Against Malala Yousafzai

Tags

American Liberty, BBC, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, criticism yousafzai, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Islamification of Britain, Islamisation of London, Islamophobia, Malala Yousefzai, Muslims, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Rihanna Muslim, Sockpuppet, yousafzai fraud

• First published on this blog in October, 2013

On today’s BBC News ‘magazine’ webpage, there’s a lengthy tribute to the heroism of Pakistani schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai. Under the title ‘Malala: The girl who was shot for going to school’, the piece goes on to say things like the following:

“She is the teenager who marked her 16th birthday with a live address from UN headquarters, is known around the world by her first name alone, and has been lauded by a former British prime minister as ‘an icon of courage and hope’…She is an extraordinary young woman, wise beyond her years, sensible, sensitive and focused….The voice of the girl whom the Taliban tried to silence a year ago has been amplified beyond what anyone could have thought possible.”

Great tributes indeed, not wholly unlike those paid to Indian spiritual gurus and Western cult leaders. More generally, the piece (by Mishal Hussein) is watery-eyed drivel, and its subject remains a truly unremarkable, very wealthy sockpuppet.

Malala Yousafzai’s only qualification for the praises demanded from us lies in her being shot by the Taliban. Their reasoning for doing this – I concede – was certainly vile. She was one of numerous young girls in the Swat Valley to defend their right to attend school. To this (naturally), the Taliban are resolutely opposed and so – in a manner befitting their cowardice – they chose to silence Ms Yousafzai by bullet, shooting her on a crowded bus.

The Hussein piece ruminates that the Taliban ‘must regret doing this now’. To be honest, they can’t regret it more than me.

I am frankly sick of seeing her pinched little face grinning inside every newspaper I open. Her vacuous and unhelpful words (her latest suggestion is for us to negotiate with the Taliban) are also something we could do without. And why on earth is she living in Birmingham?

The guru known simply as ‘Malala’ is supposed to be a fearless warrior for Pakistani women’s liberties. I can understand that she left Pakistan initially to receive surgery, but despite many local troubles, the women of the English West Midlands are still allowed to go to school. Is her work really required there.

There are literally millions of brave women across the Islamic world who face down similar odds to Her Excellency, but who do not – like her – end-up in five-star New York hotel rooms. Some of them are even hunted in the West for becoming apostates from Islam. One thinks of the names’ Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Wafa Sultan.

But we won’t have either of these speaking at the UN. There’s a reason for that.

Ms Yousafzai has another value, alongside her chocolate-box ‘heroism’ story, for our political elites. She is the ‘Moderate Muslim’ par excellence. A visionary reformer of a culture unable to be reformed. She will doubtlessly also be held up as a ‘unifying’ figure, around which we can gather to bang tambourines and forget our differences, despite those ‘differences’ being the reason Yousefzai’s family scurried on a plane to Britain in the first place (there are many other hospitals she could have attended).

According to the Guardian, Malala has recently sold the rights to her life story for 2 million pounds. This heart-warming entrepreneurialism will provide great comfort to those women the newly minted hero has left behind in Pakistan.

Yousafzai is only 16. The BBC piece wonders excitedly where she can go from here. My suggestion and my hope is Heathrow Airport.

D, LDN.

Advertisement

Slow Train Coming

Tags

BBC, beatles, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Facebook, facebook twitter, google plus, hard rain, islam in sweden, Multiculturalism, Muslims, politics, Pop, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, social media, Sweden, sweden islam, sweden muslims, tiwitter, tiwter, tokyo ghoul, Twitter

Two deeply worrying stories have been reported in the past week, both relating to the EU policy on resettling Muslim migrants (or ‘refugees’ as we are told to call them).

First, in calm, famously genteel Sweden, a young man armed with a sword, entered a multicultural school and there proceeded to attack students and teachers alike, leaving two dead before being shot himself. Cyber-forensic operations afterward found the man to have a fetish for Nazi Germany and warm opinions of the Sweden Democrats, a political party rising rapidly on the back of Sweden’s crazed policy on asylum.

Secondly, in Germany, security services are reported to have prevented a massive terrorist attack on an asylum processing centre, bringing nine people, including several women, into police custody. The weapons cache of the group included handguns, assault rifles, illegal firecrackers and various materials emblazoned with Nazi iconography.

While I do not (and will never) excuse such vigilantism, it must be stated that our leaders were warned about this kind of thing when they made their toxic decisions. They consequently have no right to be surprised by the fallout. The people of Europe, or a majority of them at least, have consistently demanded an end to the mass-importation of Islam into their respective countries and warned of grave consequences if their concerns were ignored. This warning was a speculation, never a threat. It was an estimate based on a sound knowledge of the human condition.

No country in the world, rich or poor, civilised or barbarian, would tolerate what Europe is being asked to embrace; that is, the infusion of foreign and inferior manners, with no recompense or advantage to sweeten the trade. Turkey would not have it. India would not have it. Saudi Arabia would not have it. Nor would Japan, China, Korea (North and South) or the State of Israel. Europe is being asked to cut off one of its legs and inject the stump with typhus. A quick misery pregnant with other miseries. A total insult. A punch in the face.

When a nation is threatened in this way, the common man typically answers first to the call of duty. Unenriched by education or tact, he strikes crudely with primitive means. He has little or nothing to lose; a meagre life to trade for a bargain heroism. I feel compelled to repeat that I do not excuse such behaviour for a second. But some things have a nature sufficiently structured as to allow for predictions.

There is a slow train coming, and when it arrives we will all be the worse-off for it. I don’t like fascism. I don’t like hooliganism or random violence. I’m pretty sure you don’t either. And yet this all seems nearly inevitable now, with millions of Muslims streaming through the Balkans and Eastern Europe, unidentified, unfiltered and unpoliced.

This is the biggest crisis in post-war European history.

D, LDN

Malala And Your Children

Tags

BBC, Britain First, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, EDL, English Defence League, Islam and the West, Islamisation of London, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

My darling niece came to visit at the weekend. When she arrived, she was already dancing with happiness because my sister had taken her to a bookshop from where she had purchased a small pile of hardbacks. Thrilled for her joys, I shuffled through them adoringly – most of them were about princesses and princes – until I reached the last volume, a larger book entitled ‘Malala: Warrior with Words’

My heart having sunk like stone, I began to flip lazily through the pages.

“I don’t like this one.” I said, eventually, putting it face-down on the table.

“Why?” she asked. I couldn’t answer her, but let me be more explicit with you. I think it is scandalous for a child to read a book dedicated to a Hamas financier and Islamic entry-wedge. Parents be aware.

D, LDN.

Can a Man Be a Woman?

Tags

Bruce Jenner becomes woman, Bruce Jenner Caitlyn Jenner, Bruce Jenner history, Bruce Jenney Man or woman, Bruce she or he, Caitlyn Jenner vanity fair photo, Caitlyn or kaitlyn, Christianity, Civilisation, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Facebook, Glenn Beck, Heroism, Liberalism, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Transgenderism, Twitter, United States

I never thought I’d be writing an article like this. The subject matter isn’t something I worry about on a daily basis, nor is it something I have spent much time considering in my casual hours. But since there seems to be no bigger story in the world at the moment, I will comment here on the transformation (so called) of athlete Bruce Jenner (yes, my fellow Englishman, I’d never heard of him prior to this month either) into a trans-woman called Caitlyn.

My thinking about this has been prompted by an article of quite remarkable lucidity published on Glenn Beck’s media outlet ‘TheBlaze.com’. It is entitled ‘Calling Bruce Jenner a Woman Is an Insult to Women” and was authored by the conservative blogger Matt Walsh.

Here is a summary by quotation:

“(Bruce Jenner) is a mentally disordered man who is being manipulated by disingenuous liberals and self-obsessed gay activists. Far from having the appearance of a genuine woman, he reminds me of someone who is being abandoned to his delusions by a culture of narcissistic imbeciles..

“A woman is a woman not merely because of whatever cosmetic feature a man might vaguely emulate. A woman is a woman because of her biology, which Bruce does not share and never will. A woman is a woman because of her capacity to create life and harbor it in her body until birth, which Bruce cannot do. A woman is a woman because of her soul, her mind, her perspective, her experiences, and her unique way of thinking, of loving, and of being — all things Bruce can only mimic….

“’Bruce Jenner Unveils New Female Self’. Um. What? You don’t get to have a “new” self or another self… Your self is your self. It’s your being. It’s your essential personhood; your particular and unrepeated character… A self can only be what it is…We’re talking about a sex change like it’s an Apple product. With this kind of language, we have not only made the self mutable, we’ve also commodified it and turned it into a spectacle that can be sold for profit. This is a bastardization of our humanity on a scale and to a degree that wouldn’t have even crossed the tortured minds of last century’s most prophetic social critics.”

Before adding my own viewpoint, I feel compelled to first make clear my attitude to homosexuality (something not exactly relevant here, but usually a revealing marker of general sexual-political worldview). In my view, people have the right to do whatever they wish to each other providing both parties are consenting adults. Persecution of minority communities by the state is an evil phenomenon and one with much innocent blood on its hands. And in any case, no government should ever be allowed to extend itself into the bedroom of ordinary citizens. With that said, religions must be free to remain true to their scriptures, and if a Holy Book describes homosexuality as wicked, its believers should be free to hold and express that view, so long as they do not incite violence or crimes against the person.

For me, the question raised by Mr Jenner is not whether he should be allowed to do what he has done, because that should only involve his own private court of judgement, but whether we teach our children that Bruce Jenner is now literally a woman, or whether he remains a man. It is, as Walsh argues, a question about the nature of reality.

Bruce Jenner is not a woman by any scientifically valid method of consideration. He is a man down to his bone marrow, and will always be. He is a father and a grandfather to his children and children’s children respectively, and will remain in that role until his demise. He cannot become pregnant. He is much less likely to develop breast cancer than an actual female. He will always be physically stronger than any natural member of the sex he aspires to join. He once was a masculine man and he is now just a deliberately androgynous man.

I’m aware that it is convention to use ‘she’ and ‘her’ when talking about men who have made the transition to female, but as conventions go, I find this one rather sinister. Should you use those words in front of a child, you risk interfering with his/her developing perception of reality. Naturally, children must one day learn about transgenderism and homosexuality (in fact, I am one of those dastardly liberals who believe it should be taught in school) but when they do learn about these things, they should be taught a neutral outsiders view, rather than an inside account with an insiders glossary.

I can’t agree with Walsh that calling Jenner ‘mentally disordered’ is in any way warranted. It’s bad to be cruel, especially when talking about someone who doesn’t wish us any harm. While the causes of gender dysphoria remain a mystery, it’s probably best to live and let live.

… And to leave sexual categories as they are.

D, LDN.

Political Destinies.

Tags

America, American Liberty, C4, Civilisation, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, election, Election 2015, Election coverage, Election polls, Election Tory UKIP, Labour Party, Libdems, Liberal Democrats, Liberalism, Multiculturalism, Nigel Farage, Right vs Left, Tory UKIP coalition, uk election, UKIP, What's Left

So, it’s election week… Are you excited? Do you know who you’re going to vote for yet? Do you think this election will make a difference?

My answers are as follows – 1) The election is thrilling, perhaps the most thrilling in my lifetime. 2) I’m not physically able to vote physically this time around. Had I been, I would vote for UKIP or LibertyGB (the latter if they are standing, the former if not). 3) Absolutely.

Nobody, not even the most seasoned political commentator, dares to predict who will be running the country this time next week. Despite the avalanche of newsprint, debate, advertising and scandal, the vote remains stubbornly too close to call.

As far as I can see, the UK faces one of 4 possible destinies. Let’s briefly look at each one:

1. Labour Victory.

This would be a disaster; a further half-decade of socialist rule would corrode social and race relations to (or beyond) breaking point. Immigration would remain at the current level, and possibly even get worse. Fear of Islam will apparently be legislated against, eroding our right to resist it. The tentacles of the government will squeeze through more legal gaps, blocking out light and lurching deeper into our intimate affairs. Taxes will rise. Green superstition will rule the laboratories. The army will grow ever more ornamental.

2. Conservative Victory.

Better than a Labour victory, but still a postponement of real solutions to the issues facing this country. More austerity, more economic growth, further cuts to the military and police. A jumble of good and bad.

3. Ukip Victory.

Potentially revolutionary, yet also highly unlikely, a UKIP government would transform UK society in many positive ways. Immigration would finally be addressed with the seriousness it requires. The army would be brought back from the dead. Hate preachers would be shown to the nearest airport (though – crucially – their congregation would remain).

4. Coalition.

This seems by far the most likely situation, and also the most chaotic. A UKIP-Tory coalition would never last beyond a few months. An SNP-Labour coalition would never be accepted by the English public. A Libdem-Tory coalition might work but only with awkwardness. A Lib-Labour coalition would be stable but hugely unpopular.

5. Conclusion.

I think this election will be the last ‘mainstream’ contest for quite some time. By that I mean it will be the last in which the traditional parties dominate the polls. In that sense, it is just a rehearsal for 2020.

I strongly believe conservative radicalism will continue to grow whatever the result is on Thursday. This may clear away the obstacles for a truly restorative party to achieve a parliamentary majority in the third decade of this millennium.

D, LDN.

What Do Mosques Represent?

Tags

Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, English Defence League, Islam, Islamic Architecture, Mosques, Mosques in Europe, Mosques in Germany, Mosques in London, Mosques in Luton, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

I’ll start this post with a confession: I rather like Mosques. Some, though by no means all, are grandly dignified, even beautiful. Indeed, architecturally considered, they can be counted as one of the very few artistic triumphs in all the Islamic World’s long, unproductive history.

They have also been much imitated, including in the West. The Royal Pavilion in Brighton, England clearly aims for an Islamic style, as do many of the older churches and cathedrals of Europe (though how appropriate that is, I don’t attempt to measure).

The geometric artwork of a Mosque interior can be equally splendid and betray a real talent in the designers. This art has likewise influenced the infidel world and its style can be seen today in the pattern-work of house furniture, carpets, curtains and dresses.

Some of the Mosques of the East, and in particular those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, are so impressive that they seem wholly out of place inside the undeveloped surrounds of their location (a good example being the ‘Mosque of the Prophet’ in Medina, Saudi Arabia). One has to wonder why such people cannot build libraries and houses with the same dedication and care. Surely if they did so, the Islamic World would be an exhibition of unrivalled majesty. I suppose it’s a matter of priorities…

Of course, what a Mosque looks like and what it represents are very separate and distinct things to consider. A mosque may appear the pleasant product of human creativity, but its symbolism (for those outside the faith) is decidedly more sinister.

Mosques, whatever their spiritual significance within Islam, are a boast; a sign of advancing cultural and religious conquest. The spear-like minarets that dwarf the church spires and tower blocks of infidel cities announce the permanence of Islam in that region. The long reach of the Muezzin call to prayer, drifting every day across distant neighbourhoods, articulates the scale of Muslim ambition; a world faith; a faith to subsume the world entirely.

The call to prayer is not merely a call for Muslims to attend prayers. This is very important to understand. Rather, this musical plea is for all people to come to Islam itself. It is hostile, spiritual propaganda of the grandest kind.

And an increasing number of people are aware of this. When the Swiss People’s Party petitioned the national government to ban the construction of minarets in that country, they were promptly dismissed by conservatives as crackpot. What, sceptics wondered, is the point of banning minarets alone, and leaving the mosques standing? The answer supplied by SPP members was that minarets, through their size and appearance, are ‘aggressive’; that in dwarfing the surrounding areas they are making a statement of ‘supremacy’.

While mysterious to some, this makes perfect sense to me. As the President of Turkey eloquently (and proudly) put it – minarets are the ‘bayonets’ of Islamic conquest.

Despite mass Muslim immigration into Britain being a relatively recent phenomenon (beginning around 1950 and only accelerating to contemporary proportions in the 1970s) the number of Mosques in Britain is already bewildering. There are over 1500 (one thousand five hundred) such buildings in Britain as of 2015, most of which are clustered in specific areas, giving those regions an increasingly foreign character.

There are 383 Mosques in the City of London alone, a figure that is rising rapidly all the time. While there are still more standing Churches in the city, it is fair to speculate that the number of active Mosques (that is to say, Mosques which attract large and faithful congregations) already surpasses the number of active Churches.

There are 59 Mosques in Leicester, with the growth of the local Muslim population there causing a correlating decrease in the number of Christian institutions (churches in Leicester are closing at a higher rate than the national average). A similar picture can be painted of Bradford (80 Mosques), Birmingham (161 Mosques) and Sheffield (33 Mosques).

Tensions are an inevitable result of this. A great deal of British culture is being paved over (against the wishes of the majority) with something hostile, different and unattractive. News reports this week of a pig’s head being left at the doors of a Mosque is far from unusual. Nor are bomb threats, arson attempts and other forms of law-breaking.

I won’t ever endorse or apologize for that kind of stunt (the juvenile actions described benefit no one), but I do urge the government to understand the great offence these buildings cause to Christian and minority communities. We know what they stand for. Jews know what they stand for. Hindus know what they stand for. And our voice of intolerance (yes, we are right to be intolerant of this) must eventually be heard.

D, LDN.

Maajid Nawaz’s Striptease Should Surprise Nobody.

Tags

BBC, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, ED, EDL, Facebook, Liberal, Maajid, Maajid Nawaz, Maajid Nawaz striptease, Multiculturalism, Nawaz, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

For many years now, the Pakistani Muslim commentator Maajid Nawaz has been advanced in the media as a model of Islamic reform. Once a crazed Islamist and member of the terroristic faction Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Nawaz suddenly lurched into ‘moderation’ in 2007, having become ‘disillusioned’ with both the means and ends of the Islamist project. His confessional ‘Radical: My Journey Out of Islamic Extremism’ was roundly commended by the Liberal media, and Nawaz is now a paid-up candidate for the Liberal Democrat Party.

Given this reputation, one can imagine the surprise in Liberal circles when yesterdays news broke and was promptly shared around the internet. In case you haven’t heard, a video has been released showing Nawaz – now a self-described ‘Feminist’- enjoying a striptease, during which he violates conventions by groping the woman performing the tease, eventually following her out of the booth to continue the harassment.

Getting a strip-tease is nothing illegal, but it’s fair to say that real ‘feminists’ are not altogether keen on the practice. We are thus prompted to wonder whether this was merely an aberration or in fact a revealing reversion to religious type. My guess is the latter.

Despite his warm words and political gestures in favour of civilisation, Nawaz remains a believing Sunni Muslim. Since his religion anti-sexual, he shuns access to the tact and subtlety that come as the reward of a modern imagination. He is sexually unpredictable for this reason. You cannot shake off the neurosis of faith by changing political direction.

Toxic beliefs, whether or not they are watered down, always find a way of exposing themselves. Moderate Muslims are useless to the counter-jihad cause, for latent within them are all the evils they claim to have overcome. 

To call yourself a Muslim, moderate, liberal or orthodox, you must believe certain things. Prime among them is faith in the divine authorship of the Qur’an and its infallibility. This means you stand by passages describing women as secondary to men. There is no way around that. The passages are very clear and cannot be explained away as poetry or metaphor. To be a Muslim, you also have to believe that the conduct of the Prophet is noble, moral and worth emulating. This includes numerous practices deemed to be immoral and unlawful in modern Western society.

The source of Muslim dysfunction is therefore innate in the system of belief itself, in its articles of faith and the conduct of its holy figures.

While Ex-Muslims have the potential to be our best friends,’moderate’ Muslims like Nawaz fail to recognise the source of the problem and must be rejected for that reason.

D, LDN.

Repression, “American Bitches” and Muslims Raping Horses.

Tags

American bitches, Animal Rape, Animal rights, Bloodhound gang, Britain First, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, EDL, English Defence League, Fury, Horse Rape, Islam, Martin Amis, Mcdonalds menu, Military, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Rape Horse, sexuality

Someone posted a song on my Facebook timeline the other day. It’s not by a band I know anything about, and far from the style of music I usually enjoy. Enquiring why it had been posted, my friend told me to listen to the lyrics.

The song “American Bitches” is by the Bloodhound Gang, a self-consciously juvenile pop-punk outfit from Pennsylvania, US. The target of the song’s lyrics is said to be Islamic terrorists, with the song’s core insinuation being that such people are violent largely out of sexual frustration, rather than the declared motivations of religious belief.

This is not the first time this theory has been advanced (although it might conceivably be the first time it has been put forward acoustically), and it’s a theory I have always more or less agreed with. That being said, it will no harm to re-state why this is.

No prohibition of sexual feeling is possible without damage to the male psyche. Whatever tradition first advocated it, hostility to sex is an anti-natural quirk that should never have been countenanced and which, when enforced, has consequences even more dire than the hysteria of famine and economic breakdown.

The inner-hothouse created by Islamic prohibitions on sexual feeling (prohibitions so strict that even observing female beauty is considered sinful) deform the inner life of a developing male in ways so gruesome we’d rather not imagine them. But if it is accepted that Catholic Priests have statistically higher rates of paedophilia due to their chosen regime of chastity, one must surely extend the same style of analysis to the consideration of Muslim misbehaviour.

Let’s be in no doubt as to the extreme nature of these deformities. In Britain, the number of young girls sexually interfered with by Muslims is as yet unknown, but could well ascend into sextuple figures. In Greece, Muslim asylum seekers have wasted no time establishing a reputation for being lewd and aggressive towards native girls. In Australia, a gang of Lebanese Muslims were fined for openly masturbating in front of a woman on the Subway. And last but not least, in Italy, a young Moroccan immigrant was convicted of anally raping a horse.

These are the bestial extremes of human potential. We may all have such wickedness latent within us, but those who have been kept in a hormonal prison for their developmental years are uniformly like this when faced with the colourful temptations of the modern world. They are raised for life in a monastery and let loose, as it were, into a brothel.

Of course, this might sound like the author is ‘tarring all with the same brush’ here. That is a reasonable accusation and I’m really quite unrepentant about it. It frankly sickens me to think that at this very moment, in some ragged, post-industrial town in the North, a young girl might be talking to Muslims outside a Pakistani kebab shop, and that from there, she may fall into a life of pre-Victorian sexual slavery.

Psychosexual illness is inherent in the Islamic condition and plays a larger part in violent extremism that we might ordinarily concede. Consequently, of all the people who will lose out by an Islamisation of Europe, young women stand to lose the most.

D, LDN.

Don’t Deny Islamic State are Islamic.

Tags

American Liberty, Barack Obama, BBC, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, English Defence League, Islam and the West, Islamification of Britain, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

As I write, the Jordanian air force is bombing ISIS positions in Syria, ostensibly in retaliation for the Nazi-like killing of one of its pilots last week. A photo on the Daily Mail website shows a Jordanian patriot writing a message on a bomb in marker pen (an American tradition) before the vessel that will carry it takes flight. His message reads as follows: “For you, the enemies of Islam”.

I have a feeling Liberals will waste no time in circulating that image. After all, it paints a rather pleasant, reassuring picture. The insinuation is that ISIS (and by logical extension, all radical Jihadis) are just a deviation from the true practice and theory of the Islamic religion.

I’m afraid we must pour water on this hopeful notion. It’s not only wrong but dangerous to believe. Despite the claims of the majority, Islamic State/ISIS are entirely faithful to Islamic teaching and (even at some very brutal extremes) rarely in direct violation of the commandments of the Qur’an itself.

The very video which depicts the burning of the Jordanian pilot is titled “Healing the Believers’ Chests”. If that sounds archaic, that’s probably because it is a direct reference to a Qur’anic verse – chapter 9, verse 14:

“Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the chests of those who are believers.”

If ISIS are not Islamic, or are somehow acting in deviation from the true word of Allah, how might that verse be construed differently? What have they got wrong? To me, it seems pretty self-explanatory, like most of the Qur’an. If I might be permitted to update the language of the verse and make it even less ambiguous, it seems to say

“Fight against the unbelievers and kill the infidel! God will support you from the heavens and ultimately grant you victory, healing the wounds of the faithful.”

What have I got wrong? No doubt, I have taken it ‘out of context’. Yes, that sounds believable enough. Perhaps there’s a ‘context’ in which the exhortation has a less offensive, even defensive character.

However none of the battles described in the Qur’an would have been possible were it not for Islamic provocation. The brave heathens, Christians and Jews of the Arabian peninsula who sought to retain their cultural traditions were themselves acting defensively. The language of Jihad, that is of violent conquest, was openly used by the early believers, and by Mohammad himself.

The sharia law being enforced by ISIS in the territory under its control is also far from unorthodox. Not just in the IS but in Saudi Arabia and Iran, women are forced to conceal their beauty to spare men the dilemma of whether or not to rape them. In many Muslim countries adulterers, blasphemers and libertines are subject to the death penalty, whether enacted with stone, axe or rope. In many countries, thieves have parts of their body crudely amputated (usually before a gathered crowd). ISIS might be overzealous in enforcing these laws, but they are in no way different in their motivation or understanding of Islam.

So if you want to be taken at all seriously, don’t deny ISIS are Islamic. It’s no longer feasible, if it ever was to begin with.

D, LDN.

Objections Anticipated.

Tags

anti-Semitism, Arguments against Islamophobia, Britain First, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, France, Germany, Islamisation of London, Islamophobia increase, Islamophobia mainstream, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Swiss People's Party

As Islamophobia migrates from the margins of European discourse to breach the mainstream, our opponents on the political Left are busily arming their partisans with objections and counter-arguments. Most of these arguments are (or will be) junk, but we’ve all come across a few that do not sound obviously false, and so let’s arm ourselves in kind, so to speak. Here are three reasonable sounding arguments against cultural preservation, followed by a clarification of each individual issue.

Claim: “People overestimate the number of Muslims in their country.”

Reality:

On the face of it, there is nothing to object to here. People do indeed overestimate the Islamic percentage of their nation’s population. In France for example, the Economist found that ordinary natives believed 1 in 5 French people were of Islamic origin, when the real figure is actually closer to 1 in 10.

As it relates to the larger picture however, this argument means next to nothing at all. History is a work in progress, and the predictions of mainstream demographers all concur that Islam will become a major cultural force in Europe in the coming decades and that it will ultimately find itself in a position to bully its cultural rivals – including secularists, Jews and Christians.

It must also be noted that statistics do not always tell the whole story, especially if numbers are cherry-picked out of their proper context. It’s true that Muslims currently make up a small percentage of passport-holding Europeans. However it is also true that this Muslim population is typically youthful and that the non-Muslim population is quickly aging. With the greatest respect to any older folk reading this, a native over the age of 65 cannot be counted on in a situation of street conflict or civil war – that is, unless the population is armed. To best understand the street-fighting power (and this matters) of European Muslims therefore, the figure of believers should rightly be doubled to reflect the real balance of forces. This detrimental process shows no sign of slowing down, and should native birth-rates recover to replacement level (and they show no sign of doing so) there will still be a very long and perilous period of ‘generational drag’ – a period open for more virile aliens to make their power felt.

Claim: “Muslims are just like Jews of the 1930s. Islamophobia is just a replacement for anti-Semitism.”

Reality:

I fully understand what people mean by this and – looked at with a lazy eye – the claim would appear to be supported by evidence. The cartoons we see depicting blood-thirsty Jihadis are clearly reminiscent (hook-noses and all) of those gruesome caricatures of Jews in Hitler’s Germany. Similarly, the phrase ‘Islamic Menace’ can easily be (mis)heard as an echo of ‘Jewish menace’, ‘Muslim problem’ of ‘Jewish problem’ and so on.

That though is as much as I will concede. Unlike contemporary Islamophobia, the anti-Jewish hate-wave which billowed across the continent in the early Twentieth century was a detailed portrait of human irrationality. Of course the Jews of Germany enjoyed a disproportionate share of influence (as they do today in America), but this is a consequence of talent, rather than conspiracy and this is borne out by the fact that all around the world, there are other ‘Jews’.

As Amy Chua explained in her book ‘World on Fire’, the concept of a ‘market-dominant minority’ is a universal one, and the reactions to it are everywhere the same. In Africa, the Tutsis of Rwanda were the ‘Jews’ – and they were attacked for it by Hutu Nazis. The Chinese minority in the Philippines are hated with a similarly violent passion and Filipino Nazis have called openly for their genocide. The Koreans of south Los Angeles in the 1990s were the ‘Jews’ – and the local Black Nazis reacted in the same time-honoured fashion. Chua’s rule is easy to understand and more-or-less solid: Whenever a racial minority does well, anywhere in the world, the racial majority senses conspiracy and reacts with violent populism.

But Islam is not hated because of envy. In modern Europe, Muslims are disliked because they are a proven threat to civilisation. No country in the world has ever successfully integrated a Muslim minority, or at least not without injury to its native way of life. In China, the Uygurs behead, blow up and enrage the Han majority. Lebanese Maronites have had their tolerance repaid with paramilitary violence. Serbia has been mutilated and half-destroyed. It is not irrational, but the height of clear-headedness for Europeans to resist the same fate.

Claim: “Muslims can be integrated. The reason they have not done yet is because of Islamophobia.”

Reality:

This is a quite ludicrous idea and I include it only because of its popularity. The reason Muslims haven’t integrated into our native culture has nothing to do with the native reaction to their lack of integration. It is frankly surreal to advocate any other way. But given that some continue to maintain this, the best response would be the following counter-interrogation: If Western Islamophobia explains the lack of Muslim integration into Western culture, why have Muslims similarly failed to integrate into Chinese, Thai, Latin American or African culture? Are Nigerians Islamophobic? Is that why Boko Haram exists – to combat reactionaries?

—
Despite the increasing desperation of our enemies, I (like you) take great pleasure in being on the right side of history. When people look back at our generation, whether from the vantage point of a free world or a nightmarish Islamised Europe, some of us will be remembered fondly, and others with contempt. I implore everyone, of any background, to come over to the side of truth if they are not already here. It is not yet too late, but the clock is ticking. 

D, LDN.