Hooray for Sweden and Denmark!

Tags

asylum seekers, asylum sweden, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, denmark eu, EU, european union vote, migrant crisis, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, refugees or migrants, Sweden, sweden denmark, sweden deportations, sweden eu, sweden yes

A peculiar modern stereotype insists that the nation of Sweden is more deeply infected with masochism and political correctness than all the other nations of Europe. According to this caricature, Swedes are absurdly tolerant, pathetically naïve and feminised beyond repair, a fact that can explain the mass immigration of Muslims into the Kingdom in recent years.

Is it accurate? I don’t think so. While Sweden certainly has a more extreme feminist base than, say, Great Britain, there is no clear evidence that the country is populated by suicidal masochists. That portrait is an internet myth, more rooted in the age-old misperception of Sweden as a magical land of naked, blonde rationalists. Sweden is actually a very normal European country, with the same imbalance of naivety over realism as afflicts every major Western state.

And just in case that isn’t convincing, my contention has been supplied with fresh vigour this past week by the announcement that the Swedish government plans to deport 60,000 (sixty thousand) Muslim ‘asylum seekers’ – without compensation or right of appeal – in the coming months.

Needless to say, when I first heard of this, I was enraptured. It is perhaps the first piece of good news since the migrant crisis began. After this, my already elevated mood was further raised by the news that Denmark is also to carry out its own mass-deportations in the near future, albeit on a lesser numerical scale than its northern sibling. Hurrah and Huzzah! It might not be the whole job, but it’s a bloody good start.

The coming deportations are good news for many reasons besides the obvious pleasure of seeing invaders packed onto plane. One, not mentioned yet by the media, is that it will set a precedent of mass-deportation for the whole of Europe to take advantage of at a later point. Given that physical removal of problematic Muslim citizens is surely the only failsafe way of securing our societies against Islamist terrorism, this precedent could hardly be more timely.

Of course, removing 60,000 people from a Western nation (presumably to relocate them back in the third world) will be a long, occasionally chaotic process. There will be opposition, indignation, locking of arms, and waving of placards. Facebook campaigns will surely be launched to keep certain individuals within ‘their’ adopted communities. And so on. It is nevertheless imperative that the project is a success. If it fails, the whole idea of restoring Europe’s balance of cultural power will be lost, and the suggestion of it forever demonised.

That the countries embarking on this action are Scandinavian, and thus respected by liberals across the globe, makes the prospect of success greater than it otherwise would be. This is for the simple reason that international socialists have no better examples of its workability than the regimes of the Nordic peninsula. Will the likes of Michael Moore or Bernie Sanders really want to bad-mouth the left-wing success stories of Sweden and Denmark? If they did so, surely that would cast doubt on the viability of mass-immigration and political-social liberalism in general…?

Away from the liberal clique, I would guess that most Western observers wish this project the fairest of winds.

D, LDN

Advertisement

Slow Train Coming

Tags

BBC, beatles, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Facebook, facebook twitter, google plus, hard rain, islam in sweden, Multiculturalism, Muslims, politics, Pop, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, social media, Sweden, sweden islam, sweden muslims, tiwitter, tiwter, tokyo ghoul, Twitter

Two deeply worrying stories have been reported in the past week, both relating to the EU policy on resettling Muslim migrants (or ‘refugees’ as we are told to call them).

First, in calm, famously genteel Sweden, a young man armed with a sword, entered a multicultural school and there proceeded to attack students and teachers alike, leaving two dead before being shot himself. Cyber-forensic operations afterward found the man to have a fetish for Nazi Germany and warm opinions of the Sweden Democrats, a political party rising rapidly on the back of Sweden’s crazed policy on asylum.

Secondly, in Germany, security services are reported to have prevented a massive terrorist attack on an asylum processing centre, bringing nine people, including several women, into police custody. The weapons cache of the group included handguns, assault rifles, illegal firecrackers and various materials emblazoned with Nazi iconography.

While I do not (and will never) excuse such vigilantism, it must be stated that our leaders were warned about this kind of thing when they made their toxic decisions. They consequently have no right to be surprised by the fallout. The people of Europe, or a majority of them at least, have consistently demanded an end to the mass-importation of Islam into their respective countries and warned of grave consequences if their concerns were ignored. This warning was a speculation, never a threat. It was an estimate based on a sound knowledge of the human condition.

No country in the world, rich or poor, civilised or barbarian, would tolerate what Europe is being asked to embrace; that is, the infusion of foreign and inferior manners, with no recompense or advantage to sweeten the trade. Turkey would not have it. India would not have it. Saudi Arabia would not have it. Nor would Japan, China, Korea (North and South) or the State of Israel. Europe is being asked to cut off one of its legs and inject the stump with typhus. A quick misery pregnant with other miseries. A total insult. A punch in the face.

When a nation is threatened in this way, the common man typically answers first to the call of duty. Unenriched by education or tact, he strikes crudely with primitive means. He has little or nothing to lose; a meagre life to trade for a bargain heroism. I feel compelled to repeat that I do not excuse such behaviour for a second. But some things have a nature sufficiently structured as to allow for predictions.

There is a slow train coming, and when it arrives we will all be the worse-off for it. I don’t like fascism. I don’t like hooliganism or random violence. I’m pretty sure you don’t either. And yet this all seems nearly inevitable now, with millions of Muslims streaming through the Balkans and Eastern Europe, unidentified, unfiltered and unpoliced.

This is the biggest crisis in post-war European history.

D, LDN

What Would Bismarck Do?

Tags

American Liberty, Christian, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Facebook, Germany, germany europe, invention of germany, iron, iron and blood, iron chancellor, iron man, iron man p, Islam, Italia, Italy, Jews, machiavelli, Multiculturalism, nation, Nationalism, Otto Von Bismarck, Paris, Patriotism, polish, pride, reunification of germany, state, Sweden, Twitter, unification of germany, War

A few years ago, I was enjoying a lazy evening in my university library when I noticed that an essay was due for the following day. I had been completely unaware of it until then (having been absent on the day it was set). To my further anxiety, I noted that I was also unaware of its subject, the Father of Germany – Otto Von Bismarck.

I can be excused for the latter offence, I think. In British schools, we are taught an extremely limited curriculum (usually covering only the Holocaust, Henry VIII and Slavery in any detail). Bismarck was a familiar name to me, as it is to most people, but I had never been given a reason to make him any more vivid or lifelike in my imagination.

Needless to say, I got no sleep that night, spending the whole period in the library, pumped full of machine coffee and knee deep in a pile of thick, dusty books. But despite the anxious mood in which I was prompted to discover it, the story of Bismarck has proven enduringly fascinating to me. More than anyone in European history, Bismarck seemed to have been a living embodiment of the romantic ideal – Nietzsche’s ‘Ubermensch’, Carlyle’s ‘Great Man’, Machiavelli’s ‘Prince’ – a superman of reality, gifted far beyond the ordinary and with a drive to succeed that dramatically alters world history. There wouldn’t even be a ‘Germany’ without Bismarck, without his deviousness, intellect and personal strength. He is the author of Germany. Germany is his magnum opus. What other major country can call itself the product of one man’s cunning?

I believe the elephantine heroism exhibited by Bismarck goes some way to explain the quintessentially Germanic reverence for strong leaders (a reverence which, of course, went terribly astray in the 20th century). Bismarck was the proof of the German type. He demonstrated what a German could achieve. In this regard, he can be compared to Abu Bakr, the Muslim leader who conquered most of what is now defamed as the ‘Muslim World’. Bakr, like Bismarck, demonstrated an ideal – an ideal which Muslims try (in vain) to emulate right up to the present day (see, Bin Laden, Baghdadi, Zarqawi etc…). They are unwilling to accept that Bakr was a one-off giant, unrepresentative of the human average. Hitler and the Jihadists are thus products of the same delusion.

Still, unlike Bakr (a talented barbarian), Bismarck still has lessons to teach the leaders of the civilised world. For example, what would a man like Bismarck do in the context of the Euro-Islamic war? Let’s speculate now with the aid of three famous Bismarck quotes.

“A conquering army on the border will not be stopped by eloquence.”

This saying could hardly be more timely. As in Bismarck’s tinderbox era, Europe today finds itself under a long and potentially devastating siege. This time, the conquering army is not composed of other Europeans, but represents a detachment of our most ancient geo-cultural rival. Bismarck is surely correct to say that eloquence, reason and speech-making are bladeless weapons, useless in times of war and crisis. What we need is a physical, material blockade, strong enough to keep the hordes from advancing on our cities. In the case of the ‘refugee’ invasion, we should be deploying a massive, pan-European military force to Southern and South-Eastern coastlines. Anybody who shows up and is unable to prove they are Christian or of another non-Muslim minority faith must be turned away. If they try to rush the borders after being warned, they should be shot. That’s what war is like.

“With a gentleman I am always a gentleman and a half, and when I have to do with a pirate, I try to be a pirate and a half.”

Bismarck here uses ‘pirate’ to mean barbarian. He is correct to say that one should adjust one’s manner and values depending upon the force one is faced with. Since with Islam we are faced with a force of barbarism, we need not be overly civilised in defending ourselves.

“The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia.”

As regards European politics, this is a timeless truth. No attempt to secure Europe is feasible if it does not factor in the influence of Russia. To have thought otherwise is the foundational error of NATO. If Islam is to be kept at bay, Russia must be incorporated into our security structure and provided with a role reflecting her size and innate capabilities.

Though the age of Great Europeans has passed, their words and wisdom remain as relevant and necessary as in their own time.

D, LDN

Making Britain Safe for Apostasy.

Tags

Apostasy Hadith, BBC, Britain, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Ex-Muslims, Islamism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism, Muslim, Muslim apostates, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Sweden

Imagine being a Muslim atheist in Britain. Though it sounds self-contradictory, there must be thousands of such people living alongside us in every corner of this country, typically in a condition of self-hatred and misery.

Try to empathise with them even a little and you can readily appreciate their plight. Imagine what it’s like to be trapped in a culture of stupidity that will kill you if you try to leave. Imagine being forced to suppress your own rationality and to oppose those you agree with. Imagine suffering the swelling hatred of the native majority and feeling the hot persecution of those who should rightly be your friends. Imagine the prospect of having to sever ties with your family, friends and ethnic origins just to embrace the modern way of life.

I feel immense sympathy for these people. They didn’t ask to be born into a degraded life. It was their own random misfortune.

What can we do to better facilitate their liberation? There is no riskless panacea or faultless manifesto to employ, but we must do something, or we risk abandoning our ideals completely and becoming simple xenophobes. 

As far as I can see, there are three core motivations that inspire Muslim atheists resident in the West to remain linked to their faith of birth. Other motivations (and there are many others) are usually children or siblings of these.

1. Distrust of the Islamophobic Community / racial pride.

2. Family ties.

3. Retribution.

Let’s deal with them in order.

If you were a Western Muslim atheist wishing to leave Islam, you might be deterred from doing so by the thought that Islamophobes are vulgar, racist and stupid. Despite your atheism, you might be averse to giving such idiots ‘what they want’. Islam, for good or ill, is watermarked in your ethnic identity and cannot be cleanly excised. In short, you would rather be a proud Turk or Arab, than a shy, quivering uncle tom.

I can fully appreciate this. Though far from the majority, there are obviously racists in the EDL, in SION and in other like-minded organisations; the kind of people who don’t have any religious opinions at all, but merely an active dislike of Turks, Arabs and Pakistanis. What proud Muslim atheist would want to shake those hands? – Would want to go from being a first-rate Pakistani or Turk to being a second-rate Westerner?

The solution to this is to place a heavy emphasis on the corrosive effects Islam has had on the ethnic cultures now dominated by it. Explain to the Pakistani that Pakistan was once peaceful and Buddhist; to the Arab that the Arab world was once an illustrious collection of ancient glories; to the Iranian that Iran was once the Persian Empire, and so on. Remind them that everyone on earth is too good for Islam. It degrades anyone who embraces it and depresses their natural talents.

Secondly, the Muslim atheist is understandably averse to severing ties with his family, who in most cases remain wedded to the Islamic faith.

The solution to this is naturally more difficult. How can we offer a replacement kinship for such people? As daunting as it seems, we can but try. It is often remarked upon that Counter-Jihad has become something of a sub-culture in recent years. Our enemies make much beef of this, claiming it as evidence for our collective delusion. But on the contrary, this pleasant fraternal atmosphere can help greatly to accommodate those who remain addicted to the communal warmth of religion and traditional culture. Try to make use of that.

The last deterrent factor is by far the most important. According to the Hadith (a religious authority in Islam second only to the Qur’an), the penalty for leaving Islam is death. The apostate is to be killed without mercy or regard for secular law.

This can be dealt with via politics. We must lobby and petition the government to ensure apostates are supplied with police protection and given special consideration in  housing and work. No apostate, having abandoned Islam, should be left to the mercy (or lack of it) of their community. They should be helped to move elsewhere with restraining orders placed on those relatives who seem likely and willing to fulfil the religious sentence. While this sounds over-the-top and beyond the rightful expectations of national charity, it is in fact the same protection we supply to beaten wives, witnesses to murder and any other citizen proven to be vulnerable to extrajudicial homicide. Why should apostates be treated any differently?

People of my viewpoint are often accused of being racist. Though it is a tedious and unwarranted slur, it is worth combating. The best way to do this is to look past the imposed surface of a Muslim and offer a hand of friendship to the person beneath it.

D, LDN.

How He Became Islamophobic.

Tags

Defend the modern world, Demographics, Email, England Islam, EU, Islam and Racism, Islam is not a race, Islamisation, Islamisation of Norway, Islamisation of Sweden, Islamophobia, Islamophobia is not racism, Misogyny, politics, race, Sweden, Team America, Welcome to Sweden of Today

Last week, I received an email from a visitor to this blog that I think is too interesting to remain private. I have asked the sender (who wishes to remain anonymous) for his permission and so have reprinted the message below. The similarities between our journeys to cognisance on the Islamic issue are striking and his insights are well worth reading. To avoid the charge of narcissism, I’ve excised the portions of the text which talk kindly of my own writing.

“I’m roughly the same age as you and for the past few years I’ve been living in Scandinavia but I was born and raised in a Lancashire mill town with a high Muslim population. Like you and many of your readers, I grew up harbouring a prejudice about Islam that was, if anything, positive. I absorbed the multicultural relativism dished out in school RE lessons and sanctimoniously corrected my octogenarian grandma for saying “paki” instead of “asian” and generally assumed that Muslims were not in any significant way different from Jews or Sikhs or Catholics such as myself.

“But even then, if I’d been a little bit more self aware I might’ve noticed that my tolerant ideas were overriding an opposing instinct. Because I always hated going through the Muslim areas of town, I found the – to borrow your phrase – thoroughly de-gentrified character of those areas thoroughly depressing, I was repelled by the sight of women walking around in tents with eye slits, and I dreaded being stuck on a bus with Pakistani school or college kids and having to listen to their soul-crushing prattle. To the extent that I acknowledged these feelings of acute aversion – which was hardly at all – I attributed it to some deep, shameful racism within me that I could eventually suppress to death.

“It wasn’t until I was college age and started to work weekend jobs with Pakistani and Bangladeshi colleagues who would lecture me on how the Jews did 9/11 and how Osama bin Laden was really a swell guy unfairly maligned by the western media – as well as listening to their endless, hypocritical bragging about their brothers and cousins who were big time gangsters and prostitute users and had white girls here, there and everywhere – that I began to realise my instincts were right, that these people were just awful, and if that made me racist or Islamophobic or whatever, then so be it.

“As you’ve touched upon in some of your posts, I think you get a double whammy of awfulness nowadays with young Muslims in western countries, because without any sense of shame they combine the psychotic intolerance and hair-trigger ideological rage of their faith with the hardcore, swaggering, labels-and-gadgets materialism of “gangsta” culture. It’s about as bleak and anti-human a combination as possible and it trains, to paraphrase another of your excellent formulations, a gunsight on everything worth living for.

“The depressing thing for me is that when I met a Swedish girl, got married, and decided we would move to her country, for a brief moment I thought “Great, that’s the last I’ll have to worry about the influence of Islam for a while…” How wrong can you be. I think this country is second only to France in Muslims as a percentage of population. Incredibly, Sweden takes the highest number of asylum seekers annually in the EU, not just as a percentage of population, but in real terms. This year they’re expecting 89,000 asylum seekers plus about 50,000 “family reunions” – primarily from Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan and Eritrea. In other words, a hit list of the world’s most horrendous hell holes. Of course, if these people were genuine refugees seeking shelter the heart would soften, but less than 5% of them are found to have genuine refugee status and most of them are lying about their age and country of origin.

“Anyway, I admire your straight talking on the subject. Once upon a time, I considered writing about it too. Partly out of subconscious fear of repercussions, but also because I was still genuinely moderate and ambiguous on the subject, I thought that the correct way to write about it was in very measured, careful, painstakingly qualified terms – you know, the euphemistic journalese favoured by the “respectable” broadsheets? “Increased immigration from non-western cultures poses challenges to integration…” and all that kind of thing. But now, after a certain amount of close up experience with these people both back home and here in Sweden, my heart is hardened and I’m convinced only a Steyn or Condell type frankness about the issue can really capture the true nature of it.

“Equivocal, nuanced, careful discourse is a virtue when discussing a lot of things, especially complex technical subjects like state finance, but on certain issues it’s just a kind of obfuscation and cowardice. In the west’s confrontation with Islam, I think the only clear moral position is to state robustly and directly that Islam is a system of thought and belief that, to borrow the succinct language of Team America, just wants to shit all over everything.”

D, LDN.

Marine Le Pen: France’s Dilemma (and Ours).

Tags

anti-Semitism, BNP, Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, France, Germany, Marine Le Pen, Multiculturalism, National Front, Pen, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Semites, Sweden

Is Marine Le Pen ideologically distinct from her father?

This could develop to be the most important French political dilemma in all its modern history.

The consequences of guessing wrongly are too grim to comprehend. If the bet paid off, however, then the bounties would be difficult to overstate.

For some, the future success of Ms Le Pen is the most realistic trigger for a continent-wide shift to nativism and cultural salvation. Unlike the knuckle-dragging failures of the UK BNP, Germany’s NPD or Sweden’s ‘Democrats’, Le Front Nationale is witnessing a consistent rise in national popularity. During the past few weeks, the party even topped a mainstream voters poll; the first time a far-right party in France has done so in living memory.

So why the surge in confidence for a party long written-off as consisting of Holocaust-deniers, scientific racists and German-hating loons?

Immigration is a fairly obvious answer. But this is a problem for every European country, and only in France has the far-right made substantial gains.

The answer is surely Marine Le Pen herself.

A true novelty on l’extreme-droit, Le Pen’s public image has almost supplanted that of the party she represents. From a public relations standpoint, this couldn’t be better news. Instead of skinheads and anti-Semites, Le Front Nationale now conjures up the charms of an expressive, confident, beautiful woman. Indeed, the very fact Le Pen is female appears to change the tone of the party’s policies. The FN no longer seems like hard, violent fascism – but something softer, reasonable and more agreeable.

By-itself of course, this is an illusion. There is nothing reassuring about a woman leading a party, (unless you’re one of those young, masochistic conservatives sent wild by the idea of a fuhrer with great legs). All that matters is the manifesto, and whether the policies contained therein are worthwhile.

So let’s see.

The current manifesto of the FN emphasizes ‘culture’ and the preservation of ‘French Identity’. Strict controls on immigration are demanded, but the old talk of ‘humane repatriation of non-Europeans’ has been excised. Criminal migrants, Islamists and those perpetually unemployed would be deported. The economy would be heavily deglobalised.

There is much in this to like, and much to disagree with. I agree, for example, with the deportation of Islamists, a tougher line on criminals and the reintroduction of the death penalty.

FN Economic policy however is far more troublesome. ‘De-globalization’ and protectionism can be ruinous, and peaceable relations between the countries of Europe is something not to be gambled with.

As to the long-term prospects of Le Pen, we will have to wait for the municipal and EU Parliament elections next year, at which the party is hyped to make substantial gains.

Personally, I don’t think Le Pen will rise all the way to Elysee Palace, and this is probably for the best. Though she herself may be likable, we are more than entitled to be worried about those lower down the pecking order, for whom reality is a web of Zionist conspiracies, black helicopters and Yankee malevolence.

Still, that the FN’s success demonstrates a desire for change in France is to be welcomed. Let’s hope Le Pen is not the only one capable of seizing it.

D, LDN.