Pakistanis and the Debasement of Britain.

Tags

BBC, Christianity and Islam, Christopher Caldwell, Civilisation, Coffee, Counter-Jihad, Demographics of Europe, Islamization, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

Another sunrise, another sundown, another cruelty imposed by Pakistan on its own people.

The most recent outrage from the Indus Valley, as you may have already read, involves a Christian daring to send a text message supposedly defaming the Prophet Mohammad.

Given that Pakistan is an enlightened and valuable addition to the family of nations, a sentence of death was swiftly announced by the judge, and a violent silence, an approving apathy, has since rippled across the mud-cities of the nuclear republic.

Despite this (the sentencing of kafir to an early grave) being a common situation in the Muslim World, it is especially common (perhaps even traditional) in Pakistan, where the sizable Christian and Shia communities are handled as tenth-class citizens, unendingly vulnerable to compatriot mood-swings and scared away from the type of political activity necessary to defend themselves.

As of 2014, there are an estimated 2,800,000 Christians slogging out a prison existence in that country, though that number is naturally diminishing, by both emigration and explosion, all the time.

And Christians, of course, are not the only Pakistanis exporting themselves from the motherland. The majority who leave Pakistan do so as cultural pioneers and arrive balancing on their shoulders the enrichments of corruption and aggressive sexual dysfunction.

Historically, Britain has been by far the most blessed by this outflow, trading its old industrial city of Bradford, and towns like Oldham and Sparkbrook by way of deposit for the decades of pleasure to follow.

Since then, we’ve been treated to an expanded variety of culinary spices… and this sentence can’t be padded any more than that I’m afraid.

Let me speak more frankly than I perhaps should; of all the colonial peoples who chased Britain’s receding borders at the close of empire, Pakistanis have proven easily the most wretched, inassimilable and damaging to the fabric of its society.

Almost any other British minority has something positive to be said for it. The Hindu and Sikh Indians who fled Idi Amin’s misrule in Uganda have since made Leicester Royal Infirmary one of the country’s finest medical centres. West-Indians and Afro-Caribbeans have restlessly integrated into the cultural bloodstream via sport, music and entertainment. Jews have ensured Britain maintains a cutting edge in science, medicine and literature. The Copts, Armenians and Maronites, whilst arriving in small numbers, have strayed little from their reputation as industrious, law-abiding tax-payers. Poles are guilty of nothing more than hard work. Even the Persians and Arabs have brought with them more wealth than grief.

Pakistanis have brought nothing. Nothing at all, save for a legacy of ruined children, grubby deceit, inbred monsters and limbless commuters.

And it’s not only wingnuts like myself who see fit to point these things out. Last year, the Conservative MP and Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC attracted a firestorm of criticism when he drew attention to the cumulative effect of Pakistanis on corruption in British society.

After making clear to which community he was referring, the barrister remarked that some immigrants “come from societies where they have been brought up to believe you can only get certain things through a favour culture. One of the things you have to make absolutely clear is that that is not the case and it’s not acceptable”.

Despite the stupid tears shed over this statement, Grieve is entirely correct. It won’t have escaped anyone’s notice that Pakistanis are hugely over-represented in the arts of political, social and moral sleaze. Just watch an episode of Crimewatch and keep a mental tally of the offenders with Pakistani names, or from Pakistani areas. You’ll be surprised.

This past week has seen the ascension to government of a British Pakistani named Sajid Javid, a former financial worker. Javid replaces the shamed Minister Maria Miller as culture secretary and many have spoken of this as a temporary foothold in a meteoric climb that could see him reach the apex of the Conservative Party.

A quick glance at the MP’s Wikipedia page informs me he is non-religious, and has offered (doubtlessly to confirm this) a friendly hand to Zionism.

That should I suppose, be enough. After all, culture – not racism – is the point of Counter-Jihad…

In fact, the Pakistani degradation of English society is not always interwoven with the issue of Islamisation at all. Corruption (to take Grieve’s example) is frankly more characteristic of Pakistan than of any other Muslim society. Muslim grooming gangs in Britain are almost always of Pakistani origin, and rarely include Turks, Bangladeshis, Persians or Arabs. Minority cases of fraud, hit and run, stalking, bullying and drug dealing also attract a greater portion from the same community. Put simply, a predictable moral laxity appears specific to Pakistani, as opposed to general minority, or even Muslim behaviour.

The ethnic slur ‘Paki’ – which more than any other term is synonymous with racial tension in the UK – is revealing in itself. In case you don’t know, ‘Paki’ – in English patois – is an insult thrown at pretty much anyone with heritage in Southern Asia; most commonly Indians, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis, but also occasionally Afghans, Sri Lankans and Persians too. Although the etymology of the term doesn’t require analysis, perhaps the question of why ‘Paki’ has endured, instead of ‘Indie’, or ‘Deshi’, does.

I used to work part-time in a bookshop and had an Indian co-worker whom we’ll call Sanjeev (I’m not being lazy here; this is phonetically close to his real name). On occasion, usually near the close of the working day when the shop was empty, we used to chat by the till about his impressions of England from a foreign standpoint. His view of the country was generally favourable, but his biggest complaint (above even the drizzle) was hearing the use of ‘Paki’ as a racial insult. This was not, he explained, merely because of its vitriolic point of departure, but because of the generalisation compounded by its inaccuracy. He completely understood why people disliked ‘Pakis’ but couldn’t understand why (of all the people in the world) one would accuse an Indian of being one.

Here’s a rough quote from memory: “Everything you (British people) like about Asians is Indian, and everything you hate about them is Pakistani. You just don’t know it. All of those grubby ‘Indian’ restaurants on the high street (he gestured outside) aren’t Indian at all. Pakistanis just steal our recipes.”

At the time, I found this quite funny. Nowadays, less so. It is plainly an injustice for Indians to absorb the negativity earned by Pakistani misbehaviour, and this goes on far more than we admit.

So let’s not be shy in calling a spade a spade here. Sajid David, and other British Pakistanis, have more to distance themselves from than religious politics. The effects of Pakistani immigration to England have been roundly negative and to refuse to say this clearly only damages the prospects of other (more valuable) Asian minorities.

D, LDN.

Advertisement

Somalis in Minnesota? Really?

Tags

BBC, Christian, Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Feminism, Islam, Islamization, Islamophobia, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Multiculturalism, Muslim, Muslims, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Somali American, United States

As I browsed YouTube the other morning, a video in the ‘news’ sidebar caught my attention and quickly triggered a fit of laughter. The video’s title was ‘Minnesota Somalis Protest against al-Shabab’.

I had a personal reason to laugh at this. A friend of mine lives in Minneapolis and the city’s lack of diversity is a running gag in our correspondence. (‘A black guy came in to the bar yesterday. It’s closed down now’….)

But even without my private rationale, the headline is pretty surreal. Somalis in Minnesota… How? Why? When?….

After regaining my composure, I began to research the census figures on American Muslims. I haven’t done this before as the ‘Islamisation of America’ scenario spoken of by Conservatives has never felt real to me. America – I’ve always thought – is much too proud, too nativist and too various for Muslims to pose an organized threat.

Perhaps I was too hasty.

While it’s certainly true that America will never become a Muslim majority country, it seems the seeds of euro-style Islamic ghettos are being planted at an alarming rate. This is from the NY Daily News:

“A new survey reveals the dramatically changing face of religion in America, with the number of Muslims in the U.S. soaring 67% in the decade since the 9/11  attacks….Data released Tuesday from the 2010 U.S. Religion Census shows Islam was the fastest growing religion in America in the last 10 years, with 2.6 million living in the U.S. today, up from 1 million in 2000…..In the Midwest and parts of the South there are now more Muslims than Jews for the first time. Immigration from parts of the Muslim world and a small rise in conversions are the driving force behind the growth, researchers said.”

For the Muslim population of the US to double in ten years is not unworthy of concern. It should also warrant special attention across the Atlantic. As we in Europe know so well, breakneck growth of this kind is heavy-laden with political and social consequences.

What kind of consequences? Well, leaving aside the ‘Little Mosque on the Prairie’ fantasy world of the Left, almost all of them negative.

Take for example, our Minnesotan Somali friends from earlier. It turns out their ‘protest’ was actually more of an apology. “Six years have passed” reports the Mail “since Somali-American fighters began leaving Minnesota to become part of al-Shabab. Now the Somali community is dismayed over reports that a few of its own might have been involved in the violence at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi.”

So, a terror attack by Somalis on Kenyans in Nairobi… and connections are apparent with Minnesota. This is what you get with a blind immigration policy.

Though complete Islamisation might be unthinkable for the United States, there is a halfway condition between that nightmare and what the country is used to. This is ‘Europeanisation’. To be ‘European’ in respect to Islam is be in a state of castration, political correctness and deliberately naivety. It requires a sizable Muslim minority with a political voice and a proven threat of violence (the Netherlands perhaps, is the model for this). You’ll know you’ve reached this condition when, after an Islamist attack or riot, your politicians address the community responsible in a pandering language more appropriate to admonishing children for overturning a houseplant. “Come on guys, this isn’t what we expect…”

If it wishes to catch up with European decline, America has a lot of running to do (or should that be running backwards), but it’s a shorter walk than many realize from the burned out houses of Detroit to the burning cars of Paris. Islamism thrives in extreme poverty and racial resentment. Neither is in short-supply in contemporary America.  

Things can snowball quickly in the modern age. Before you know it, Somalis will be in Minnesota.

D, LDN.

The Muslim Tide and Huntingdon’s Prophecy.

Tags

anti-Semitism, Christianity and Islam, Christopher Caldwell, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Huntingdon, Islam, Islamization, Multiculturalism, Muslim, Muslims, Netherlands, No to Turkey in the EU, Pamela Geller, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Sub-Saharan Africa

A new book (released this month) seeks to refute the claim that Muslim immigration poses an existential threat to the European peoples, their culture and religious integrity. “The Myth of the Muslim Tide” by Doug Saunders has so far been well-recieved, even charming a pleasant review from anti-immigration website Vdare.com.

The central contention of the book is that the Islamisation scenario uses demographic estimates based on the fertility of first-generation immigrants. This is a bad idea, according to Saunders, because newly settled migrants tend to be considerably more fertile than their offspring. Second and third generation immigrants typically reproduce more in kind with the country of their birth, including Muslims.

Various statistics shown in the book appear quite devasting to the arguments I am used to. True enough it seems, second generation Muslims do have smaller broods, and the same with the next generation, and the next…

Perhaps the long-term won’t be worse than the short-term after all?

Well, that would be true were I the kind of ‘believer’ Saunders seeks to educate.

Personally, I do not believe that Islam will take over ‘Europe’, and I never have believed this. There will be no triumphant Islamic parades in Warsaw, or Kiev, or even Edinburgh. Nor will the folk of Cumbria, Cardiff or Cork be subdued in this way.

The idea that Muslim growth rates in Europe are so high that the entire continent shall be enslaved is a ‘myth’ indeed. As mythical as the idea of the ‘black flag of Jihad flying over the White House’ so beloved by Islamic fantasists.

But with that said, I do believe we are on course to lose parts of Europe.

The Netherlands is a case in point. The demographics there cannot be sensibly denied. The population growth of ‘Dutch’ Muslims will only peak around mid-century and that’s a pretty dire prognosis given how things already are. France too, is due to become one fifth Islamic within decades, thereby opening the door for a movement to violently subdue the other four-fifths. Sweden can hardly be bothered to track numbers within its borders, but reasonable estimates also point to a fifth of the country falling before the tide rolls back. Then there’s Belgium and Denmark etc.. etc…

My point is – Why should Europe concede any of its security or cultural integrity to a hostile religion? What do we get out of it? Where is the gain?

Thinking about Saunders’s book reminded me of an often ignored prophecy in Samuel Huntingdon’s Opus ‘Clash of Civilisations’. In this book Huntingdon predicted – with remarkable accuracy – the Islamisation threat to (parts of) Europe. He also predicted however that by around 2025, fears of ‘Islamisation’ in Europe would give way to fears of ‘Africanisation’.

Huntingdon based this on the longer-term demographics of North and Sub-Saharan Africa respectively. Currently, demographic growth in the Arab world is declining towards the global mean. In Sub-Saharan Africa by contrast, the population is set to DOUBLE by 2050 to 2.4billion. If migration increases at the same rate (and carries the same hue) then Huntingdon appears to be correct.

But this is all besides the point.

Whichever tsunami eventually hits hardest is a matter for the future. Now is still the time to build defences.

D, LDN.

Can Finland Rescue Scandinavia?

Tags

Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, FInland, Islamization, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism, Rape, Sweden riots, True Finns

Much to the bemusement of friends, I’ve long been fascinated with the nation of Finland. So strange is it apparently considered to admire this country in particular that some people – upon hearing of my interest for the first time – reply with…

“Are you sure you don’t mean Sweden?”.

I’m perfectly sure, I tell them, but my affection does broaden out to Scandinavia as a whole. Like many others in Britain, I’ve often been taken in by the magical propaganda of the Nordic tourism industry, according to which Sweden is a glistening socialist paradise replete with green fields, cut-diamond fjords, and blonde temptresses emerging from clearwater lakes.

It’s not like that of course, and nor is Denmark or Norway, sadly. While it’s true that these were once very coherent and unusually peaceful societies, they have over time succumbed to the same programme of ethnic displacement and eventual Islamisation as everyone else.

But there are gradations to this general malady. Finland remains the most well-preserved of Nordic societies, and currently has a better (by which I mean lower) Muslim population percentage than New Zealand, America, Australia and even Japan. Naturally I’m keen to visit the country, if only to see what has been lost in its neighbouring states.

Part of what fascinates me about Suomi is the famed resilience of its population. Finland was the only nation in the world to successfully defend itself against both Nazism and Communism. The victory of the Finnish ‘ghost army’ against the Soviet Union has now become legendary. A small yet brilliantly talented country saw off the full-might of the Red Army, unaided, and in the most extreme physical conditions imaginable.

So splendored and morally clean is modern Finnish history, that Finnish Marxists have never been able to degrade let alone wipe out Finnish patriotism. In Finland, it is still considered perfectly rational and non-‘hateful’ to be proud of ones ancestors. Compare this to the situation in Sweden, Denmark or (especially since 2011) Norway.

As I viewed the news yesterday, and saw the flickering embers of what used to be called ‘Stockholm’, my thoughts were drawn to Sverige’s Eastern neighbor, and to the question of what Finns think about when they see these riots. Are they sympathetic or chauvinistic? Do Finns feel an innate affiliation with other Scandinavians, or do they view themselves as a Finno-Ugric nation apart? Throughout this piece, I have referred to Finland as a ‘Nordic’ country. But this in-itself is controversial with many ethno-nationalists. Adolf Hitler, that humourless Austrian meth-head, believed that Finland wasn’t even part of Europe and only granted it ‘honorary Aryan’ status in his foreign policy. Since I despise ethno-nationalism and all its confusions, I’ll stick with ‘Nordic’ just to confuse them further.

Sweden, unlike Suomi, has a much-advertised problem with Neo-Nazism. As ever with claims originating from Left-wing publications, I can’t be sure whether these are always true, but I have seen some disturbing (photographic and literary) evidence of Swedish affection for the National Socialist idea online. In Finland this is rarer, and for good reason. For the majority of Europe, common memory of the Nazis has them as reprehensible but nevertheless impressive conquerors; something quite easy, then (if one sees nothing wrong with doing so) to romanticize. Not so in Finland. For Finns, the Nazis were both despicable and militarily inferior. The Finnish army drove the Nazis out of Lapland in 1944.

But it’s not just bravery that sets the country apart. Finland’s culture too is worthier of note than countless examples of greater fame. The Finnish language is (or should be) a European treasure, being one of those rare Western dialects that not only sounds seductive and intelligent, but also looks as or more beautiful when written down.

I notice that in the midst of the Islamisation of Europe, people often try to console themselves by mentioning fake ‘sanctuaries from Islam’ like Switzerland, Belgium and even Russia, to which presumably Europeans could flee in a time of crisis. As you’ll know, educated reader, these places are in even worse straits than Britain or France.

Finland by contrast, remains today what it was in World War 2, an island of strength and refusal, a relic of archaic health;

And, in the context of the future, perhaps a spacious lifeboat for those fleeing less courageous nations.

D, LDN.

Islamophobia Contra Racism.

Tags

Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, English Defence League, Eurabia, Islamization, Islamophobia, No to Turkey in the EU, Rihanna Muslim

If you make a perfectly sensible criticism of Islam or Muslims these days, dissent typically returns in the form of a charge of bigotry, and specifically, of ‘racism’.

It would be easy to dismiss this out of hand. Leftists after-all are known to be cynical and to resort to defamation when their arguments fail. But this charge – unusually – does have some foundation in reality, even if only a shaky one.

There are people who pretend to dislike the culture and violence of the Muslim world, but whose feelings are actually based on a dislike of the shape of Arab noses, the shade of Afghan skin or the consistency of Turkish hair. This is hardly surprising. Such people were with us long before 9/11. They’ve been with us since Ancient Rome. They are commonly known as ‘Racists’ – itself a worn-out and abused word but one that nevertheless captures what is to be condemned about them. ‘Racists’ are those who discriminate on the basis of biology. Such people are typically shallow, hateful and often violent. Very few of them can string a sentence together. Most importantly, few if any of them enjoy political influence.

I am decisively not a racist. In fact, I energetically oppose racism, whether social or political. It’s lazy, uncivilised, un-English, and almost always indicative of a broader dysfunction in the individual practicing it. As for the racial groups affected by Islam, they have often produced people of enormous merit (although only when the Sharia police relaxed long enough for them to achieve anything). I don’t believe Arabians, Afghans and Persians are ‘stupid’ or ‘ugly’ or genetically predisposed to any negative attribute at all. That is precisely why I am Islamophobic and not Racist. A racist would be content with saying that Afghanistan is a hellish place because Afghan people are degenerate or sub-human. The Islamophobe explains that it is culture which holds the people of Afghanistan back, as well as the people of Iraq, Syria, Iran and Egypt, and not ethnicity or genetics.

Now let’s define – Islamophobia. This word is rumored to have been purposely designed by political Islamists in the 1960s. Although that would make sense, I have no way of verifying this claim at the moment, so let’s forget it’s origin and focus on its meaning. The word ‘Phobia’ by-itself denotes a fear or aversion to something. It isn’t, contrary to popular belief, always an ‘irrational’ aversion, since many phobias (Arachnophobia,  etc..) have roots in rational experience. Some spiders can kill you, but you are wrong to believe that all spiders automatically amount to a threat. I suppose in this light, Islamophobia appears a rational and sensible phrase. It’s true that not every Muslim is a terrorist, so it’s justified to call anyone seeking blanket solutions to the Muslim threat Islamophobes right?

Wrong.

I am not, and never have been, afraid of terrorism. The day after the London Bombings, I used the London subway without a care in the world. Statistically speaking, the chances of being on a tube-line targeted by terrorists is absurdly small. Then one must factor in the chances of being on the specific train, and then in the affected carriage etc, and the fear vanishes almost entirely.

What I am afraid of is the Islamisation of my city and country. This fear justifies my unease with any practicing Muslim, moderate or extreme, liberal or conservative, after their community reaches a certain size. The more Muslims there are, the more Mosques there will be. The more Mosques, the more community centres, and Islamic bookshops. The more Muslim women, the more veils. The larger the Muslim community, the greater the number of proselytizers and morality squads confiscating alcohol. And on and on….

Clear enough? If not, I can compact my entire reasoning into a phrase if it helps –

I oppose letting a large community of people live in a city built upon values they despise and desire to destroy.

There. That is my argument in a nutshell. It is also the argument of millions within the Counter-Jihad tendency. Not once have I needed to touch upon race. Not once have I mentioned nationality. If it is a ‘prejudice’ then it is a purely cultural one. The Western way of life has as much right to be protected in the West, as the Islamic way of life has to be protected in Pakistan.

Some wacky moralists, imprisoned wives and mutilated daughters might even say the West has a greater right.

D, LDN.

The Virtue of Islamophobia.

Tags

Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, English Defence League, Islamisation of London, Islamization, Islamophobia, Jason Manford, Multiculturalism, Rihanna Muslim, Tommy Robinson

The comedian Jason Manford once joked that English Southerners and English Northerners only come together in the presence of someone ‘more’ foreign, like a Scot. The two usually opposed characters become in this situation, ‘English’, and proudly so, with all differences suspended. In the face of a French person, all three (the Scot, the Northerner and the Southerner) join together as ‘British’. In the face of an American, all four become ‘European’ etc…. Ultimately, Manford mused, the only way in which humanity could unite given these principles is after an Alien invasion, in which all would be become proudly ‘human’.

The Islamist threat is as close as we may get to that happy situation. Islam is not a race, or a nation, or anything with irreversible physical characteristics. It is something maintained by choice. Islamism, even more so, is entirely optional and can be abandoned at any time. Consequently, opposition to Islamisation attracts an extremely diverse community of peoples, creeds and colours. No one type predominates. All human varieties are banded together in defence of something universal, good and decent: the principle of liberty.

Islamophobia consequently can be (and is) a force for human solidarity.

The Islamists have done much of the work for us. From the dawn of this century, every culture of note has been warred upon.

America was attacked with hijackings. Britain was attacked with subway bombings. Spain was hit by train bombings. India was hit by mass-shootings. Israeli cafes were blown apart. Russian children were massacred inside their own school.

And on and on, the list could go.

Islamophobia, long portrayed as a new Anti-Semitism (with which it bears no resemblance), could turn out to be the new energy globalisation requires to complete itself. By ‘globalisation’, I do not mean the regime of mass-immigration, unregulated banks and rampant pollution rightly protested the world over, but rather the much better (and older) idea of a global sense of solidarity and understanding.

Multiculturalism in-and-of itself need not be a life-threatening disease for Europe. Most people can live with Sikh, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist immigration within reason. As long as the numbers stay within reasonable constraints and the areas immigrants inhabit remain open and safe for the natives to live in and visit, who could object?

Human solidarity, humanism, worldliness – whatever you want to call it, was an early victim of Islamism. The Muslims tricked us into believing that it was an either/or choice between liberalism with Islamisation, or fascism without it.

This is dirty lie, and one worth putting well below ground.

Goethe once talked about the ‘evil which cannot help doing good’. Islamophobia, despite its often cruel intensity forms a good example of this. For all the innocent victims of anti-Muslim fury, there are hundreds of diverse communities drawn tightly together by it who would otherwise not have been.

I remember a year ago, when Tommy Robinson attended a Sikh-EDL demonstration wearing a traditional Sikh head-dress, he was widely ridiculed, but surely there is much in this to be warmed by. Before the EDL, Robinson was a mere hooligan, drunkenly fighting rival football fans on Saturday afternoons. Now, he is trying to be a catalyst for something bigger than himself and inspiring others to do the same.

Islamophobia has fertilised an old ethic, an old ideal, at a crucial time in World-History. It may be morally ironic and it may have its imperfections but the cause of human solidarity has a new, unlikely champion, and that’s no bad thing.

D, LDN