Share |

Monday, 31 January 2011

Thilo Sarrazin’s Nine Truths about Muslim Immigration

In the following subtitled video Thilo Sarrazin honestly enumerates nine inconvenient truths about Muslim immigration and its negative impact upon German society and Western societies more generally. Strange, is it not, that a senior member of the German Social Democratic Party and respected Executive Board member of the Deutsche Bundesbank, was suddenly reclassified by critics as ‘far-right’, ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobic’ as soon as he dared to outline the truth about the overwhelmingly negative impact of Muslim immigration on Germany’s society and economy in his book Deutschland schafft sich ab (Germany Abolishes Itself). His stance is honest, brave and instructive. He is none of the things that his critics accuse him of being, and his breaching of multiculturalist taboos led to the establishment of a new German party – Die Freiheit.  

His logical dissection of the problems engendered by mass Muslim immigration and multiculturalism in Germany should reach as wide an audience as possible.

Sunday, 30 January 2011

One Law for All Seminar – Enemies not Allies

On 26 January the One Law for All campaign hosted a debate at Conway Hall in London. Its provocative title ‘Enemies not Allies’ made it clear from the outset that one of the objectives of the organiser – Worker Communist Party of Iran Central Committee member Maryam Namazie – was to seek to place beyond the pale elements of the counterjihad movement such as the English Defence League (EDL) and Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE). However, one of the speakers invited onto the panel was the conservative (small 'c' rather than party affiliated) commentator Douglas Murray.

Unlike Namazie, Murray approached the theme of discussion with a refreshing lack of prejudice, and instead of damning the EDL and portraying it and its supporters in the blackest of possible colours, he rightly drew attention to the irrationality and deliberate nature of leftist ‘no platform’ policies, as well as the Left’s tendency to force opponents and rivals into predetermined ideological boxes without looking at what they actually believe in and how they behave. I have already covered the differences in orientation and approach of the various movements and parties that take a counterjihad stance in a previous article - England: an Anatomy of the Counterjihad and Lessons from France – as well as some of the more notable demonstrations by One Law for All. Like Murray, I am in favour of collaboration irrespective of ideological differences.

What emerges in the initial half of the first of the following videos is Murray’s spirited advocacy of working with the EDL (he speaks until approximately 6:40). In the second video, he robustly demolishes the refrain so commonly heard that ‘Islam is a religion of peace.’ Namazie however appears to be a politician cast in the old Stalinist mould of the type who branded Polish patriots 'fascists' because they didn’t want their country overrun by the Soviets. The One Law for All campaign may have a noble goal in fighting against Sharia, but Namazie’s willingness to condemn the EDL and SIOE as ‘far-right’ and ‘racist’ in an offhand fashion demonstrates her unappealing Marxist-Leninist credentials.

Lord Ahmed defends predatory Muslim Paedophiles

The Mail has today run an extraordinary story in which Labour ‘Lord’ Ahmed (another fake peer in the mould of bogus ‘Baroness’ Warsi) has spoken up in defence of predatory Pakistani paedophiles. Instead of blaming these despicable men for their repellent crimes, he instead has the gall to blame white English society, our women in particular, for the perpetration of these misdeeds. The pro-paedophile peer was speaking in response to the recent reporting of the phenomenon of on-street underage grooming of young English girls which has been conducted almost exclusively by Muslims, predominantly Pakistanis.

It is obvious to anyone who knows about Islam that such behaviour is not only sanctioned by the religion, but openly encouraged by the example of its founder. How many times have you heard that Mohammed was the perfect man and should never under any circumstances be criticised? How often have you heard it said that Muslims should seek to emulate his life and example? Well, given that Mohammed himself was a violent predatory paedophile who deliberately targeted unbelievers for his murderous crimes, why ought we to be surprised when those who see this individual as the ‘perfect man’ hold our children in contempt and abuse them for their debased sexual gratification? They are doing nothing more than being ‘good’ Muslims in the mould of Mohammed. Thankfully of course, many Muslims owing to their innate human decency choose not to follow the example of this pariah prophet, and I am not in any way seeking to impugn their good characters.

The pro-paedophile peer justified the actions of the Muslim child rapists with reference to the fact that a number of them had been forced into unhappy first-cousin marriages, but then he adds:

‘But they are looking for fun in their sexual activities and seek out vulnerable girls.’

He said Asian men resort to abusing young white girls because they do not want meaningful relationships with adult white women.

‘An adult woman – if you are having an affair – would want your time, money and for you to break up your marriage,’ the peer added.
So Ahmed, are you implying that our women should simply allow themselves to be sexually available to service your emotionally damaged co-religionists? You are are effectively demanding that our women give themselves up as whores to be abused whenever the lusts of male members of your soi-disant ‘community’ move them to search out an object of gratification. Your attitude is self-serving and repellent.

I am sure that with Ahmed and Warsi sat in the House of Lords our women and girls will be feeling very ‘safe’, knowing that they are to blame for the rapes, pimping and drug addiction that are forced upon them by Pakistani Muslim gangs in so many of our towns and cities. Derby, Keighley, Rotherham, Rochdale: all have witnessed this pattern of abuse. In how many other locations is this sad story played out? Well Sayeeda, thanks for accusing us all of Islamophobia. Remember, a phobia is an irrational fear. What is irrational about fearing men who follow a creed that urges them to systematically sexually abuse those who do not follow their faith?

If you have daughters and live in an area near to a Muslim population, my advice to you would be to ensure that they know from an early age that they should as a precaution keep away from Muslim males, and that they are aware of the historical character and crimes of Mohammed. Protect your children from predation, because I can assure you that our educational system is filling their heads with a bowldlerised vision of Islam which leaves them naively vulnerable.

Saturday, 29 January 2011

Pat Condell blasts Suppression of Free Speech Across Europe

Watch Pat in his latest video letting off a salvo against politicians across Europe for betraying our liberties and values by facilitating Islamic mass immigration and then limiting our freedom of expression so as not to offend aggressive members of this imported minority. Shamefully, the President of the Free Speech Society Lars Herdegaard is on trial in Denmark for highlighting the disproportionate number of rapes committed by Muslim males in that country, bringing to mind the recent story in England demonstrating the predominance of Pakistani Muslim males in the on-street grooming and systematic sexual abuse of underage ethnic English girls. Alas, not only is Herdegaard on trial for speaking out against the unsavoury manifestations of Islam in European societies, but individuals are also currently being tried in Austria and Holland for daring to bring this unpalatable reality to the attention of the public.

Will Mubarak go, will Mubarak stay? Should he, or shouldn’t he?

Hosni Mubarak’s address to the Egyptian people demonstrates that he has no intention of relinquishing his personal grip on power, although he has been quite willing to sacrifice his government. Given that protesters have made it clear that it is Mubarak himself as well as the regime that he has presided over that they wish to see removed, this move will not pacify the street.

How then, can Mubarak maintain his position? Much depends upon the loyalty of the Egyptian military and police forces. If they stand by Mubarak and he is willing to use unrestrained force, there is a chance that this current wave of protest could be broken. In the longer term however, the problems that underpin this mass discontent will only grow worse, and the likelihood of a bloodier denouement will increase. Unlike the Chinese Communist Party in the wake of Tiananmen Square, Mubarak will not be able to buy off discontent through the promise of a bright economic future, for Egypt is not enjoying China's double-digit economic growth. Instead it is faced with overpopulation, spiralling food prices and a water shortage. Taking into consideration the fact that the US has indicated that its support for Mubarak is wavering and conditional upon political reform and concessions to the protesters, Mubarak’s continuation in office for anything but a brief period seems unlikely.

By definition, the media relish events such as those that are unfolding in Egypt, for they provide good copy and thereby help attract readers, listeners and viewers. As there is also a general cultural tendency in our media to see ‘change’ in a positive light, it is prone to equating large-scale popular protest with ‘progress’, irrespective of the demands that the protesters may be articulating (a notable exception being media treatment of the EDL). The BBC talking heads appear to be especially susceptible to this line of reporting, seeing in any popular protest movement the values that they unconsciously (or at times, perhaps consciously) project onto it, i.e. those of a globalist, universalist liberalism. So it has been with respect to its treatment of events in Egypt, where it has striven to emphasise the role of the internet, Facebook and non-politically affiliated youth in the genesis of this outbreak of popular discontent.

There is of course a much older and well-established form of political organisation and opposition in Egypt which most certainly does not hold views and values which chime with liberalism, although it is globalist and universalist in aspiration: the Muslim Brotherhood. Founded in 1928, this organisation has been Islamist since its inception, and through its work with the Egyptian poor has established a broad base of support amongst sections of the population and has carved out a role for itself larger than that of a conventional political party. The BBC has been at great pains to emphasise that the Muslim Brotherhood is not at the forefront of the current protests, and that instead web-savvy, educated middle-class youth are leading the way. However, the chants of “Allahu akbar” by protesters leaving the mosque after Friday prayers indicate that far from all of those taking to the streets are liberal, secular democrats.

When Mubarak does fall, who or what will take over? There has been some speculation that the military might step into the void for at least a transitional period, but after that, what? If such a relatively peaceful transition can take place, there may then be elections in which the best-organised parties would presumably garner most of the seats. Do the web-savvy, middle-class youth possess the organisational skills, structures and coherent political programme(s) necessary to appeal to most Egyptians? I do not profess to know, but I suspect that as in any country they are a highly disparate bunch with widely differing views as to how Egypt should be governed and the values that it should embrace. The Muslim Brotherhood will be waiting with its well-organised network of activists and supporters and will do well whatever new system comes into play.

If the Muslim Brotherhood were to come to power either as a majority party or in coalition with another Islamist party, this would have highly negative implications for the future of Egypt and its people. The first to suffer under such an administration would be the Coptic Christian community, which estimates suggest as being anywhere between 5 and 15 million strong. Ever since Islam's arrival in Egypt, the Copts have been subject to discrimination and violence in an attempt to get them to convert, and the policies of an Islamist administration would surely continue in this tradition. Naturally, by definition a Muslim Brotherhood government would also be very bad news for women, homosexuals and freethinkers. Given Islam’s abhorrence of representational sculpture and art, Egypt’s great inheritance of art from its pharaonic and classical past would be under as much threat as the Bamiyan Buddhas. Vandalism against this priceless heritage would be a huge tragedy for the Egyptian people and civilisation more generally.

The geopolitical implications of Egypt going Islamist would also be considerable. As the most populous country in the Arab world which sits astride the Suez Canal, this would not bode well for Western interests. Events in Tunisia appear to have played a role in triggering protest in Egypt, and protest has also spread to Jordan. One can only hope that the populations of Egypt and Jordan look at the bloodshed and horror that Islamism has brought to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and recoil from the option of propelling Islamists to power. Whilst the BBC may be erring on the side of portraying these nascent revolutions as an Arab equivalent of 1989, we may in fact be witnessing an Arab version of 1979. Let us hope for the sake of all concerned that it proves to be the former rather than the latter, but on this score I am not optimistic.

UPDATE: Click here for summary of Mubarak's announcement to stand down.

Friday, 28 January 2011

Guardian reports Islamic Hate Crime Shock (well, almost)

Even the Guardian has felt moved to report on the arrest and charging of Razwan Javed and Kabir Ahmed for handing out leaflets outside of a Derby mosque in July last year calling for homosexuals to be executed. It was also posted through local letterboxes that month. Well, it does seem that such an action is beyond any doubt an incitement to murder. Strangely, the Guardian does not put two and two together and realise that these men were doing nothing more (sick as it was) than calling for the implementation of Qur’anic ‘morality’. This, I am afraid, is the face of true doctrinaire Islam in action, and it’s about time that the doublethinkers at the Guardian awoke to this ugly fact.

The BBC too has reported on the story, but once again omitted to mention the fact that this call for the murder of homosexuals is an integral part of the Qur’an and, naturally by extension, mainstream Islamic doctrine.

Thursday, 27 January 2011

Blackburn Butcher Sentenced

Well, as readers will know, I am firmly opposed to halal slaughter as it inflicts additional and unnecessary cruelty in the despatch of animals for the table and desensitises the butcher to suffering. The BBC reports that a butcher named Naeem Butt has today been sentenced by Preston Crown Court for the brutal murder of Saheel Ahmed who was having an affair with Butt’s wife. Butt employed a foot-long knife to sever Ahmed’s jugular in a ritual fashion and to stab him repeatedly. This revolting crime has surely left Mr Ahmed’s family in a state of distraught bereavement, and one can only speculate as to the terrible state of mind of Shakra Ali, Ahmed’s lover, whom Butt had previously assaulted.

To what extent had Butt become desensitised to the process of killing by his practice of halal butchery? The process of slaughter can never be pleasant, but the additional cruelty employed in slitting a conscious creature’s throat and watching it bleed to death cannot in my opinion have anything other than a disturbing effect upon the mind of the person who repeatedly carries out such a process. Desensitisation to suffering seems a likely side effect.

Sadly, Asian Image reports the police as stating that Butt’s crime combined ‘rage, jealousy, revenge’ and ‘an element of honour’. The use of this term ‘honour’ to justify brutality, particularly towards women, is a nauseating piece of cultural baggage that has no place in any civilised society. There is nothing ‘honourable’ about brutally murdering a man or beating your wife and generally treating women like chattels to be terrorised at will. Butt’s actions betray his fragile sense of masculine ego, but alas, the mental outlook that underpinned his behaviour is consonant with a patriarchal religious culture whose misogyny was systematised and legitimised by its founder: Mohammed.

One can only express condolences for the family of Saheel Ahmed and for Shakra Ali, and be thankful that Butt has been found guilty. Let us hope that he receives a suitably condign punishment.

Wednesday, 26 January 2011

'Look North' looks East

Prompted, it seems, by the recent comments made by faux Baroness Sayeeda Warsi (if she’s a baroness I may as well call myself the Baron of Elmet or the Akond of Swat) “that Islamophobia has now crossed the threshold of middle-class respectability," the BBC’s Look North regional news programme has over the past week run a couple of evening reports seeking to ‘redress’ what the BBC controllers evidently think is a very real phenomenon in Yorkshire. First we had a glowing report about how one of Bradford’s new mosques had been voted as possessing the most beautiful minarets in Europe, and then earlier this week we were treated to the sight of two young fellows in the teatime slot talking about why Islam is luring a number of gullible (my word, not theirs) men into joining its ranks in the UK. For some reason, the fact that some 5,000 indigenous males were said to have converted elicited nothing more from the interviewers than the question “why?” The Muslim doctoral student researching this topic together with an English convert explained that it was because people were looking for certainties and values.

Well, empty vessels crave to be filled I suppose. Still, a surfeit of cream cakes or ale would be less harmful than this most dreadful doctrine to which this young man has given himself over. I feel sorry for his family and hope that some day he grows out of this fad and recognises it for the mistake that it was.

Unlike Warsi, rather than creating a public atmosphere of so-called ‘Islamophobia’, I would contend that our mainstream media (the BBC to an egregious extent) and politicians have fostered a situation in which sentiments critical of Islam may only be expressed without fear between friends within their own homes, irrespective of whether they be middle class or otherwise. The BBC and the trade union movement, together with many local councils, have been mounting an effort to ‘normalise’ the image of Islam and to stigmatise its critics. The deployment of the words ‘Islamophobia’, ‘Islamophobe’, ‘bigot’ and ‘racist’ and others of that ilk against critics of Islamic doctrine are quite deliberate.

These terms are designed specifically to cow dissident voices and to assign pariah status to people who dare to deviate from the official line that Islam is now an integral part of the British way of life and is a religion like any other. Thus, people who quite rightly note that conventional mainstream Islamic doctrine possesses rather unsavoury views on the rights (more accurately, complete absence thereof) of atheists, pagans, homosexuals and women (of course, Islamists claim that women have ‘rights’ within Islam, but the ‘rights’ that they talk of are the sort of rights that we assign to lab rats and not to fellow human beings, for their ‘rights’ are of a qualitatively different nature) find themselves the object of officially-directed opprobrium. To speak freely and to speak the truth in the UK today can land the speaker in serious hot water and can destroy your career. Mainstream media and political opinion dictates that a strong dislike of the promotion of the inhumane doctrine of Islam is reflexively identified as and conflated with ‘hatred’ of people who by an accident of birth happen to have been born into Muslim families. This of course, is completely false, but the truth of this statement is not relevant to the agenda of the enablers of Islam.

Now, given that Christa Ackroyd can at times irradiate a most unpleasant orange glow, gained presumably by spending an excessive amount of time in the local tanning salon, perhaps the viewer could be forgiven for occasionally thinking that her donning a burka/burqa (pick your spelling, it’s the same old ghost outfit) might be a good idea, but much as I might find her a little irritating at times, this truly would be an alarming prospect. Christa, much as your permatan makes my eyes ache, please stand up for your right to show your face in public and stop pandering to folk who’d like to see you speak from behind a wall of cloth if they’d deign to let you speak at all.

Could this be the BBC's new official logo?