link between immigration and crime in Germany, and how it is understood and lamented by every ordinary citizen. How diminutive will her past concerns seem a year from now?

In case the objection is raised, I am fully aware that not every Muslim is a rapist/terrorist/mugger/vandal. But this is only in the same way I understand that not every Romani is a thief. Despite the exceptions, in both cases we have good reasons to fear exactly these crimes from exactly these quarters. And when we consider the scale of the new migration, thousands if not millions of ordinary Germans are being placed in grave and needless danger.

Merkel’s humanitarianism, just like her economics, is hopelessly warped. Doubtless some members of the new German-Syrian community will be grateful to Germany and work in gas stations, supermarkets or healthcare, abiding by the law and paying taxes. But others will blow up trains, shoot civilians and rape innocent women. Does any government have the right to decide this is a pill worth swallowing?

D, LDN.