Am I An Extremist?

Tags

Blog, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Extremism, Islamic Extremism, Islamism, Legislation, Pamela Geller, Political Islam, Queen's Speech, State Opening of Parliament, Teresa May, Theresa May

Last week saw the reading of the 2015 Queen’s Speech (a ceremony in which Her Majesty reads the governments program for the coming parliamentary year) as well as the traditional (and psychedelically theatrical) State Opening of Parliament. Among the bills read by HRH was a draft proposal by Home Secretary Theresa May designed to combat political and religious extremism; specifically it would provide the state with powers to shut down media organs espousing ‘hateful’ or ‘inciteful’ material, with the deciding voice being wholly exercised by the cabinet.

While I’m sure the bill will prove popular with the dull masses (who may stupidly interpret the words ‘crackdown’ and ‘extremism’ as only having relevance to Muslims) more informed and educated observers sense a potentially grave threat to freedom of speech.

For example, am I an extremist? Do my words incite hatred? Am I dividing the population of the country with my political views? You could probably make a case for saying ‘yes’ to all of those questions. As they relate to Islam, my views are certainly to one end of the political spectrum. My words are certainly intended to elicit an emotional surge of some kind in my readership. And it’s perfectly true that I write for a section of society divided from a specific group of people. So there I am… extreme, inciteful and divisive.

But this is the purest nonsense of course. When rational people talk of political ‘extremism’, they surely intend to describe those who incite random violence, civil conflict, religious revolution, common thuggery and genocide. I recommend none of those things. Indeed, I have argued (and will continue to argue) against racism, law-breaking and religious fanaticism of all kinds. I am in all cases an anti-extremist and I will tolerate no other description of me.

It is a vital truth that when someone says something that offends you, it isn’t necessarily against the spirit of democratic society. When Muslims describe our soldiers as the ‘butchers of Baghdad’, that is entirely within their right to do so (as long as they remain citizens of the UK). Similarly, when right-wing activists reply that “Muslims shouldn’t even be in this country!”, they too are not breaking any law worth enforcing. But when someone calls for the death of homosexuals, or Jews or Leftists, or Poles, or Muslims or conservatives, then a line has clearly been crossed.

All this is very easy to understand. The distinction marks the boundary of the liberal and the totalitarian.

D, LDN.

Advertisement

Notes on a Milestone.

Tags

America 911, American Liberty, anti-Semitism, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Pamela Geller, politics

Just a brief note to mark the passing of a milestone for this blog. WordPress informs me that I have now published over 200 articles. That figure surprised me a little. I had assumed the count was closer to 150. It’s obviously been a more productive year than I realised.

I began this site just over two and half years ago, largely on a whim. My first posts attracted an audience of about zero. I’ll always be grateful to Pamela Geller for changing that virtually overnight by kindly sharing my work on her website. Since then I’ve received additional support from GatesofVienna, BareNakedIslam, the English Defence League, LibertyGB, Enza Ferreri, New English Review, the Theo Dalrymple Forum and various other websites. I’m forever grateful to all.

The name I chose for this blog (if you’re interested) derives from a book I was reading at the time of its conception – ‘Revolt Against the Modern World’ by the esoteric philosopher Julius Evola. In that book, Evola (often regarded as a fascist sympathiser) attempts to make the case for a rollback of the industrial age and a return to ancient spirituality. Needless to say, I strongly disagreed with his sentiment and so a statement to the contrary – ‘Defend the Modern World’  – seemed quite logical for my mood and purposes.

The modern world I suggest we defend is under grave threat from many quarters. Islam is its most immediate and obvious adversary, but it isn’t the only one. There is a serious and very dangerous decline ongoing in the West. Morality, literacy and national awareness are all becoming fainter. Anti-Semitic and anti-American conspiracy theories are booming in their place.

A pushback is sorely needed against all this. Not a racist, or fanatically religious one. That would just substitute foreign problems with indigenous ones. Rather, we need a movement that can uphold liberal principles while making war on any element which threatens them. Everything I write is an effort to make that kind of movement more likely.

D, LDN.

A Day Out in Tower Hamlets.

Tags

Christopher Caldwell, Civilisation, Coffee, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, English Defence League, Eurabia, Islamisation of London, Pamela Geller, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

“A boy is stabbed and his money is grabbed and the air hangs heavy like a dulling wine”

Last week, I made what must be my first journalistic excursion for the sole purpose of this blog. It was a Sunday, I had nothing to do and so I ventured out of curiosity into Tower Hamlets; the borough of London now notorious for its advanced and nearly complete Islamisation.

Here are my dispatches.

Alighting at Whitechapel Underground station, I soon found a street-side café at which to people-watch and took up a table seat outside. I must have remained there for at least an hour, drawing deep breaths of mint-flavoured nicotine from my electronic cigarette and staring thoughtfully at the shifting knots of people bumping around the crowded streets.

It’s true what they say about this place of course. I wasn’t expecting anything different. Tower Hamlets today looks aesthetically identical to a neighbourhood of urban Pakistan, the only giveaways being the gravestone coloured sky and skyscrapers rising behind the landscape.

It’s a slum in many respects, and I don’t say that emotively. ‘Slum’ is a word with political as well as poetic functions. It can denote a place where an urban area houses its low-paid but essential workers. Cleaners live here for example, as do the owners of the ramshackle Bangladeshi businesses and trinket stores which blight and degrade the whole of Greater London. The set-up of most of the residences nearby are crowded family cell-blocks with a proud elder generation who work, and an integrated youth who cannot spell ‘work’. That youth is clearly dominant on these streets. Hooded Muslims stroll and loiter on their pencil-thin legs, some of them lairily sipping cans of Red Bull in lieu of alcohol (it doesn’t have quite the same masculinising effect somehow).

Innumerable signs offered the services of ‘English Language Teaching’. From what I heard in the form of conversation, they’re not doing a roaring trade. Internet cafes seem to be another local speciality. One also cannot travel very far without seeing a very dingy, third-world electronics shop, its window blacked out with advertisements for mechanics, plumbers and hookers.

The famed markets of the area also now have a Sub-Continent character. Whatever quality they used to possess has now been traded for quantity. They sell the very basics – meat, vegetables and cheaply manufactured clothes. Abroad from here, Chicken grills, kebab shops and highly dubious ‘Italian’ pizzerias are the main options for food. There is also a co-op supermarket (never a good sign for house-prices in London).

On the Underground coming in, I noticed a police display appealing for information about a ‘serious assault’ – local euphemism for a stabbing. This is nothing to remark upon really. Gang culture pervades the local atmosphere. Bicycles, once a symbol of quaint conformity, now serve as tools of intimidation – as quick getaways from the repercussions of spontaneous violence. Youths on a gang of wheels later approached me and asked for cigarettes. I showed them my e-cig. They seemed to briefly consider swiping it before rolling away passively on their bmxs.

I popped into a corner shop and found to my surprise a fully uniformed shop guard. This is highly unusual but also sadly understandable. In London, shifty drunks tend to loiter by the doorways of such places like unwanted guard dogs. I took my change and was wished a good afternoon by the prayer capped shopkeeper, to which I dutifully smiled and said thank you. I felt a bit like a psychopath, grinning warmly at a man I’d gladly see dragged towards an airport.

Despite looking – and to my surprise – I couldn’t seem to find a Mosque. After turning a few more corners, I did come across a ‘community centre’ (pictured below – photo not taken by me). Judged by its architecture, the building used to be something very different. Perhaps a pub. How depressing.

When darkness lowered, I caught the train for home. As the train met each station further and further from Whitechapel, the passenger profile shifted less and less Islamic. At Putney, I disembarked, distinctly happy to be back in my own little corner of London, where the twenty first century seems more convincingly to have arrived, and may for some time still persist.

D, LDN.

Michael Scheuer: Conservative Quisling.

Tags

America 911, American Liberty, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Michael Sheuer, Muslims, Pamela Geller, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

If you’re interested in terrorism and the Western response to it, ‘Michael Scheuer’ is a name you’ll probably be familiar with.

Scheuer used to run the Bin Laden unit at the CIA, and has since penned two bestselling books critical of US policy in the Middle East. The first – ‘Imperial Hubris’ – was published anonymously. The second – ‘Marching Towards Hell: America and the World After Iraq’ – was published under Scheuer’s own name.

I have only read the second of these books, and having done so, have no intention of reading the first. In case you don’t know, Scheuer is an extreme product of the ‘Paleo-Conservative’ trend in American republicanism. This is the tendency that often questions whether fascism was worth engaging militarily in World War 2, campaigns against American interventions around the world, and violently opposes immigration. Perhaps the most famous exponant of this trend of thought is former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan.

Like Buchanan, Scheuer disagrees passionately with US foreign policy in the Middle East. Unlike Buchanan, Scheuer doesn’t tend to mince his words, especially when Jews are concerned. The following for example, is a direct quote from ‘Marching Towards Hell’:

“I care not a whit whether Israel survives or not.”

In a later interview with comedian Bill Maher, Scheuer remarked that the Jewish State was ‘not worth an American life or an American dollar’, and, when Maher replied that Israel was a liberal democracy worth defending, remarked (astonishingly) that “It doesn’t matter from an American point of view, whether any one votes again anywhere in the world’.

In sync with these mad sentiments, Scheuer believes American foreign policy is directly to blame for the modern Islamist phenomenon in its totality, and even goes so far as to regard Bin Laden as a’ freedom fighter’.

The solution to the issue of Islamism then is not to engage it, but to allow the Muslim world to do whatever it likes, cease financial and military support of Israel, and apologise for past acts of ‘aggression’ (such as Gulf Wars 1 & 2..).

Needless to say, Scheuer is fast becoming one of the radical Left’s favourite Conservatives. His books and outbursts have also secured him a fanbase in the Arab world, and he has appeared numerous times on the Al-Jazeera propaganda network. Most recently, a video of Scheuer recommending America ‘drop’ Israel has gotten over 100,000 views on youtube.

I’m not going to waste my time addressing the defective logic Scheuer uses to come to his conclusions.

I’ll just say, that he provides an interesting case study of how the Conservative wing too has its share of quislings, and also of how the ‘right’ can quickly degenerate into the ‘left’ under the stressful historic conditions we currently face.

D, LDN.

‘Islam Versus Europe’, Immigration and the Jews.

Tags

Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Holocaust, Jew, Karl Marx, Kevin Macdonald, Multiculturalism, Nationalism, Nazi, No to Turkey in the EU, Pamela Geller, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Tommy Robinson, United States, Zionism

A friend once asked me why Neo-Nazis hate ‘Zionism’ so much. ‘Surely…’ he said ‘…they don’t care about the Arabs.’.

I explained as best I could that ‘Zionism’ to a Nazi means something very different than it does to a Western Liberal. For the former, ‘Zionism’ is a shorthand for any organised Jewish Political force, real or imagined.  The kind of political force usually intended is a conspiracy to promote (or enforce) multi-racialism on the European world, with the ultimate goal of wiping out the White race via miscegenation (encouraged by a Jewish media and pornography industry).

It’s easy to dismiss such ideas as crackpot, if not borderline psychotic. They are not comfortably distinct from black helicopters behind the clouds, or brain-rotting chemicals in the water supply.

But it would be unfair to dismiss them so completely.

Back in July (hat-tip Enza Ferreri), the respected CounterJihad blogger IslamversusEurope  (‘Cheradenine’) published a lengthy post reviewing the book ‘Culture of Critique’ by Canadian author Kevin Macdonald. To my surprise, Cheradenine, a great foe of Islamisation and terrorism, said the following:  ‘

“Having now read MacDonald’s books A culture of critique and A people that shall dwell alone…. I have to say they have made an unexpectedly strong impression on me. I now understand antisemitism. I wouldn’t say I now share the feeling but I am at least much further along that spectrum of sentiment that I was before.”

He goes on to explain his reasoning:

“MacDonald documents, in excruciating detail, the overwhelmingly disproportionate Jewish involvement in intellectual movements that have worked to delegitimise and denigrate the traditional forms of cohesiveness characteristic of European societies, including patriotism, church and family structures…..Communism blighted eastern Europe; multiculturalism is destroying western Europe. Although Jews are clearly not solely responsible for either, it’s reasonable to ask whether either ideology would have achieved such “success” as it did achieve, establishing doctrinal dominance in the minds of policy-making elites, had Jews never immigrated to Europe. In my opinion, the answer is no. Without Jewish political and intellectual activism, without the Holocaust, without the Hitler stick ready to beat down any manifestation of European pride or patriotism, Europeans would not now be losing their countries to Islam.”

OK. Let’s address these points.

I do not personally find the idea that Jews instinctively promote societies which are not repressively homogenous unlikely, but nor do I find it disturbing. It is perfectly natural for Jews to desire a Nationalism they can be part of, and to combat a Nationalism which excludes or threatens them. The cultural totalitarianism of the Middle Ages offered no comfort for the Jews, despite their eschatological importance to the Christian faith itself, and post-enlightenment liberalisation was strongly desired by Christian minorities (Catholics in Protestant countries and vice versa) too. This was (at least initially) nothing like a conspiracy, but merely the fight for a better society.

The modern blight of Communism too is not something to lay solely at the door of the Jews. Communism precedes Karl Marx (who merely provided its most eloquent expression). Class interests and the desire to correct economic ‘injustices’ arose organically among the gentile working classes, and may never have required the assistance of Jews to enact a political effect.

Similarly, modern ‘Multiculturalism’ is as much a class movement as it is an ideology. Multiculturalism is favoured by the business elite and the liberals of the middle class, both of whom associate the objections of the working class with ignorance and inferiority. A desire to not be seen as ‘racist’ is not motivated by Holocaust guilt alone, but by an arrogant wish to prove oneself superior to the uneducated.

As for the author of ‘Culture of Critique’, one must be honest and call him at minimum a suspect character. Professor Macdonald is a sometime associate of David Irving, and a venerated hero of the Ethno-Nationalist fringe. His work typically attracts the dregs of sub-political society and is animated by a science (‘Evolutionary Psychology’) that is rarely accepted as mainstream. As John Derbyshire pointed out in his evaluation of Macdonald, the very idea of a ‘group evolutionary strategy’ (vital to Macdonald’s argument) is open to doubt:

‘The Jewish over-representation in important power centers of Gentile host societies became possible only after Jewish emancipation—which, like abolition of the slave trade, was an entirely white-Gentile project! Did the genes of 12th-century Jews “know” emancipation was going to happen 700 years on? How? If they did not, what was the point of their “evolutionary strategy”? There is a whiff of teleology about this whole business.’

I agree. Perhaps even more than a whiff.

In sum, Jews have long been at the forefront of the struggle against Islamism and I truly hope that Cheradenine’s unfortunate fascination for Mr Macdonald’s work doesn’t precede a split in the CounterJihad movement. I have always subscribed to the ‘Big Tent’ ideal when it comes to this issue. It will take Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Ba’hai, Christians and nonbelievers working in agreement for any kind of successful resistance to be formed. A defensive phalanx; not a gabble of factions divided by race.

D, LDN

Crumbling CounterJihad?: Refuting ‘Loonwatch’.

Tags

American Liberty, Barack Obama, BBC, Brigitte Gabriel, Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Debbie Schlussel, Defend the modern world, Islam, Islamophobia, Jihadwatch, Kevin Carroll, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Pamela Geller, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Robert Spencer, SION, Tommy Robinson, Transatlantic Kerfuffle, United States, Walid Shoebat

Anyone involved with the CounterJihad movement will be familiar with the Website ‘Loonwatch’. As its name would imply, the site is intended to be a satirical antidote to Jihadwatch (and other similar websites).

Normally, the articles posted on Loonwatch are of scant interest (most simply recycle the garbage idea that Islamophobes are somehow guilty of racism), but this past week, a more analytical piece was uploaded that demands greater attention. The piece is titled ‘Crumbling “Counterjihad”? EDL, SION, SIOA and the Transatlantic Kerfuffle’, and its main contention is that the ‘Islamophobic’ movement is falling apart.

The author of the post – ‘Garibaldi’ – writes that “The reasons for the inherent instability in the “counter-Jihad” reflects the fissures in ideological make up between the various personalities, as well as incongruities between their inflated egos.” (Note: ‘Reflects’ in this sentence should be singular)

Garibaldi then cites a history of ‘internecine civil wars amongst the counter-Jihad’ including the following perceived confrontations..  “Debbie Schlussel vs. Brigitte Gabriel, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Zuhdi Jasser, Walid Shoebat, etc… (Robert) Spencer vs. Andrew Bostom. Roberta Moore of the JDL vs. the EDL and now the latest kerfuffle: Geller and Spencer vs. Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carroll.”

While many of the schisms mentioned were (and in some cases still are) real, they are nothing more than symptomatic of a vibrant, democratically-spirited movement with a tolerance for dissent. Indeed, this might contrast sharply with the almost cult-like uniformity typical of Leftist movements.

Debbie Schlussel, to take one example, is a proudly independent cultural critic. The same is true of Pamela Geller. The fact that they sometimes disagree seems hardly worthy of comment. Both espouse the same kind of opinion, face down the same bullies and name-throwers, and expose themselves to the same risks.

Ms Geller’s accusations against Tommy Robinson similarly have been taken out of context here. Both Geller and Robinson remain essentially in agreement over the need to tackle radical Islam, and even if they don’t see eye-to-eye on each other’s methodology, both are one and the same from an Islamist point-of-view.

As for the talk of clashing ‘egos’, this is pretty rich coming from a Left-wing source.  The Anglo-American Left contains such icons of humility as Michael Moore, Laurie Penny and Barack Obama, and unlike those on the right, Left-leaning parties are dominated by University-educated Toffs (try standing for the Democratic Party without a degree).

Garibaldi goes on to offer this catch-all assessment of the CounterJihad tendency:

“All that binds them is Islamomisia and Islamophobia. On the surface their ideological backgrounds provide a motive: a belief in the need to preserve Christianity in the face of post-Modernity and a rise in Secular Humanism, a belief that it is good for Israel and Zionism, a desire to keep White Europe pure, the nostalgic belief that they are the vanguard “defenders of freedom” who will not only save the “West” from a resurgent Islam but harken in a golden age and if not–Armageddon.”

This is a very bizarre attempt to transform virtue into sin. That the CounterJihad tendency attracts a plurality of people from different backgrounds is presented as a flaw. “All that binds them…” is the very subject under consideration. Why wouldn’t it be? 

Regarding the perceived motive of keeping ‘White Europe pure’, this is a pretty hackneyed accusation. If it applies at all, it is only to the wildest Nick Griffin-ite fringe. While such people certainly exist, to tar Pamela Geller with the same brush as the BNP is absurd.

The future of the CounterJihad movement is not something that can be safely predicted in detail, but it would take a very uninformed mind to reason that it doesn’t have one. The Jihadist threat is mounting across Europe, and the cause of resistance will grow alongside it.

D, LDN.

Not a Traitor, Just Wrong.

Tags

BBC, BNP, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, English Defence League, Guardian, Islam, Judeo-Christian, Multiculturalism, Muslim, Nick Griffin, No to Turkey in the EU, Pamela Geller, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Robinson, Tommy Robinson

It isn’t a crime to change your mind. A greater folly is to surround your political conviction with an invulnerable coat of armour, letting it stand unaffected by changing evidence or opposing argument.

Tommy Robinson has clearly changed his mind. He hasn’t recanted his past beliefs, but he has substantially moderated them to almost that effect. He no longer believes (so he says) in making Muslims ‘uncomfortable’, or in tarring fundamentalist believers with the same brush as ‘moderates’. Talking to the Guardian, he even went so far as to apologise to the Muslim community for any offence he has given these past few years as EDL leader.

Although this might be disappointing for some, we should try to respect it. I don’t believe, like Nick Griffin, that Robinson was ever a puppet, or that the EDL was a deliberate misdirection of patriotism, a ‘shady Zionist plot’, or a government funded psy-op. It always seemed to me a perfectly sincere enterprise with a clear manifesto and a brilliant organisational structure. It was also something which – in its heyday- did great things for our cause and our defence.

It won’t surprise you then to hear that I disagree wholly with Robinsons new outlook.

His entire conversion, for me, rests upon a flawed idea; namely, the idea that Islam can be moderated by the sentiment of nationality.

What Tommy is now asking of Muslims in effect, is that they become British first and Muslim second, or in other words, that they take the here-and-now as seriously as the hereafter.

But, as anyone who has read Qur’an knows, the Muslim faith hinges on a belief that this earthly life, with all its loyalties, bounties and appearances is merely a test and a prelude to a greater reality. The ‘Muslim’ (literally ‘one who submits’) treats this life as a preparation, a period of moral labour necessary to unlock the doors of death and dwell forever in paradise.

To be ‘British’ by contrast, is of no value whatsoever, or at least not relative to the promise of eternity.

With this in mind, the creation of a distinct ‘British Muslim’ identity seems unrealistic to me. The two loyalties would be locked in constant battle, and the fallout would be toxic.

It would be nice if Tommy’s optimism was proven correct. I’m not convinced it will be.

D, LDN.

Malala Goes Global: The Birth of an Industry.

Tags

Christianity, Civilisation, Coffee, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, English Defence League, Hollywood, malala yousafzai, No to Turkey in the EU, Nobel Peace Prize, Pakistan, Pamela Geller, Rihanna Muslim, Taliban, United States, Yousafzai, YouTube, Yusufzai (Pashtun tribe)

Well, it seems Her Excellency Madame Yousafzai is about to go viral, much like a YouTube video of a cat falling down a stairwell.

As with such videos, people seem to be appreciating Yousafzai without the labour of engaging their minds.

I suppose this is easily done. After all, Yousafzai is young, pleasant looking, and was shot by bad people. That is – technically speaking – all you’re supposed to know, or indeed think about. To doubt her brilliance, in any case, is to side with the Taliban. You’re probably also a bit rayciss.

A Telegraph blogger (who should frankly know better) recently called for Yousafzai to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, a nomination for which there was already considerable support online. A supporting facebook page quickly attracted thousands of ‘likes’ and many famous lovelies chimed in to support the idea too. The only deviating voice came from the Guardian….. who declared Yousafzai ‘too good for the Nobel peace prize’.

One wonders then what would be good enough for her? Queen of Pakistan? UN Secretary General? Pope?

As it happens, the award went to those charged with dismantling chemical warheads in Syria. A victory for proportion if ever there was one.

Although it provided me with some light therapy, I fear my first Yousafzai post was otherwise like those angry Iraqis who – in 2003/4- threw stones at American Tanks. Malala is unstoppable. There are going to be many books written about her, hundreds of them, and based upon these will be movies, big, Hollywood epic movies. There will also be speeches alongside Obama, Cameron and whoever succeeds them. Only a fool would rule out a music career….

For now, we may as well get used to her moneyed grin. It’s going to be with us for a long time.

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.

If you like Lady Gaga, You’re already anti-Islam.

Tags

Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, English Defence League, Eurabia, Islamic Defenders Front, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Mark Steyn, miley cyrus, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Pamela Geller, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Saudi Arabia

When trying to convince a person of something, it’s often best to reduce the subject concerned to its fundamentals. By doing so, the essential message is easier to understand, and once understood, tends to strike harder. It also helps if your argument involves concepts and actors familiar to the person one is trying to persuade.

With this in mind, a good way to proselytize about the Islamic threat is to highlight the fate of popular culture should the Muslims win. Though such arguments might appear frivolous relative to those within tomes like Lewis’s ‘What Went Wrong’ or Berman’s ‘Terror & Liberalism’ (both worth reading incidentally), it may be the only language younger generations understand.

Take for a start the case of Lady Gaga and her planned 2012 concert in Jakarta, Indonesia. Just weeks before this (sold-out and heavily anticipated) concert was scheduled to take place, organisers were forced to cancel it. The reason? Threats of violence by a Muslim collective calling themselves ‘The Islamic Defenders Front’ (FPI). According to spokespeople for the militant group, Gaga was targeted because her dance moves would ‘corrupt’ and ‘sexualise’ the country’s youth.

After the concert’s cancellation was announced, a member of the FPI exclaimed – ‘This is a victory for Indonesian Muslims. Thanks to God for protecting us from a kind of devil.’

Whatever your views on Lady Gaga, or indeed the effect her example has on young people, you can surely smile at how this must have embarassed Western liberal opinion. Not much was made of it at the time, but we’d do well to make a point of it now.

If a young person likes Lady Gaga, or indeed Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry, or whoever else is in vogue on the Western pop scene, they cannot simultaneously like Islam – or at least not without being exactly hypocritical.

Gaga will not soon be performing in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Somalia. Why? Because she stands in direct opposition to everything Islamic clerics promote and fulfills everything they condemn.

An Islamised West – by extension – will have no room for music of any kind, save for the spirit-numbing chantings of Qur’anic verse. Music and orthodox Islam are opposed. Totally. And since one cannot have both, one must choose one or the other.

So why, you ask, are there so many liberals who defend Islam one minute and listen to Katy Perry the next?

Although it looks like hypocrisy on their part, one mustn’t discount simple ignorance as a factor. Many people simply don’t know that Islam prohibits music, or if they do know, cannot believe that such a prohibition could be enforced. Such people must be helped.

To do so, ask them (without sounding obviously sarcastic) to produce a list of their favourite musicians from countries run along traditional Islamic lines. If they’re stubborn, they’ll google ‘Arab musicians’ – something entirely different – and return with a list of Maronite and Coptic singers now based in the West. It’s highly unlikely that they’ll return with a Jazz-Fusion collective from Jeddah, or a punk band from Kabul.

After this, simply walk your point home.

This rule holds true not just for music, but for comedy, fashion, and most kinds of sport too. Beneath the surface, almost every Western citizen is (by lifestyle and social preference) actively anti-Islam. ‘Islamophobes’ are merely those who don’t care to hide it.

D, LDN.