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

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

The End is Nigh?

Tags

America, American Liberty, BBC, bbc bbc, Boris Johnson, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, Defend the modern world, Facebook, Islam, Islamisation, Islamisation of London, london, Mayor, mayor mayor, mayor of London, Multiculturalism, muslim mayor of london, Muslims, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, sadiq, sadiq khan, sadiq mayor, Twitter

The news that Sadiq Khan (the Muslim son of a Pakistani bus driver) has been elected Mayor of London hasn’t exactly gone down well with the British people. Here is a representative reaction cropped from the comment section of a popular right-wing newspaper:

“Bye Bye London. It was nice knowing you. Can’t believe what’s happening to this country.”

Here’s another – “We’re doomed. This is the end. We knew it was coming. Shame on those who did nothing to stop it. I used to love visiting London as a kid. I won’t bother doing that now. Tragic.”

And here’s one more – “Hardly surprising. There are no English people left in London. It’s part of Pakistan now. Used to be such a lovely city.”

It would be easy – and conventional – to label such responses hysterical and exaggeratedly doomly. That is exactly how they are being framed by the liberal press. But are they really an overreaction? The answer is complex.

As Mayor of London, Mr Khan will have very little political power. The position of Mayor is almost entirely bureaucratic, with the functions of the office largely confined to issues like transport, museum fees, rubbish disposal and recycling. Despite that, few positions are more symbolic than the Mayoralty of our Capital.

When the man or woman who replaces Barack Obama visits London, he or she will be required to meet with Khan as a matter of tradition. There is no way around it. For the President to refuse this meeting would be loudly condemned by both ends of the spectrum of political acceptability. And this applies to all foreign leaders who visit the UK, including the premiers of China, France, Israel, Canada and India.

Mr Khan will often be the first living thing a foreign leader will encounter upon visiting the United Kingdom. He is the welcome mat; the red carpet; our best Sunday suit. This is one reason to be worried, for being an official representative of a major nation provides Khan with enormous ‘soft’ power.

Should Donald Trump enter the White House this coming November, he will be expected by his electors to follow through on promises he made over the election season. And most notable among these promises, at least for people of our political persuasion, was the promise to close the borders of the United States to all practitioners of the Muslim faith. While this policy was and is enormously popular with the American public (and the British public, for that matter), it will be very difficult to enact without setting off an organised wave of condemnation from leaders across the world. As to whether this makes any difference to President Trump depends to a large extent on how influential Muslims are in other Western countries. It matters little or nothing if the Sultan of Brunei decries the President from his little, irrelevant fiefdom. But it does matter if a certain Mayor lobbies the UK government to bar the US President from London, a city which hosts a massive proportion of the world’s economic and political get-togethers.

As Mayor, Mr Khan will have high-level access not only to the government, but also to the monarchy. The Queen herself will be expected to meet with Khan on occasion to discuss all manner of topics, ranging from economic matters to the status of foreign leaders. While the Queen, like Mr Khan, occupies a largely ceremonial position, it is nevertheless invested with considerable emotional importance. The Queen’s viewpoint (expressed, for example, in the annual Christmas Day speech) is taken a million times more seriously than the view of a commoner. Will Khan seek to influence the Queen? It isn’t exactly far-fetched to predict that he will.

Finally, we must also consider the effect that a Muslim mayor of London will have on our national-cultural identity. London is the most important site in the British Isles – the place where the economic, political and cultural elites reside and make their decisions. Though citizens of other areas might begrudge the idea, London still leads the way in setting the cultural tone for the rest of the United Kingdom. In what way will having a Muslim mayor change London’s cultural self-concept? Again, we don’t know, but this must be considered.

I do not personally believe the election of Sadiq Khan means Britain has succumbed to Islam. It is simply a sign that London’s British identity is slipping further into the multicultural gunge. I’d love to suggest a way of halting this decline, but I’m not entirely sure there is one.

D, LDN.

The Neo-Conservative Tragedy

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, Barack Obama, BBC, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Democracy, Facebook, Iraq War, Islamisation of London, Islamism, Israel, jordan, Liberalism, Multiculturalism, neo, neo con, neo con iraq, neo conservative, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Twitter, United States, Zionism

I used to consider myself something of a neo-conservative (pejoratively abbreviated ‘neo-con’ by the left, often with an anti-Semitic edge to it). I was genuinely enlivened by the prospect of the West enforcing its moral and political standards on the rest of the world, believing for some time that the project was a simple yet complete fix for the problems of our time; most importantly, the problems of terrorism and Islamic anti-development.

Like many, I now know better. Neo-conservatism has failed, and failed badly, in practice. The use of the doctrine to liberate and improve the condition of Iraq has barely succeeded. While the country is now technically democratic, it remains crippled by religious tradition, unable and unwilling to develop beyond the limitations of that tradition. This should really have been predicted from the get-go. The fact that it wasn’t exposes the fundamental naivety at the heart of the neo-conservative experiment.

Put at its most basic, neo-conservatism pushes the idea that democracy has a positive value. Neo-cons (if there still are neo-cons) believe that democracies are less likely to go to war, less likely to collapse into chaos, tolerate corruption and extremism or shelter terrorists than are dictatorships and autocracies. On the surface this sounds reasonable enough. The Western democracies of today are certainly more averse to these evils than the third world; as are the remodelled nations of the far-east. Why wouldn’t the same be true for the rest of the world?

The answer in the case of the middle east is Islam. As political equations go, Islam plus democracy equals regression is one of the most reliable. The evidence for this can be found in modern ‘liberated’ Afghanistan – a country which has gone from a tribal theocracy controlled by the Taliban, to a democratic theocracy policed by the Taliban. One can also point to ‘liberated’ Iraq, which itself has gone from a secular Baathist dictatorship to a democratic Shia theocracy. Looked at from this vantage point, was either project worth thousands of free Western lives lost in the course their completion?

I was a fool to have ever thought so.

As well as Iraq and Afghanistan, neo-conservatism has also destroyed the nation of Libya, a country that previously had the highest Human Development Index ranking in the world. Post-liberation, the country is a sharia-ridden desert, robbed of its infrastructure, foreign investment and political coherence. As to whether Syria falls to the neo-con wave remains to be decided. One can justifiably presume that if democracy does strike the country, it will swiftly go the same way as Iraq and Afghanistan have.

If neo-conservatism was – as its detractors have always maintained – merely an ideological cover for destroying the Muslim world, then it has been remarkably successful. But I don’t believe in that conspiracy. Neo-conservatism – I think – was simply an embarrassing misfire of the Western intellect. We will be living with the consequences for a very long time.

D, LDN

Horny, Absurd, Priceless: The Europe We Love

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy New Year.

D, LDN

The Left is Starting to Crack

Tags

apologists for islam, BBC, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Daily Mail, dawkins, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Facebook, facebook bbc, Hitchens, Islam and the West, Islamisation of London, Islamism, Islamophobia, left-wing islam, Leftism, leftists, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Telegraph, towns, Twitter

Ever since hijacked airliners made toxic dust of the World Trade Centre in New York, there has persisted an intellectual struggle in Europe and America the furiousness and range of which has very few historical parallels. As soon the smoke cleared from that gigantic crime scene (and after the criminal force behind the attack was exposed) a thousand journalists, philosophers, historians and artists set out feverishly to make sense of the event. In the blink of an eye, the global intelligentsia split down the middle into two haughtily confident factions; factions we will brand simply as the ‘Left’ and the ‘Right’.

According to the Left, 9/11 was a revenge attack for the depravities of American, British and Israeli foreign policy. In this sense, the attackers were little more than Quran-carrying Che Guevaras or Guy Fawkes’s; freedom fighters, essentially, who had been forced by cruel circumstance to choose a nasty response to past-nastiness. The Right saw things as differently as can be imagined. For them, the attacks were not revenge for anything, but simply the perpetuation of an ancient theological grudge-match between East and West. No moral case, they considered, could be made to justify the barbarism so photo-realistically witnessed.

We are now 14 years on from the attack on New York. In the intervening period, wars have been launched; numerous smaller-scale atrocities have been committed all over the globe; protest and counter-protest have gripped every Western capital; every thinking person has found themselves in some way drawn in. After all that – which set of arguments has won? Which narrative has triumphed? Or, if we allow that the debate still persists, who is winning?

If you caught me in a bad mood, I might tell you that the Left had won. For this contention I’d probably offer such evidence as the continuing Muslim immigration into the West, as well as the enduring taboo on blaspheming the holy figures of Islam.

But if you caught me in a calm, rational mood such as I find myself in today, I would likely decide the other way, and I’d be correct. The Left has lost the Islam debate and lost badly. Outside of the media crèche itself, the number of people still arguing for appeasement of Islam is infinitesimally small. Don’t believe me? Just look at the Guardian newspaper coverage of the Paris attacks of this month. Though the columns themselves were designed to promote ‘understanding’ and inter-communal ‘tolerance’, the comments made in reply to them exhibited frank disagreement, even mockery. The following comment is representative of the general trend:

“I detest Islamism. No-one is ever going to change my mind on that…The more Muslims we import into Europe the more our security services will be burdened. If the truth offends you, tough.”

Remind yourself that this is from the Guardian’s ‘comment is free’ website; a bastion of orthodox anti-imperialism and left-wing inflexibility. Most people registered to comment are Left-leaning in almost every other respect (take a look at the comments on welfare sanctions and climate change). The reorientation of such attitudes on an issue of this divisive nature is telling, shocking, encouraging.

Further evidence for this new and pleasing reality is found in online polls. Whenever a newspaper (whatever the stance of that newspaper) sets up a two-answer poll involving Islam, the anti-Islam option wins by a landslide. And not only is this trend ongoing in the general public. A similar process is underway in the intelligentsia itself. It is surely amazing from this historical distance to imagine an argument like the following being taken seriously:

“On the morning of September 11, 2001, a few more chickens – along with some half-million dead Iraqi children – came home to roost in a very big way at the twin towers of New York’s World Trade Center. Well, actually, a few of them seem to have nestled in at the Pentagon as well…The most that can honestly be said of those involved on September 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course… That they (the terrorists) waited so long to do so is, notwithstanding the 1993 action at the WTC, more than anything a testament to their patience and restraint…They did not license themselves to “target innocent civilians.” There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . . Well, really. Let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire – the “mighty engine of profit” to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved.”

This quote is taken from a lengthy essay entitled “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens” written by Native American professor Ward Churchill. At the time of its publication, this amoral screed encapsulated the mood and feelings of uncountable academics, both in the West and outside of it. Now, post-Iraq, post-7/7, post-Madrid and post-Hitchens, such views are weighed as wicked, childish, unbefitting of intelligent consideration.

Though the nightmare of Jihad is far from resolution, we must yield to optimism when reason allows for it. More and more people are waking up to our position. We are no longer ‘extremists’ lurking about on the half-lit fringe. We are pioneers. We are being followed.

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.

The British National Party: An Obituary.

Tags

Adam Walker, America 911, anti-Semitism, BBC, BNP, BNP EDL, BNP party, BNP policies, BNP UK PArty, BNP vote collapse, Britain First, Defend the modern world, Demographics, English Defence League, Islamisation of London, National Front, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, United States

The vote share of the BNP has collapsed. At this month’s general election, the Party polled 97% fewer votes than it did 5 years prior.

This is excellent news and for many reasons. First and foremost among them is the fact that the BNP and its ideologues are wholly destructive to the cause of British resistance to Islam.

While the noises made by the party seem superficially in our favour, they are made with such a lack of grace, intelligence and literacy that they play as Mozart in the ears of our Leftist opponents.

It is all very well to say ‘Ban the Burka’, ‘no to Sharia’ or ‘support freedom of speech’. But when these common sense attitudes are espoused by people who – in other contexts – claim that Jews (who else) are secretly lobbying for the destruction of the white race via forcible miscegenation, they are liable to fall flat.

I will admit to visiting the BNP website far more often than I should. But over time, this has left me in no doubt that these thugs are doing incalculable damage to our cause and ultimately to our chances of cultural self-preservation. The demise of the organisation (and the eventual defection of its electorate to more moderate and sensible parties like LibertyGB) is a victory for all of us.

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.

London Vs the United Kingdom.

Tags

Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Islamisation of London, London Independence, London is not Britain, London is not England, London vs England, Multiculturalism

The time has come to treat London (the uber-rich city-state landlocked by rural England) as a separate country to the UK. For at least a decade, the alleged national capital has enjoyed a reality wholly distinct from every other part of the country and consequently can no longer be considered part of it.

The ethnic English are a minority in London, having been overtaken by the African, Asian, Russian, Polish and South-European communities, many of which are now established beyond the second generation. As a result, London’s culture is markedly different to that of England and its citizens are becoming increasingly aware of this.

The capital thrives on the artificial and the shallow-rooted. England looks back to the glories of the past and seeks to maintain a connection with land and ancestry. England is generally conservative and inward looking. London is multicultural to the extreme and its political class kindles an internationalist politics to match.

All of the things ‘England’ is internationally praised for belong in fact to London. When people from England do well in society they tend to emigrate to the Smoke as soon as they can, often looking back scornfully at the country they leave behind them. London sucks the talent out of England, leaving a swelling, increasingly dominant working class, disconnected from an elite playground they feel no relation to.

While England ostensibly has many ‘cities’ of its own, only London matches the global conception of a metropolis. The large towns of the English north like Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle could only rival London if they were connected into a single city by a large underground rail network.

England is being deprived of a centre, of a capital and of a government. London’s government cannot speak the English language let alone understand the English heart. To the English, Londonians seem (and are) from another country. They are too slick and multiracial, too postmodern and accentless. Whenever they visit the barbarian territories of Stoke or Derby, they do so with the manner of charity campaigners visiting Africa to raise funds for a clean water supply. The barbarian natives of England who approach them and pitifully request that they ‘do something’ for their local ‘community’ are patiently patronised, just as an African would be in a Comic Relief short.

While it might seem as natural as rain, this internal divide has a lot to answer for. I know of no other country in which the mere mentioning of the capital city incites such deep-seated contempt.

There is even a movement, as yet marginal and undeveloped, to make London independent. If successful, this would destroy the United Kingdom as we know it and yet As things stand, the population of England would probably support this.

They are sick of the way things are. They are sick of seeing Londonian politicians visiting the Sub-Saharan classrooms of Greater London to launch pledges to an overwhelmingly White country. They are sick of a metropolitan ruling class dictating the pace to a predominantly rural nation.

The chemicals are gathered for an anti-elite explosion; a descent into the French-Revolution politics of envy and self-destruction. This isn’t something we can afford and something needs to be done about it.

D, LDN.