Letter to the Muslims of Europe

Tags

American Liberty, anti-Semitism, Barack Obama, BBC, Britain First, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Dear Muslims, Defend the modern world, EU, European Union, Islam, Islam in Europe, Islam in Europe and America, Islam versus the West, Israel, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Muslims in Europe, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

*Originally published on this blog in July, 2015

If you (reader) are one of the twenty million devout Muslims currently resident in Europe, I’d like to try explain to you why I believe your beliefs are incompatible with the culture of your adopted home. But more than this, I hope also to persuade you that this view (shared by a growing majority of Europeans) does not emanate from ignorance or racism, and why it may not be a defeat or a humiliation for you to agree with it.

You or your parents probably came to Europe initially for economic reasons, seeking a better life and a more secure future. There is nothing dishonourable or unusual about that. Most non-Muslim migrants make the journey with the same ambitions. The West is very wealthy and safe relative to the rest of the world and so it is only rational to want to join it.

Once here, you or your parents probably planned to exist in a peaceful but separate state to the majority, maintaining your beliefs and traditions quietly in the same way that Orthodox Jews and Eastern Orthodox migrants have done in the past. Increasingly, this doesn’t seem to be possible, if it ever was. And in my view, the reasons for that directly relate to the nature of Islamic belief and the sense of mission that is so inseparable from it.

Unlike Christianity or Judaism, yours is a conquering faith, not a persuading one. Relatively little importance is given to peaceful proselytization in Islam. While there are occasionally stalls set out in front of tube stations or elsewhere in city centres to preach Islamic doctrine, this is an imitation of Christian practice and not something organically ‘Muslim’. Rather, Muslims have historically sought to attain dominion over society by violence, sometimes later permitting religious diversity within that society, but never allowing any symbol to enjoy precedence over the crescent. Their hope, indeed their announced intention, has always been to exalt Islam to a position of cultural dominance and authority. While Christians and Jews have peacefully resided as minorities in many different parts of the world, Muslims have always struggled with the very concept of minority life. Since Allah is supposed to be the only authority to which submission is made, it is seen by most Muslims (and perhaps by you specifically) to be incongruous that a divine authority is subordinate to any non-Islamic regime, whether secular or religious. Minarets are built to tower above all other buildings for grander reasons than amplification. They proclaim symbolically the primacy and authority of Islam over the territory Muslims inhabit. It will simply not do that cathedrals or government buildings are larger or invested with more power and importance. Indeed, it is blasphemous and idolatrous. As Islamists never forget to proclaim before they demolish some priceless artefact – “Nothing and no-one is worthy of veneration except Allah”.

This sense of mission, inherent within Islamic theory, has radically altered human history. The nations of Lebanon, Libya and Syria were once Christian. The territory of what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan was once Buddhist. Persia was once Zoroastrian. That these places are now Muslim is testament to Islam’s conquering urge and military spirit. Islam seeks not only to convert, but to dominate and subdue. It is expansionist by its very nature. It was not designed to be one faith out of many, but to be the one and only faith of all humankind. The Quran itself is not shy of stating this. I would quote the passages urging the subjugation of unbelievers here but this would be so long as to be disruptive to my argument.

Your faith is antagonistic to everything but itself. And since you began settling in Europe back in the 1960s, members of your community have behaved in a way harmonious with that analysis. Just recently in Britain, there has been a wave of serious sexual assault committed by Muslims against exclusively non-Muslim children. Some estimates put the number of girls assaulted by British Pakistanis as high as 200,000. In the town of Rotherham alone, at least 1400 girls are known to have been forced into sexual slavery by Muslim gangs.

And even when it doesn’t lead to assault, your behaviour around women (if you are a man) is infantile and tactless. It would appear customary that upon meeting a woman (Muslim or otherwise, online or in real life) your first words either involve sex or invite a personal relationship that can lead to sex. It might surprise you – it probably has surprised you – but non-Muslim women do not enjoy being asked for their phone number or address by a complete stranger without any preceding conversation. Your lack of charm – indeed, your failure to even understand the idea and purpose of charm – is absolute. To you, women are merely sexual animals, possessing no greater value or agency than cats and dogs. For this reason, perhaps more than any other, I find it difficult to breathe the same air as you.

Then there are the acts of extreme violence. Members of your community blew up the train network in Madrid, Spain and the subway in London, England. Members of your community massacred the staff of a cartoon tabloid in Paris. Members of your community have beheaded European citizens, the most recent case occurring only a month ago. You even hunt your own kind! Hundreds of Muslim women have now been killed in Europe in the name of ‘honour’ – and usually by members of their own family. Every year, thousands of Muslim girls are taken abroad to have their vagina mutilated by a shaving razor and then brought back to lead a miserable, painful existence with the perpetrators.

How could we possibly put up with this? What kind of people would we be if we did?

Face the facts, a growing proportion of the native population of Europe actively despises you, and does so without allowing any distinction for your race, Islamic school or individual contribution to European society. After decades of aggressive dysfunction and sickening crime, people simply hate you. They hate you and they fear you. And it is becoming difficult for even the most committed liberal to propose a reason why they shouldn’t.

There is an obvious – some would say cartoonish – contrast between the Islamic conception of society and the hopes and opinions of the Europeans. We value things you view as Satanic. You value things we regard as barbaric. You put faith before reason. We put reason before faith. You regard women as second-class human beings. We regard the sexes as equal. You view freedom of speech as being limited to secular matters. We believe it should permeate every corner of life and thought.

Even if this weren’t the case, your religious tradition is not the one that we are used to and which has inspired and characterised our manners and rituals over centuries. No European books are dedicated to your God. No statues of your Prophet (even if this were allowed) grace the Piazzas of our cities. Few if any Qur’anic phrases have entered our common parlance. We don’t celebrate your holy days, and have no regard for your heroes and saints.

You might reply that Hindu and Sikh mythologies do not inform our ways either, but then Hindus and Sikhs have proven themselves to be comfortable with that. I have never heard of an act of Hindu terrorism, nor any religiously-motivated outrage committed by a Sikh, Buddhist, Scientologist or Jain organisation. Islam has actively distinguished itself in violence, in readiness to fight and to make war where there is peace.

You are wrong if you take us for fools. We know well enough what the phrases Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam mean. We recognise the desire on your part to transfer us from one to the other and by what means. You must have known from the start that a project of this historical magnitude would be resisted with passion and fire. And, please believe me, that passion and fire is already generated in sufficient quantity should we ever be given the excuse to unleash it.

There are people on this (uniquely civilised) continent who would gladly slaughter you like dogs. It is not fantastical anymore to foresee a new Nazi movement emerging in Europe and going on to behave in a Hitlerian fashion. Nobody (save a few lunatics) wishes to go back there. Peace in Europe has been a blessing. Democracy is deserving of all the celebration dedicated to it. But your behaviour is testing the hold of democracy to its white-knuckled limits.

How then can we defuse this bomb? How might we organise a solution that forbids the need for mass violence and the self-destruction of democratic liberalism? This of course is the great question of my generation, and the most important task of the Western World, ahead of the environment, Russia, or any other exaggerated diversion.

That there is – or rather, that you are – an issue in need of resolution can no longer be sensibly denied. We are obliged by everything we hold dear to guarantee that the Islamisation of Europe ceases and that what progress it has already made is reversed. The Western way of life is not just ‘different’ to your own, but a million times superior. We are behaving very rationally by seeking to protect it.

Incidentally, you can deny this last fact as much as you want. It makes no difference to me. Deep down, beneath all the evasions and the layers of self-hypnosis, I’m sure you accept it as much as I do. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t still be here.

And that is the real, embarrassing truth, no? Whatever your friends have scrawled on placards in the past, you don’t ‘hate our way of life’ at all. You are simply jealous of it, and angry that your ancestral lands have failed – and are still failing – to develop in a like fashion.

For an effective and rapid solution to this problem, I propose the following measures – If you are brave, honest and intelligent enough to rid your mind of the numbing circularities of Islamic thinking, a space in the European future can and should be found for you. If not, and if you continue to display the toxic side effects of Islamic belief, then no more kid glove treatment should be forthcoming. If you espouse anti-Semitic, anti-Democratic and anti-Western ideas, you should be arrested and receive criminal records, with all the implications that has for finding employment, pursuing political office and securing tenancy and accommodation. The wearing of the Niqab must be outlawed and repeat offenders deported to a country where it is still the prevailing fashion. All Muslims involved in the mass-rape of British children must hang. Any Mosque preaching violence against Jews, Christians or Homosexuals must be shut down and demolished, and the same with colleges and Islamic faith schools. There must be an end to all immigration from Muslim countries, including from those cultures touted as exceptional (like Tunisia, Turkey or Iran). The culture of the West must be openly celebrated as the supreme culture of the world, and no ‘noble’ savagery must ever be taught as a desirable alternative to our children.

Our foreign policy must also be redesigned to reflect our desire to survive. Turkey should be expelled from NATO and replaced by Armenia. Any sanctions lifted from Iran must be reimposed. Investment in alternatives to Middle Eastern oil, including fracking (in lightly populated areas), fusion technology, nuclear and renewable energy must be radically increased. Western arms should only be exported to regimes which ruthlessly suppress Islamist activity (like Egypt and Jordan) and never to theocratic countries, whether ‘allies’ or not (Saudi, UAE, Kuwait etc…). Needless to say, our support for Israel must be great and unconditional.

In all these efforts, our motivating principle (and final goal) must be that Islam is forever segregated from the Western World.

Finally, reader, I promised at the beginning to tell you why it isn’t a humiliation for you to agree with my arguments… This is for the simple reason that you were a human being long before you were a Muslim, and this will always be the most salient fact about you. You are no more biologically predestined to ignorance and poverty than a Swede or a German. If you wish to become free, you can become free! And if you prefer slavery, well, then there is no defeat in relocating to pursue it, if that is your dream. There can no ‘shame’ in wanting to be where you belong. Nothing is more human.

Whichever condition you choose (and we will make you choose), understand that the West is the homeland of the free, the creative and the happy. A slave will always be foreign here.

D, LDN.

Advertisement

Victory is Bittersweet

Tags

BBC, bregret, brexit, brexit campaign, brexit farage, brexit poll, buyer's remorse, Civilisation, day, Defend the modern world, defend the modern world blog uk, economy, EU, eu eu, eu referendum, Europe, European Union, Facebook, Liberal, lobby, london, Money, Multiculturalism, news, No to Turkey in the EU, Paris, politics, politics eu, pound, prime minister, sterling, Twitter, UKIP, vote, vote leave, vote remain

Well… that was interesting. The polls, the bookies and the media were all wrong. Britain held its nerve, voting to leave the European Union by a clear margin of 2 percentage points. I am shocked and surprised, pleasantly and unpleasantly.

On the vital matters of sovereignty and immigration, I think the right decision has been made. The European Union was stifling Britain’s independent spirit, obstructing the British Parliament and overriding British courts. It couldn’t carry on. A civilised vote to leave is surely the most dignified way of bringing the relationship to a close.

Having said that, I must admit to being rather numb this morning (24th July). It feels like Britain has lost something. It feels like we, the British people, have lost something – a freedom, a set of liberties and privileges, many of which I have personally enjoyed.

Early last year, I spent some time working as a language teacher in the Basque Country in Northern Spain. In order to make my labour legal in that country, I had to visit the local council offices in Bilbao and apply for legal status. This process, which in non-EU countries would have taken many weeks, if not months to complete, was seen to in a single afternoon. I filled out a couple of forms and I was away – a Spanish taxpayer with the full and permanent right of abode.

This luxury is not something to sniff at. It really is (was) the most dazzling privilege. One can only imagine how much money the wretched refuse of the Muslim world would offer for such a right.

Bilbao, Spain

This morning, with Britain now committed irrevocably to disentangling itself from the European organism, I can’t help but wonder what kind of deal will replace the generous and advantageous contract we have just torn up. Will European states take revenge on us? Will they band together and punish the plucky, rebellious Brits with draconian measures and pointless, bureaucratic restrictions? It is certainly possible.

I am sad about this. I never wanted Britain to fall out with Europe. Though I fully understand and accept that Europe, the historic and cultural concept, is distinct from the European Union, the two are nevertheless so entwined at present as to be inseparable. In rejecting one, we necessarily reject – or at least offend – the other. What a shame. The Islamists must be euphoric.

Whether the right thing to do or not, Brexit will inevitably cause major disruption to the lives of ordinary British people. Many of us will come to miss the words ‘European Union’ at the top of our passports. Those words, though never triggering any kind of pride or patriotic emotion, guaranteed us the freedom to wander unobstructed across a magnificent continent. It gave us the right to live in Rome, Berlin, Stockholm, Madrid and Warsaw; to work in Krakow, Copenhagen, Helsinki and Tallinn. We will miss that freedom horribly until it is assured us once again.

EU governments have reacted to the referendum with shock and disappointment

On a brighter note, the benefits of us leaving the EU are not inconsiderable. We will soon have the right to decide exactly how many European migrants make it past our borders each year, as well as how many are allowed to settle permanently. No longer will an endless stream of labour gush through a doorless doorway, suppressing native wages and over-saturating the market for skilled labour.

As well as this, law-making will finally be returned to a sovereign British judiciary. No longer will we need to ask for EU permission to pass judgements on foreign criminals, terror suspects and ‘asylum’ seekers.

EU regulations, passed entirely in EU courts, will no longer apply, leaving us free to decide our own standards of quality, health and safety, as well as (crucially) the shape of our bananas and cucumbers.

Finally, and most importantly of all, our elected government will once again be the supreme authority over the British Isles. No longer will we need to waste calories and column inches whinging about ‘unelected bureaucrats in Brussels’ or ‘faceless EU dictators’. Now, if an unjust rule comes to prevail over this kingdom, we will be able to change it quickly and democratically. British rule, to oversimplify the matter, has returned to the British. We have our country back.

Boris Johnson has promised a ‘glorious’ future for Britain following Brexit

Five minutes ago, David Cameron addressed the nation from outside No.10 Downing Street. With rare emotion, the Prime Minister announced that he will be standing down sometime in the next three months.

As to who will replace him, almost everyone has the same person in mind; namely, Boris Alexander De Pfeffel Johnson – the yellow (not blonde) haired former Mayor of London and standout figure of the victorious leave campaign.

If this does come true – if Boris, perhaps joined by Michael Gove, rises to the executive of the British state on the back of Brexit – then that is another reason to temper one’s joy at the result of last night’s vote. Boris Johnson is an idiot, more of a clown than a politician. I would rather be ruled by almost anyone else.

Will Brexit be worth it in the end? Only time will tell for sure. I am honestly surprised by how lacklustre my enthusiasm for the result has been. I thought I would be tap-dancing with restless euphoria, possessed with native pride. But I’m not dancing. I’m not even smiling. The issue seems more nuanced in retrospect than it did in prospect.

If you derive from one of the nations still attached to the European Union, I would ask you to do whatever you can to prevent a grudge emerging between your country and Britain. We do not wish to divide the West. We are not, by leaving the EU, denying our European-ness. We are still one civilisation, one culture. Perhaps it would have been better to stay and reform the links that bound us together, but we’ve made our choice. Please don’t make it any harder for us than it already is.

D, LDN

Europe is Suspended Until Further Notice

Tags

Are Muslim countries safe?, Christianity and Islam, Christopher Caldwell, Civilisation, Coffee, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, DTMW, dtmw dtmw blog, EU, Euro, Europe, europe future, Europe future Muslims, European Union, Fox News, Glenn Beck, Internet, joe, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, TheBlaze, United States

The picture above was taken in Belgium just a few days ago. That’s right, Belgium: the reassuringly boring, eternally peaceful expanse between France and the Netherlands, home of world-class chocolatiers, breweries and waffle-makers; the scene of history’s most peaceful civil conflict over land; office space of the European Union.

In this photograph, what can we see? Well, as far as I can make out, it shows heavily-armed soldiers interviewing a Muslim woman on the cobbled streets of the capital city, Brussels; a scene and scenario reminiscent of the darker days of the former Soviet Union, or perhaps an upmarket area of the modern Middle East.

Though this is happening in Europe, this isn’t Europe. Europe as we know it is suspended until further notice. And with great sadness, I must speculate that this notice may not come for some time.

We have grown so used to the majority of Islamic violence taking place in the Middle East that the near future is likely to be very traumatic. Whilst the Israelis have found a way to continue their coffee and croissant culture in the midst of military checkpoints, barbed-wire fences and back-slung rifles, Europe is entirely unaccustomed to that reality. How will we cope? How will we explain the changes to our children?

It is necessary that we think about this. The explosion of Islamist activity that began with the establishment of ISIS in Iraq and which opened a broad European theatre with the attacks in Paris is not going away any time soon. This is merely the beginning, the opening act. If you were thinking the fire would die down in a few weeks, after which you could go back to worrying about the next Manchester United match, or the prospects of Andy Murray at next year’s Wimbledon, you are greatly mistaken. I predicted many months ago (in my post “ISIS and the Coming Terror Wave”) that a massive campaign of Islamist violence would be inflicted upon European cities in retaliation for the bombing of ISIS territory in Syria. I was right, as were many others. We knew that ISIS could not be contained with airstrikes. We knew that ISIS wasn’t weak or disorganised enough to be broken up by police raids or rudimentary border controls.

To repel an organisation of this kind will take bold and ruthless action – not only by the West, but Russia and allied Middle Eastern states (Israel and Jordan) also. Tens of thousands of bombs must fall. Thousands of missiles must be fired. It will take years, not months. It will cost billions, not millions.

As to the home-front, attacks like those in Paris will be attempted across the continent. Expect them. Prepare for them. Obey government orders to stay inside when they are made. Do not launch vigilante retaliations. If you do so, emergency measures enacted to deal with terrorists may be extended to contain you as well. While governments are (by their very nature) untrustworthy, our militaries are surely on our side. Put your trust in them, even if in no-one else.

For all the Islamic State’s storm and bluster, they cannot challenge the West at its peak capabilities. Our weapons are better and more plentiful than theirs. A jeep cannot repel a Raptor. An RPG cannot outwit a Tomahawk. Let’s be sure to impress the bastards, even as we dispose of them.

Let’s also take the prompt of the moment to regain pan-civilizational solidarity. Here in England, we often consider the continental nations to be slightly ridiculous, their eccentricities entrenched so deep that they limit the rationality of their general population. We consider France, for example, to be hopelessly Left-wing, prone to post-modern philosophy and addicted to leisure. We see the Dutch as pot-smoking, laid-back liberals; the Swedes as naked, free-loving Feminists; the Germans as militaristic work-robots etc… But despite these bigotries, we all secretly value the traditions of our continental neighbours. Our rivalries are friendly; our prejudices are light-hearted. This is why the descent of a state like Belgium into a ‘den of terror’ (as it has been shockingly branded since Paris) is and will be hard to take for all of us.

This is a sad time, but not yet a hopeless one. Strength lies in numbers. We are all in the same boat. And if we combine our efforts and efficiently apply them, Europe – as we knew it – will one day resume.

D, LDN

“They Could be ISIS”

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, Barack Obama, BBC, Britain First, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Donald Trump syria refugees, Europe, European Union, Facebook, facebook isis, Immigration, ISIS, ISIS europe, ISIS in America, ISIS refugees, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, refugees, refugees or migrants, syrians, trump, Twitter, United States

With one curt reply, Donald Trump solved the conundrum of how Western leaders should react to the Syrian Immigration crisis. Instead of fumbling about for the right excuse, or degenerating into platitudinous psychosis, Trump met the contempt of the Left with a shield of toughest reason.

Should Trump become President in 2016, the Syrian refugees now headed to America (under Obama’s policy of general cultural surrender) will, he said, be made to leave. He gave no detail as to where they will go, but he was decisive (his jaunty, masculine tone never trembling) that they will go. Why? “They could be ISIS” he explained, and much to the chagrin of liberal press infiltrators, the audience receiving this news erupted into thigh-slapping approval.

“They could be ISIS” is such a straightforward, commonsensical rationale that the Left will surely pick at it ruthlessly in the weeks to come. Liberals, after all, don’t like common-sense; it’s far too reminiscent of the working classes they so despise (and pretend to represent). Liberals prefer (and will only listen to) lengthy, pseudo-intellectual theses from bespectacled East-Coast vegans (or even better, granola-crunching Scandinavian Leftists) composed in order to justify or extend the reach of government. Common sense just won’t cut it. Common sense doesn’t even have formal accreditation.

But this commonsensicalism is nevertheless the correct attitude for a prospective Presidential candidate to adopt. In politics, the issues are only as complicated as you choose to make them, and the Syrian immigrant debacle is at heart quintessentially simple. A country filled with hundreds of thousands of violent barbarians is busily issuing forth a stream of undocumented, unidentifiable strangers into the civilised world. The organisation responsible for the destruction of that source country has pledged its willingness to plant operatives in that human stream; their ultimate intention being to wreak a comparable havoc on Europe, as they already have on their own soil. When one considers the pastimes presently popular in ISIS-controlled territory (head-lopping, virgin rape, forced marriages, limb amputation among various others…), it is therefore the height of intellectual clarity to prevent the human stream from penetrating the borders of civilised nations.

I didn’t need to write any of that, of course. Trump made the same point with perfect austerity – “They could be ISIS”. As a statement, it can hardly be improved upon.

Still, if it helps the block-headed leftists better understand the point, perhaps Trump might in future use the analogy of contagious disease. If the human stream issuing from Syria was rumoured to contain carriers of Ebola or Bird Flu, the borders of the civilised world would surely re-appear as if by magic. It is the accepted responsibility of government to prevent the spread of disease where it is possible to do so. Why should this be treated any differently?

Islamisation is markedly worse than any organic malady. Once a country has been Islamised, that is usually how it will stay for many centuries. Ask the Albanians, the Bosnians or the Berbers. Unlike the treatment of a medical condition, overturning a cultural transformation is impossible without revolution, violence and chaos. Collected together, the number of historic deaths related to Islamic conquest – that is, from both Islamising and de-Islamising – runs into the wild millions.

And Islamic conquest is exactly what ISIS plans for us. If they need to move their wolves into position clad in wool, they will do. If they need to shed a few phoney tears for the Western press, they will do. Hell, they’ll almost certainly sacrifice children to the sea in order to forward this vile enterprise.

Any policy able to defend us against this process must be considered.

D, LDN

Eurovision: What the EU Was Supposed to Be Like.

Tags

Civilisation, Coffee, Defend the modern world, EU, Europe, European Union, eurovision, Eurovision 2015, Eurovision song contest, Eurovision Sweden, Great Britain, Italy, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Swedish entry

Yesterday in Vienna the Eurovision song contest was held for the 60th time. Sweden won this year, with Russia second and Italy third. The UK came a pathetic 22nd.

Most educated people view Eurovision with a ticklish sense of irony. The contest is camp, loud, colourful and – in its founding vision – hopelessly idealistic. The stated goal of ‘uniting Europe through the power of music’ is dreamy. The songs are often ludicrous ballads with ludicrous dancers and ludicrous lyrics. In Britain, there is a well-established tradition of having a comedian drily commentate over the proceedings in order to make the event tolerable for a snobby, postmodern British audience.

I actually enjoy Eurovision. I rather like the idea of a united Europe, of a European ‘community’ or extended family. Nobody is forced to enter Eurovision or to take it seriously. We all laugh politely at each others eccentricities. We work together for the sake of friendship and to celebrate our differences and similarities.

Perhaps this was what the EU was supposed to be like in everyday practice. Though it hasn’t worked out that way, Eurovision reminds us that the idea of a united Europe isn’t as unpleasant or infeasible as its current implementation would suggest.

D, LDN.

Fear of a Black Planet.

Tags

africa demographics, Africanisation of Europe, BBC, Boat Italy, Boats, Britain, Defend the modern world, demographics in africa, EU, Europe, Europe 2050, Europe 2100, European Union, fear of a black planet, Islam, Italy migrants, Lampedusa, PC gone mad, Political Correctness, public enemy, Samuel Huntingdon, Sudan

While contemporary attention is understandably directed toward demographic movements in the Muslim World, another phenomenon, of equally great consequence, is occurring without much being said about it.

This is the demographic explosion of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Even if Muslims manage, as their growth rates suggest they might, to conquer Europe’s cities, their victory will almost certainly be short-lived. In time, and with the certainty of mathematics, the Arab Paris will turn blacker and blacker. The same with the Turkish Berlin, the Pakistani/Bangladeshi London and the Berber Amsterdam. The future population of Africa and much of Europe will be black African.

Let’s look at some numbers.

The average fertility rate for a woman of European (‘white’) ancestry is 1.4 children. In Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Libya, the rate is around 2-3 children per female, significantly higher than the European rate, but falling gradually every year.

By frightening contrast, the fertility rate for a woman of Nigerian ancestry is 6-7 children and rising. In Niger, the rate is as high as 8 children. In Somalia, the rate is 6.4 children. In Mali, the rate is 6 children. In Angola = 6: Uganda = 6: The Gambia = 5.8 and so on….

In a United Nations listing of countries arranged by fertility rate, 38 of the top 40 countries are in Sub-Saharan Africa (the other 2 are Yemen and Afghanistan – both exceptional cases created by war).

Samuel Huntingdon remarked upon this in his ‘Clash of Civilisations’, though this part of his narrative has largely been lost beneath the more immediate concerns of terrorism. In a short but vital paragraph, the academic predicted that although initially – in the early 21st century – the chief concern of Europeans would be the threat of Islamisation, this would later give way to a fear of ‘Africanisation’.

The demographic projections would seem to confirm this.

Of the many consequences of Africa’s boom, some will be beneficial to the West, and some potentially destructive. In the former camp, it is fair to say that Black immigration will be a North African issue long before it is a European one. This may interfere with or confuse the Islamist project, given that African Islam is not as organised and ferocious as Arab Islam and also that a sudden shift to multi-racialism can bring about an instability conducive to Western exploitation.

In the latter camp, Europe risks being completely inundated and transformed. The tragedy of the boats last week is just a foretaste. The boats will get bigger, safer, faster, more frequent and more heavily laden.

And Europe will not be able to campaign as openly against Black migration as it does against Pakistani, Arab or Turkish immigration. Hostility to Muslims is broadly accepted by the Middle Classes as common-sense. Black People are far better protected by political correctness and this will make political resistance more complicated.

White people more or less like Black people. I like Black people. The American elite likes Black people. In America, a show of Black public solidarity for Africans in Europe would make it extremely hard for European youth to speak frankly about the issue without being outcast from their generation.

The matter requires nuance and feeling. If the black immigrants are legal (no boats please) and Christian, I suppose this would be one way of replenishing the workforce currently shrinking from Western infertility. And even if they are Muslim, I would speculate that black people are more likely to give up faith if offered material reasons for doing so (compared to Turks, Arabs and Persians, for whom Islam is entwined with ancient pride).

What decides ultimately is proportion. Europe cannot take every boat that washes up on Italian or Maltese shores. Nor should large-scale immigration continue at all without popular referenda. Immigration of some sort is economically necessary, but the native people of Europe must be in charge of its scale and (just as crucially) its content.

D, LDN.

Why We Fight.

Tags

Against Muslims in Europe, Charlie Hebdo, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Deport Muslims from Europe, EU, Europe Muslims, European Union, Massacre, Monica Bellucci, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Paris Attacks

“…Freedom’s battle, once begun,
Bequeath’d by bleeding sire to son,
Though baffled oft, is ever won.

At times like these, with a continent sparking steadily ablaze, Britain ceases to be a country and becomes a province of something greater. After the massacre in Paris, we are Europeans.

Though we might dislike the European Union with an exaggerated passion, we must strive to remember that Europe is our common home; that on this continent, we have siblings of beautiful variety, all of whom share the same ideals as we do. France is our farmland; Germany, our factory; Spain, our place in the sun. Europe is a civilisation in and of itself.

At the base of the country I currently write from, there is a place called Tarifa; an ornate beach city, famous for its white sand and deep blue waters. Across the Mediterranean river, no more than an hour away by boat, is Morocco.

The standard of living in Morocco belongs to the miserable past. There, chaos permeates everything and makes impossible the order necessary for commerce. Religion, of the most stuffy and regressive variety stultifies the local population and prevents cultural evolution. The natives of that country would kill to be where we are. Not just in Britain or Spain; they’d gladly settle for Germany, France, Luxembourg or even Estonia.

And this has nothing to do with economics. It has everything to do with the superiority (by every measure) of our civilisation. Unlike them, we are blessed with stable economies, relaxed secular governments, epic histories, marble grandeur and decadent modern excess.

There really is nowhere quite like Europe. While it’s true that the USA, Canada, Korea and Japan all have wealth and free societies, they do not have our philosophers, poets, symphonies and frescos, that peculiar sophistication in food, art, literature and language that Europe has possessed ever since the renaissance. The USA and Canada would not even exist were it not for Europe and the adventurous spirit coiled in the hearts of its people.

Muslims hate and love our cultural success simultaneously. One half of the (male) Muslim mind dreams of marrying Monica Bellucci, the other half dreams of killing her. One half of the Muslim mind dreams of integrating into London, the other half dreams of destroying it.

Energised by this confused longing, Muslims have begun to move to Tarifa in large numbers. Morocco creeps northward, rolling back the clock as it goes. Local attitudes devolve, freedoms grow vulnerable and buildings fall into haggard disrepair.

We should be prepared to do almost anything to prevent this. If we fail, a thousand years of progress will be lost in just a few decades. A stand must now be made and a whispered sentiment made explicit.

From hereon, only Christians, Jews and ex-Muslims should be allowed to emigrate from the Muslim world to Europe. This is basic common-sense. Those Muslims who are already here should be forced to move somewhere else.  

European Leftists – if they are to be taken seriously on anything ever again – must look beyond the limitations of their doctrine. It isn’t ‘good-natured’ for liberals to side with those who hate liberty. It’s stupid and cartoonishly hypocritical. How dare they continue to enjoy art, and at the same time protect the enemies of self-expression…How dare people attend anti-‘Islamophobia’ rallies in Placebo or David Bowie t-shirts. How can they not see something so obvious?

Muslims hate (and would outlaw) everything we celebrate. That is why we fight. The longer people take to concede this, the more stupid history will make them look.

D, LDN.

Why is Britain Being Disarmed?

Tags

British army cuts, D-Day, Defence Budget, Defence spending, Defend the modern world, EU Army, EU conspiracy?, European Union, Liberal, Liberal Elite, Liberalism, Lies, UK army, US Army, Weakness, WW11, WWII

It is fairly uncontroversial to remark that continental Europe owes a considerable debt to the British Armed Forces. Despite the tendency of patriotic historians to construct myths about the Second World War, the material which exalts the conduct of soldiers in the D-Day landings or the pilots of the Battle of Britain is rooted in palpable truth. Britain held out after others had long given up, standing bold and alone against the cruellest experiment in political history.

At the close of the war, Germany lay in well-deserved ruins, the territory itself divided in two – one half enslaved to the Communism it had vainly sought to destroy, and the other half humbled to the democracy of which it had vainly sought to take advantage. The French and the Scandinavians, though liberated, were still dulled from the heavy sleep of German bondage. In the fading smoke of the post-war years, Britain’s army was the most highly developed and capable in Europe.

As the cold war took shape and America’s primacy became undeniable, Britain quickly and successfully shifted into its new role as ‘Lieutenant’ to the US ‘General’. In less than a decade, London moved its foreign policy orientation away from the pursuit of colonialism and towards the cooperative defence of Western freedom.

And for many years, we excelled at this role. Britain was among the first Western countries to successfully test a nuclear warhead; the RAF was a leading edge in technical research and radar development, and British bases (the only positive legacy of empire) gave the UK a reach other European states could only dream of.

This splendored history only makes what has happened since it all the more tragic.

Over the past two decades, the British military has been dismantled. The RAF and ground army has declined or been held in stasis even as the world outside has become a far more dangerous place. Our leaders (from Thatcher onward) have felt secure enough to roll back the acquisition of tanks, ground personnel and fighter planes, preferring to direct the military budget into costly electronic, reconnaissance, and guidance systems, as well as monumentally expensive aircraft carriers. While the justifications used for this ‘modernisation’ have been convincing to some, they seem shakier with me every passing year.

As Conservative MP John Baron put it: “(We are) developing expensive bits of kit whilst reducing our manpower and thus ability to deploy force overseas. The old adage of there being no substitute to boots on the ground needs remembering.”

Indeed, what good are aircraft carriers – machines designed for preparatory warfare against a country – if there is no military to impose a lasting decision on that country afterward? There is much more to warfare than bombing, and for illustration, one need only return to the Second World War.

When Dresden was levelled by the RAF and USAF in 1945, nobody – not even the most starry-eyed optimist – would have called the Nazi problem dealt with. Troops are necessary to create a new order and construct a favourable peace. By cutting its numbers so deeply and so quickly, Britain may eventually relax into a state of Luxembourgian irrelevance.

Since it is widely regarded that the death-knell to Britain’s Empire came at Suez in 1956 (by the inability to either suppress Egypt or acquire American backing for doing so), it might be illustrative to speculate what might become of such an adventure today. Have the gaps been plugged? Has Britain got stronger? Have the billions of pounds spent on its military in the intervening period served to redress the problems encountered? On the contrary. Britain’s military today is weaker than that of Egypt by quite some distance.

Would it surprise you to learn that the British army currently possesses less than 500 tanks, and that the army of Egypt boasts more than 3000? How about the fact that the RAF currently operates around 120 4th Generation warplanes, whereas Egypt possesses 240 F-16s? What about the fact that the UK has a combined active and reserve manpower of 300,000 and Egypt over 1 million?

Put simply (and starkly), whereas we were once capable of sustaining the largest Empire in history, we cannot now defeat a mid-sized third-world state.

So who is responsible for this? The most obvious target for the finger of blame is the EU, and the false sense of security a seemingly quiescent Europe provides for our military planners. It is true of course that another war with Germany is a near-impossible prospect and that French animosity has more to do with language-envy and cuisine than a hatred translatable into war.

But the EU security delusion is otherwise extremely naïve. The Brussels experiment is heading for a potentially stormy break-up, the outcomes of which are nearly impossible to predict. Enemies abroad from the continent are not thin on the ground either. In our confrontation with Islamism, we currently face a human resource potential of over one billion.

There are people (usually on the Libertarian right) who perceive a more shadowy reason for Britain’s disarmament, often involving a future ‘New World Order’ in which nation states are levelled to a peaceable parity and a one-world government reigns unchallenged over them all. But if this is a conspiracy, it is very unevenly applied. Germany isn’t getting weaker. France isn’t either. India, China, Turkey, America, Russia – none of these are disarming themselves. In reality no conspiracy. Other countries merely perceive a more dangerous and unstable world than we do.

That might well be of no import were it not for the fact that these countries inhabit the same world as ourselves.

D, LDN.

In Defence of American Sobriety.

Tags

America vs Europe, American Liberty, Civilisation, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, End of European Union, European Union, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

Shortly after his declaration of war on the United States, the Meth-addicted Austrian dictator Adolf Hitler sought to dismiss the achievements of America on the following grounds

“The German Reich has 270 opera houses – a standard of cultural existence of which they over there have no conception. They have clothes, food, cars and a badly constructed house – but with a refrigerator! This sort of thing does not impress us.”

Hitler’s psychosis in regard to America didn’t die with the war. In fact, it lives on today in the minds of the European intellectual class. America might have the most dynamic entrepreneurial society in the world, the world’s most advanced military and the world’s largest economy, but Americans generally are barbarians because they lack a deep historical personality of their own.

It’s true of course, that America is not an ancient nation, replete with rituals, opera, pomp and tradition. What isn’t true however is that this makes them somehow inferior. If anything, ‘American simple-mindedness’ is an important advantage.

While Europeans might enjoy a narcotic happiness grounded upon the achievements of the past, America has a cool-headed sobriety equipping them for the struggles of the future. Tradition is often an intoxicant and one which prevents a country from feeling the need to improve, shift, change with the times.

This is especially evident where I live. Even compared to other European countries, Britain maintains an absurd legacy of outdated rituals. Of these, the State Opening of Parliament is perhaps the most comical. In case you’ve never heard of or witnessed the process involved – here is a summary of events:

“Before the Queen departs Buckingham Palace for Westminster, a member of the House of Commons is taken to the Palace as a ceremonial hostage to guarantee the sovereign’s safety as she enters a possibly hostile Parliament.. .. The Queen arrives in a horse-drawn coach and enters through the Sovereign’s Entrance and proceeds to the Robing Chamber, where she puts on the Imperial State Crown… Once the Lord Chamberlain receives the nod from the Queen, he gives a signal to the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod to summon the House of Commons… Upon hearing the Black Rod’s approach, the House of Commons slams the door in his face, symbolizing the independence of the Commons and its right to debate without the presence of the Queen’s Representative. ”

And on and on it goes…

There is no way of justifying this mind-bending waste of calories. It has no rational origin in the past and it serves no rational purpose in the present. ‘Tradition’ by-itself is not an argument. Some traditions, for example the tradition of Monarchy, can be said to meet a national demand. Tradition (of a secular kind) for tradition’s sake however makes no sense at all. It does not preserve the greatness of Britain any more than the rituals of an OCD sufferer keep away the feared consequences of not performing them. In retaining this nonsense in a fast-changing world, Britain resembles less an authentically continuous culture, and more that famous patient in a psychiatric ward reported as having his finger up his backside ‘to stop his thoughts falling out’.

I fully understand the irony that Americans (and other potential tourists) are charmed by British regality, and so perhaps there is some economic rationale at work here. But surely it would be better for the dignity of the nation to dispense with it altogether and adopt a cool-headed, progressive and business-like approach to the world as it is.

I am a modernist. A fanatical one even. I celebrate Shakespeare and Byron, Keats and Edmund Burke, but I also love smart phones, laptops, American fridges and electronic cigarettes. Progress is good. Competition is vital. To this end, Europe must stop resting on a superannuated renown and begin equipping itself for the future.

This is what China is doing after-all, and it’s working pretty well for them.

D, LDN.

Remembering The Cronulla Beach Uprising.

Tags

American Liberty, anti-Semitism, Aussie, Australia, Barack Obama, Christianity and Islam, Cronulla, Cronulla Beach, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, European Union, Middle East, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Religion in Lebanon, Rihanna Muslim, Sydney

Though we might dislike the fact of their settlement, there is at least some geo-political logic to the presence of Islamists in Europe. North Africa and the Middle East (both of which are blighted with fundamentalism) are separated from the continent by a small distance of light blue water. One can reach the outlying islands of Italy from Libya or Tunisia within a couple of hours by boat. One can swim the distance from Morroco to the Iberian peninsula. The European Union furthermore is a Leftist initiative that cannot (and anyway does not try to) police its most critical borders.

The presence of radical Muslims in Australia however demands a greater explanation. Australia is one of the most remote countries in the ‘Western’ definition, close but not too close to the most civilised and affluent country in the Muslim world, Indonesia.

For a long part of its short history, Australia barred any non-European immigration under the so-called ‘White Australia’ policy, and to date retains one of the strictest immigration policies in the G20.

Despite this, subsequent reforms have enabled Australia to undergo a partial multicultural enrichment; principally from Indonesia and China, but also from the Indian Subcontinent and Middle East. There are currently an estimated 72,000 Lebanese Muslims in Australia, and they haven’t been slack in amassing a reputation.

In the year 2000, a gang of fourteen Lebanese Muslim men carried out a campaign of sexual terrorism against the women of Sydney and its surrounding suburbs.

“In the space of two months” wrote Sarah Crichton and Andrew Stevenson “Seven teenage girls who identify as Australian….were abducted and pack-raped by members of a group of youths their own age. Three others escaped the boys’ clutches. At least 19 youths were involved in the attacks, though not all were present at every one. One girl was assaulted by four, another by two.

A police investigation captured 14 boys, most living within a few streets of each other in Greenacre, within weeks of the crimes. Five are related by marriage. All were born, raised and educated in Australia and identify as Lebanese Muslims, or just “Lebs”, although two had mixed parentage…. Some chose to add racial abuse to their rampage. The teenager raped on August 30 was called an “Aussie pig”, told she would be raped “Leb-style” and asked “does Leb cock taste better than Aussie cock?” by three of her assailants. Another girl was asked her nationality and concluded: “The world isn’t what I thought it to be – it isn’t safe and females are punished for being Australian.” ‘

The gang rapes were part of a larger culture of criminality among the Lebanese Muslim community of Greater Sydney. Sexual intimidation (if not always going as far as rape) was commonplace. In one incident (described in the same article), a Lebanese male began to publically masturbate in front of women on a bus. In another, groups of Women on beaches were harassed by Lebanese gangs, who called them ‘sluts’ and ‘pigs’.

In 2005 several Lebanese men altercated with a group of volunteer lifeguards on Cronulla beach, demanding the lifeguards ‘their’ territory, before brawling with two of them.

As news of the incident spread, the sparks connected to a long fuse of resentment in the area…. and then something extraordinary happened.

The following Sunday morning, more than five thousand local Aussies decided to make a stand at Cronulla beach to protest against the social terrorism being inflicted by the Muslims.

It’s worth repeating that number so it isn’t overlooked. Over five thousand. This is considerably more than the EDL have ever managed at a national demonstration. Cronulla was ostensibly a local dispute (although clearly one with more worldly overtones), and yet out people came in overwhelming numbers. Some carried placards demanding action by local and national authorities. Others merely made defiant gestures of Australian patriotism. All stood in the defence of a stable and affluent country against an aggressive campaign of intimidation.

If you research this civil uprising on Google, your search engine will rebrand the affair as the Cronulla ‘Riots’. Needless to say, this is disingenuous and unjust. While there certainly were undesirables (and moronic racists) present, the ‘riots’ described by the media refer only to the actions of a few hotheads. The initial demonstration was law-abiding, and given the provocations described above, inevitable and appropriate.

I call Cronulla an ‘uprising’ even though I know that word conjures to the mind images of flames and baton-rounds. True, the violence was distracting, unjustified and unfortunate, but other than this, Cronulla had all the markings of a stand for civil rights; a ‘civil uprising’ of defiance and initiative carried out within the law, aimed at those transgressing it.

Australia is a country extraordinarily blessed with isolation, stability and a demographic profile conducive to social peace. The defenders of Cronulla, no matter how much they are defamed by a craven and cowering media, demonstrate that there are some people willing to preserve this good fortune by whatever means are appropriate.

Remember them.

D, LDN.