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

Does It Have to Get Worse to Get Better?

Tags

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

• First published on this blog in June, 2015

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

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

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

But does it really hold water?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D, LDN.

Normalising Muslim Britain

Tags

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

• First published on this blog in January, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

D, LDN

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.

1985: The Arab Purchase of London.

Tags

Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Islamification of Britain, Islamisation of London, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

In his darkly comic dystopian novel ‘1985’ Anthony Burgess portrayed a future London increasingly dominated by Arab oil money. In that depiction, many of the famous London hotels have the ‘Al’ prefix added to them (Al-Dorchester etc….) and the high society haunts previously reserved for bowler hats and tails, contain instead an elite of keffiyeh-draped Saudis, Omanis and Qataris.

Despite being dubbed a reactionary at the time of the book’s release, Burgess has since been largely vindicated. Even if not to the point of open sponsorship (the Al-Dorchester has yet to materialise), and even if in a quieter and more insidious fashion, great swathes of London have still been bought up by Gulf petrodollars and the ecosystem of superwealth implanted with a new easterly orientation.

If you look at the skyline of London today, you will almost certainly be transfixed by one building above all others – The Shard. This iconic structure, with its diagonal slant and cold translucence, is designed to resemble a shard of broken glass (hence the name) and is the most dramatic alteration of the London skyline for many decades. It is also almost wholly owned by a Qatari Investment fund and subsidiary of the Qatari state.

From this vantage point, the Daily Mail later described the extent of Qatari power across the metropolis –

“To the east (of the Shard), Qatar owns swathes of the Canary Wharf financial district through its majority holding in Songbird Estates plc… When Barclays was in trouble at the height of the banking turmoil, the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA) emerged as a white-knight investor, and became the biggest shareholder… Over at Stratford stand the buildings of the Olympic Village – once the Games are finished this summer, QIA will take ownership… Due west lie Harrods and, close by, No 1 Hyde Park, the world’s most expensive block of flats, also Qatari-owned… A sovereign wealth fund with tens of billions of pounds in assets and a global reach, QIA has already invested £10 billion in Britain, with more planned. Its influence is everywhere… If you walk into any Sainsbury’s across the UK, remember that Qatar is a major investor. It owns 20 per cent of the London Stock Exchange and, at the other end of the scale, it owns 20 per cent of Camden market, the biggest grunge emporium in the country… Qatar is smaller than Belgium yet seems to be laying claim to the future of our capital.”

Remember that this is only the extent of Qatar, a relatively miniscule player in the larger Arabian Gulf. It says nothing of the holdings of Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Bahrain, and Abu Dhabi, states and emirates also drowned in dollar bills and energised by the same strange religious-corporate mission.

Should we be worried? Yes, of course we should.

In a globalised world, financial centres and corporations are just as strategically important as naval ports, missile bases and army barracks. As well as contributing to its prestige, companies are integral to a nation’s combined strength. They provide – in the form of tax – much of the cash reserve necessary to launch, or – more importantly – to repel – military aggression. To have an increasingly Muslim-owned economy at this point in history is obviously foolish. It has the potential to override all the military advantages the West currently enjoys and which prevent the advance of stronger Muslim powers like Turkey.

This isn’t just a European problem. In 2004, it was estimated that 9% of the entire US economy was owned by the states of the Arabian Gulf. If Saudi Arabia withdrew all its investments simultaneously they estimated, the value of the dollar would plummet and the economic outlook of the West would be vastly diminished.

It’s true that the energies of finance are largely undirected and apolitical. Governments – even it they think otherwise – cannot intervene to make them adhere to a national security policy, and even if they could, it would risk leading to authoritarianism. Nevertheless, we do reserve the right to be wary of who owns what in our country, and to make sure that our most vital industries remain either under our control or the control of our friends. To this end, we can boycott, protest and make trouble wherever it suits our objectives. America and Europe must not become the debt-slaves of Eastern Sheiks. Especially not those Wahhabis who, even if they publically embrace the profanities of earthly power, privately yearn for a more spiritual victory.

D, LDN

Sandwiches (Much Ado About Something).

Tags

Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Islamification of Britain, Islamisation of London, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism, Subway halal, Subway menu

This past week, the sandwich chain Subway announced that 200 of its UK stores are to stop providing ham, salami and other pork products on its menu. All other meat meanwhile will be made in accordance with Halal regulation.

The furore that has since ensued might seem – to the uniformed mind – to be much ado about nothing. It’s only a sandwich chain after all, not a national or state institution.

In reality, this is only the most recent in a predictable sequence of capitulations that, if left to run its course, will directly affect the culture of our homeland.

Subway have since explained their decision by attesting to the ‘demands’ of its Muslim customers. That word ‘demand’ places the decision in its proper context.

This is nothing more than cultural bullying and it comes from a minority who oppose and wish to replace the culture of the majority.

As Robert Spencer pointed out:

“This decision has rendered these Subway restaurants less multicultural than they were before, since now non-Muslims in Britain who would like to enjoy a Chicken and Bacon Ranch Melt or an Italian sub with pepperoni are out of luck: Muslims and Sharia-compliant dhimmis are the only ones who will be served.”

Although it might seem an intangible or doubtable aspect, ‘cultural identity’ is a vital organ in the national body. Without a cultural foundation, and in an age in which race has been devalued as an attribute, Britain would be left formless and indistinct. Well understanding this, Islamisation proceeds by occupying empty cultural spaces; it moves forward by little victories along the line of least resistance, attacking seemingly trivial areas.

So what do we do? Well, as many have already suggested, boycotting Subway is an option, albeit a drastic and probably unworkable one; the reason being that people love sandwiches more than they care about the future (this gruesome logic also explains the consumption across Islamophobic Britain of the ‘doner kebab’).

What is more likely to bear fruit is to lobby the public into asking for non-halal meat at their local subway, and if refused, to walk away. This would not require the participation of the majority, but would demonstrate clearly the danger Subway is running by having made this decision.

Perhaps other religions could demand that their traditions are from here-on abided by too. This will add to the complications the chain must contend with.

Subway’s shift in policy comes at an interesting time. About 3 weeks ago, David Cameron invited controversy by describing Britain as a ‘Christian country’. No sooner had the words left his mouth than Critics took it upon themselves to claim a majority in Britain either subscribe to other religions, or to none at all.

It may well be the case that Britain is no longer a ‘majority’ Christian country. Nevertheless, we are a nation that once belonged to a coalition (‘Christendom’) charged with preventing the distant storm of Jihad from abolishing our freedoms.

We are consequently not overreacting when we see little encroachments from the same force strolling unopposed into our daily lives. We are using whatever residuum of willpower we still have to survive.

D, LDN

Re: The Breivik Confession.

Tags

America 911, BBC, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Islamification of Britain, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

Unless you’re a devoted reader of the Counter-Jihad press, you’ll likely be unaware of the most recent testimony by child-killer Anders Behring Breivik.

His latest communication, a rambling letter directed to the media but as yet unremarked upon by it, dramatically exposes the real intentions behind that bloody July afternoon, and at the same time dispenses conclusively with the lies that have hitherto obscured those intentions from view.

The official narrative concerning Mr Breivik – still maintained by the press to this day – portrays him as a brain-washed dupe of dogmatic Islamophobes, most notably the bloggers Fjordman and Baron Bodissey, the vlogger Patrick Condell and the celebrated cultural critic Robert Spencer. Indeed, such was the image deliberately constructed in the killer’s manifesto 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, in which he credits almost every major CounterJihad author as a direct influence.

Now however, Breivik has come clean about his real motivations. This is an excerpt from the killer’s letter:

“The compendium (2083) was, among other things, of a calculated and quite cynical “gateway-design” (the 2+2=6-approach), created to strengthen the ethnocentrist wing in the contra-jihad movement, by pinning the whole thing on the anti-ethnocentrist wing (many of the leaders are pro-multiculti social democrats or liberalists), while at the same time protecting and strengthening the ethnocentrist-factions. The idea was to manipulate the MSM and others so that they would launch a witch-hunt and send their “media-rape-squads” against our opponents. It worked quite well.”

He goes on…

“I know a lot of people will be disappointed when reading this, but my love for Israel is limited to its future function as a deportation-port for disloyal Jews. I am aware of the sad fact that all available statistics confirm that only aprox. three percent of eurojews oppose multiculti (but from an anti-islamist perspective), and that only aprox. 0,2 percent support nordic indigenous rights. I wish it wasn’t so… However, there is in fact a strong anti-nordicist/ethnocentrist wing within the counter-jihad movement, represented by Fjordman and his Jewish network, the EDL-leader, the SIOE-leaders, Wilders, Farage etc…”

The ability to have lied this well is the mark of a psychopath. Breivik never really endorsed the CounterJihad movement at all and so we no longer need to apologise for him. He is a formulaic Nazi, no different to the enemy in character, and we are all owed an apology from those who equated our views with his.

D, LDN.

A Saddening Glimpse of London’s Future.

Tags

Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, England, Islam and the West, Islamification of Britain, london, London Borough of Tower Hamlets, Mogadishu, Multiculturalism, Muslim, No to Turkey in the EU, Pakistan, Secondary school, Somalia, Tower Hamlets, Western world, Wimbledon

It’s easy to lapse into false optimism about Muslim immigration, especially if one views things solely through ones own generational lens. Most commonly, it’s only when viewed from ‘below’ as it were, that things enter their statistical context.

I was riding an almost empty bus from Wimbledon to Fulham the other afternoon, when the clock struck 3:30pm, and the vehicle hummed to a stop outside a local secondary school.

The doors slid open, and within seconds, the Western World seemed to disappear.

Gone was England, its green fields and marble arches, and to replace it, a rowdy band of Somalians and Pakistanis. I couldn’t count, but the swarm of conquisotors must have been 20 to 25 strong. A deafening pet-shop chorus quickly filled the air around me.

The school itself, I noted, looked to be from the Blair-era; i.e. a type of modernized state school with the deliberate ambience of a college. Any thought that the school was strictly Islamic was undermined by a number of native students wearing the same uniform. This only served to make it even more depressing. 

As I sat there for the remainder of the journey, surrounded by a forest of prayer caps and headscarves, I felt like some sort of gap-year missionary, flown in to demonstrate house-building or agriculture to the poor of Mogadishu. Few of the children communicated with each other in English, and those who did, only managed the bastardised slang of urban ghettos.

Still, the figures on these matters, with which I am usually so well acquainted, ought to have dulled any surprise I felt. London’s natural demographic growth (i.e that which is not attributable to fresh immigration) is greatest in those areas dominated by Muslims. Tower Hamlets, Brent and Haringey all have ballooning populations, and since this incident occurred in the leafy opulence of West-London, there must also be hives of conquest closer to home.

Demography, the study of these changes in population, is a miserable science. It’s made all the worse for its definitude. One can’t argue with it, debate it, mitigate it, or challenge it. The movements within demography can be as soundly predicted as any other calculus. That swarm, – that loud, semi-literate band of youth previously described – is the future of London. There is no way around it. Barring their mass generational suicide, that lucky collection will inherit the priceless city of Edward Gibbon (‘Decline and Fall’ – the greatest ever application of the English language – was written around the same area).

How very ironic. How very sad.  

D, LDN.

When the Thunder Begins.

Tags

Anders Behring Breivik, anti-Semitism, Christopher Caldwell, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, English Defence League, Eurabia, Islamification of Britain, Mark Steyn, Morrissey, Multiculturalism, National Front Disco, Rihanna Muslim

The controversial (and stupidly ambiguous) Morrissey album-track ‘National Front Disco’ has been ringing in my head all week. One lyric in particular (addressed  – as the whole song is, to a young skinhead called ‘David’) has distracted my thinking:

‘David, we wonder/ we wonder if the thunder/ is ever really gonna begin…’

As I say, I’m not a fan of the song, but it did make me think.

Islamophobia is less a tendency now than an industry. We can no longer claim that we are being censored by newspapers, online searches, or publishing houses (if Mark Steyn can get published, there can be few limits). The censors have tried, but they have failed. Our worldview is rising faster than that of its detractors.

But with this popularity also arrives cause for doubt. If thousands of people, millions even, are receptive to this political voice, why is the struggle still limited to chat-rooms and blog-sites? When indeed will the popular ‘thunder’ roll?

After Lee Rigby was hacked to death near his barracks, there was, mixed in with the general shock and anger, a definite silver-lining of hope. I really did believe that Muslims had crossed a line that could not be recrossed. Only weeks later, the tragedy was fish & chip paper. 

So if not the brazen murder of our soldiers, what kind of event can change the political atmosphere?

I remember putting this question to a leading figure in British CounterJihad movement and he suggested that an event of sufficient severity had only recently (and narrowly) been avoided. A few months ago, Islamists were convicted in a British court of planning to bomb an EDL rally. Had they succeeded, he argued, they would have triggered great social disorder and secured the hatred of a whole generation of English youths.

What other processes could bring a resolution closer? I’ve been thinking about this all week and I’ve come up with the following three scenarios:

1. A CounterJihad Spring.

Another terrorist attack in Central London is almost certain. Sometime, somewhere, yet more innocent Brits will have to die, probably by fire or bullet.

But what if – after one such occurrence – some patriot group of note refuses to get angry and sets about getting even. Using social media, they instruct every party supporter to file into Parliament Square, bringing with them food, shelter and changes of clothing. Thousands show up, just as asked, and many more (from right around the country) pledge to join them. The media arrive to be told that the area is hereby ‘occupied’ until the government (no, let’s go further), until the EU pledges a total halt to Islamic immigration. Police would struggle to halt the spread of the protest and  – as long as it remained lawful and peaceful – it might well bear  genuine fruit.

2. Elite Defections.

Celebrities are Leftists by instinct. If you’re a musician, comedian, novelist or pop-journalist, you will only succeed by being ‘cutting-edge’ and this will inevitably place you with a multicultural crowd. Reflecting this, liberalism is almost mandatory among the British celebrity elite.

But what if – by some unknown trigger – a few celebrities of note began to defect away from the liberal consensus on Islam and caused a shift in broader society. It isn’t unthinkable. The policies of Islam on women, homosexuality, drug-use and the playing of musical instruments are completely at odds with everything the elite promotes. The alliance then between liberals and their own worst enemy cannot hold forever.

3. The Queen Dies.

I’ve mentioned elsewhere that the passing of the Queen will potentially have a major impact on the social climate of the UK. In the weeks following her passing, all political bets will truly be off. If one – just one – Muslim group waved a placard speculating that Her majesty was rotting in hell, or otherwise cast negative aspersions on her character, a unifying rage would glue the classes of England together in a way that would astonish foreign observers. Testifying to this, British Islamist groups, for all their enthusiasm in murdering our soldiers, have not yet summoned the courage to offend the Royals. That said, only a fool would rule it out. 

So, there’s three events which could bring this long argument toward something like a resolution. As for anything more immediate from our political leaders, don’t hold your breath.

D, LDN.

Muslim Fear of Sex.

Tags

Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, English Defence League, Eurabia, Islam, Islamification of Britain, Islamisation of London, Multiculturalism, Women in Islam

I haven’t giggled since I was a child. I’ve laughed of course, and chuckled and wheezed and bawled, but I haven’t giggled for longer than I can remember.

Giggling is a curious and revealing reaction to stimuli in that it doesn’t equate to one being amused but rather disturbed. Giggling is a way of covering up fear, embarrassment and lack of understanding.

I’m pretty fascistic about who I let into my personal life and so I haven’t heard a friend or valued associate giggle for some time either. My friends are too mature for that. If they are intimidated by a subject (which is rare), they’ll brace themselves and let curiosity play surrogate for courage. “Tell me more…”

The last time I witnessed giggling from a fully grown adult was during my first year at University. I’ve written about this period elsewhere on this blog. It was one of the most tense and degrading years of my adult existence. I was placed into a student residential block with around 12 other students. I would say about 9 of them were Muslim. Those who weren’t (excluding myself) were uncommunicative Eastern Europeans.

As you would expect from this author, I kept as much of a distance as I could manage from the believers, but I still inevitably ran into them on occasion.

Whenever they tried to ingratiate themselves with me, I found the best and most reliable method of repelling them to be to mention sex. Whenever I mentioned any decidedly heterosexual topic, the Muslims began, in chorus, to giggle like children and then try to change the subject.

I noted that they seemed to hate talking about women; whether the beauty of women, the anatomy of women, or the existence of women etc…..

Mentioning the fairer sex seemed to act as a social pesticide. The word ‘vagina’ (actually a rather beautiful word) in particular they found to be ‘disgusting’ and it reliably sent them indoors.

This was curious to me then, but not to me now. As anyone who has read social studies of Muslims in the West knows, Western Muslims are especially tortured by the issue of sexuality. They are told by their religion that all aspects of sexuality are to be strictly limited to procreation and marriage, and yet they are growing up in a civilization which celebrates sex, sexiness, beauty and even perversion. As a consequence, their personalities are thrown into riot.

Muslim men (despite what their behaviour suggests) are human beings. When they are young, they have urges just like anyone else. They are also often members of racial groups with strikingly beautiful women. But they are powerless to act. They are forced by circumstance to live in a banqueting hall, and forced by their culture to starve themselves.

You may recall some time ago, there was a Muslim plot to blow up the Tiger Tiger nightclub in London. A taped phone conversation was released after the plot was foiled in which the would-be terrorists discussed their reasoning for selecting this venue. Much of what they said corresponded to a complete lack of sexual understanding. They equated scantily dressed women to adulterers, and promiscuous men to homosexuals. Labels were thrown around with zero respect for their meaning. Religion itself was barely touched upon.

In order to face the Muslim threat, we need to understand much more than the religious motivations of those who hate us. It is all too often the case that Muslims attack not because they feel supreme, but because – deep down – they know they are inadequate.

D, LDN.