If you'd like to republish any of my articles, you are welcome to do so. Please add a link to the original post on my blog.

Tuesday, 13 January 2015

What More Reason Do We Need to Stop the Muslim Invasion?

Paris demonstration after the Charlie Hebdo massacre

In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo tragedy, more than ever politicians, media and elites reiterate that only a small (indeed, tiny) minority of Muslims commit acts like the recent Paris attacks.

First of all, we must observe that this is not a statement of fact, but rather an expression of hope.

For we don't know the number or percentage of would-be terrorists that the Muslim population in each Western country harbours.

Because to know how many they are would also mean knowing who they are - all of them -, in which case we would have solved the terrorist problem with closer surveillance or, much better, expulsion.

So, almost by definition, we haven't got the faintest idea of their number.

We can't even rely on the figure of aggressions actually carried out as a good indicator, because this is only a fraction of the total of terror attacks planned, most of which have been foiled by police and secret services: many of these we haven't even got to hear about. And the total number of planned offensives, prevented or executed, doesn't offer predictions about future ones in such uncertain circumstances.

What we do know is that in several countries Muslim immigrant populations tend to get more radicalised with each successive generation, so the threat is going to increase. This can explain the by-now thousands of jihadists travelling from Europe to fight in Syria and Iraq and often returning to Europe with terrorist training and intentions.

If what happens in the rest of the world, where Islamism and its violence are on the rise, is an indication for the West, the prospects are not happy.

But, even if the number of terrorists were indeed a tiny minority of the West's Muslims, this wouldn't alter the fact that there is a question to be answered: why? Why take the risk? Why deliberately expose innocent Westerners to the threat of being massacred?

We know - nobody disputes it - that Muslims periodically take up guns, explosives, airplanes or what have you to terrorise and slaughter people in buildings, cafes, trains, buses and stores in various Western countries.

We also know that no other group approaches the same level of public, direct physical menace.

Why shouldn't Western nations remove this unnecessary peril?

We can't even say that Muslims belong in Europe, that they have a traditional or cultural foothold on European soil. In fact, they have been our enemy throughout their history. Even Spain and Sicily were invaded and conquered by Muslims, but didn't welcome them.

I know I’m stating the obvious here, but, from the way the talking heads and pundits speak and write, it appears that it needs to be stated.

Something else that public figures are pleased to repeat is that most Muslims condemn this act. In reality, there is no evidence for that either. I haven’t heard of any Muslim demonstration against it. 82% of French people think that Muslims are showing no condemnation of terrorism in France.

One fact of life we’ve learned by induction is that shouting ”Allahu Akbar” is a sure sign that every deed accompanying or following this utterance is of non-Islamic nature, as every time this sequence occurs we are guaranteed that the action is not just non-Islamic but – more strongly - un-Islamic. Such an episode occurred just before Christmas, still in France, when a man ploughed his white van into a Christmas market crowd in Nantes screaming ”Allahu Akbar”, injuring dozens of people - the third incident of its kind in the country in a few days. The man was correctly not described in the newspaper report as Muslim. He might have been anything.

So, is there a benefit - it must be very, very secret as nobody has ever heard of it - that Muslims bring to our lands that compensates for and outweighs the recurring nightmares that they produce and could be even more tragic and numerous if it were not for the enormous expenditure on police and intelligence resources deployed to keep their threat at bay, public-purse money that our over-indebted countries cannot afford?

Not only there is no such benefit. There are indeed additional burdens. Mostly these are not typical of Muslims only, but of general Third-World and mass immigrants. Indeed the problem of the former and the latter are related and difficult to separate. But, since Muslims represent a more specific threat to life and limb than other immigrant groups and there is widespread acceptance of Islam specifically as a negative presence in Europe, this could be a good starting point to tackle the seemingly-intractable immigration question.

A UK 2012 poll found that Britons are far more strongly opposed to immigration, particularly from Muslim countries, than they have been at any time in recent memory. An October 2014 survey showed that three out of four Londoners (74%) think that Britons who have travelled to Syria or Iraq to fight with extremist groups should be banned from returning to the UK.
Here are some issues:

  • Economic. In Britain and other countries it has been calculated that Muslims and other immigrants from the Third World, who are disproportionately unemployed in comparison to the rest of the population and have much larger families, cost far more revenue in public services and social welfare than they put in.

    What is preached by UK-based Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary is that benefits from the infidel state are a form of jizya, the tax that only non-Muslims have to pay as dhimmis, the condition of submission they are forced to live in under Islamic rule.

    In Denmark, “Muslims make up 5% of the population but receive 40% of social-welfare outlays.”

    In Germany, foreign nationals are consistently overrepresented in unemployment figures, with Turks being in the worst situation, with an unemployment rate of 23% and comprising one third of all unemployed foreigners.

    German Journalist Dr Udo Ulfkotte has a good argument showing that expelling Muslims will even help Europe fight its financial crisis:
    Muslim immigrants in Germany up until 2007, Dr Ulfkotte explains, "have taken 1 billion euros more out of our social welfare system than they have paid into our system". To give a better idea of the magnitude of this figure and put it into perspective, he adds that the total debt of the German government is 1.7 billion euros. Expelling Muslims, therefore, will help Europe fight its financial crisis.
    In Sweden, a 15.1% immigrant population burden 60.5% of the entire nations welfare costs.

    Despite all attempts to make immigration look good, in the UK we see that, while European immigrants bring a net economic benefit to the country, non-Europeans take in benefits and services £100 billion (or 14%) more than they put back. In 17 years they cost the public purse nearly £120 billion.

    This differential, indeed opposite, effect of European versus non-European immigration on British economy makes Nigel Farage, leader of the fast-rising populist, anti-EU and anti-immigration party UKIP, sound absurd when he concentrates his efforts on stopping Bulgarian and Romanian immigration instead of the much more ruinous Asian and African invasion. But obviously he doesn’t want to be called racist..
  • Social. Muslims, like other immigrants, make the competition for limited resources - hospitals, doctor surgeries, school places, housing, jobs - much harder for the local Whites..
  • Law and order. Muslims, as well as other Third-World immigrants, are also overrepresented in other-than-terror crime statistics, from those particularly peculiar to them, like honour killings, sex-slavery paedophile rings and female genital mutilation, to more general ones including rioting, looting, wife beating and rape.

Yet for our leaders and commentators the possibility of a Muslim-free Europe is not even a remotely conceivable possibility. Listening to them is a surreal experience: they talk as if Muslim presence in our countries were an ineluctable fact of life, like death and taxes, and not a deliberate choice of corrupt politicians and self-serving elites.

They make you feel as if Muslims had profound roots on our soil and were part and parcel of Western civilisation, both of which are as far from the truth as they can be.

Maintaining the Islamic presence here is for them the Kantian categorical imperative, nay it's more than that: it's a religious commandment. "Thou shalt welcome, feed, house and accept to be killed by Muslims, and never reject or deport them en masse."

Whereas the sensible solution would be to stop Muslims from taking up residence here and expel those who have already done so.

In fact, credit should be given to ‘Amru Adib, a very popular Egyptian TV show host, for this remark he made after the Charlie Hebdo attack:
He asked pious Muslims who cannot tolerate a word against Islam, “So why are you, of your own free will, moving to these godless nations[the West] in the first place.”
During the same show he pointed out that, to many Muslims, the fact that the Egyptian president Sisi entered a Christian church on the eve of January 7, the Coptic Christmas, demonstrates that he must be an infidel. The Salafi party immediately said: "We will never congratulate the Christians on their festivals. What’re you crazy?!". Adib answered these many Muslims by saying:
Okay, I get it, you hate Christians. But can you please be consistent? Why do you cooperate with them in other regards? Why do you go to their nations [reference to the West]? Why do you go to their doctors? Please, let your hate be consistent.”

I have no doubt that 3/4 of those hearing me are cursing me now — saying “he’s an infidel, an apostate!”…
In short, our situation is not very far from collective madness, although I can spot a few signs that greater numbers of people, at every new atrocity, find it increasingly difficult to believe in the TV and newspapers interpretations more than in what their own eyes and ears tell them.


  1. It's come to the point where the only possible understanding of European countries' inability to acknowledge the continued mistaken policies of letting into their countries people from the Third World who share none of the values, culture, history and understanding of the West is either due to moral cowardice, incompetence, or an absolute lack of solutions to fix a broken economic system that requires a constant influx of cheap labour and fruit and veg shops. The result is now with The Guardian actually warning readers (ostensibly British/Anglosphere) when they are about to see a cartoon that it might offend. Clearly if you enter this country, you know and 100% support our culture. To dumb down for the sake of people who would never buy a copy is appeasement of fascism all over again.

    1. The Guardian reader is the most fearsome of all enemies. The traitor from within.

  2. In the long run African immigrants will be worse.
    Better to keep white countries white.

    1. Its the whites that went to the african countries first.and most of africa isn't people are pretentious dicks painting all third world people with the same brush.

    2. Yeah, but we left Africa in good shape when we left it. Arsehole liberal

  3. Several years ago when discussing corruption the then Saudi Minister for Technology casually stated that almost all the top Western politicians had been bought off by Gulf Arab money. Don't know if it's true but it'd explain a lot.

    Many who convert face immense challenges with loss of family and friends, adapting to new environments, having to abandon family traditions that are against Islam and the loneliness that this can bring and many other factors that many Muslims born into the faith don’t necessarily need to deal with. With almost 2.7 million Muslims living in Britain, the number of converts increasing means more Islamic representation within the country.
    The number of Britons choosing to become Muslims has nearly doubled in the past decade, with one of the most comprehensive attempts to estimate how many people have embraced Islam, according to news source the Independent. While previous estimates placed the number of Muslim converts between 14,000 and 25,000 an inter-faith think tank estimates the real figures could be as high as 100,000 with nearly 5,000 converts each year nationally.

    A poll by Faith Matters, surveyed converts living in Britain and broke down what proportion of Muslim converts there were living in London. The researchers polled mosques with results showing. The number of Britons choosing Islam doubled in the past decade 1,400 conversions in the capital and when extrapolated this meant approximately 5,200 people converting to Islam each year – figures that were comparable with French and German survey research results. The report also noted how converts were portrayed by the media and noted that more than 62% of news articles made mention of converts and in particular made references to terrorism and extremism.

    Many who convert face immense challenges with loss of family and friends, adapting to new environments, having to abandon family traditions that are against Islam and the loneliness that this can bring and many other factors that many Muslims born into the faith don’t necessarily need to deal with. With almost 2.7 million Muslims living in Britain, the number of converts increasing means more Islamic representation within the country.

  5. Muslim community is now part and parcel of western society. They pay all sorts of taxes. They have been contributing for the economic, social and spiritual prosperity of the western society.

    Muslim children not only need Mosques, halal meat or Eid Holidays but they need state funded Muslim schools with Muslim teachers as role models during their development period also. There is no place for a non-Muslim child or a teacher in a Muslim school. Legally, the state has an obligation to respect the rights of parents to ensure
    that 'education and teaching(of their children) is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.' The schools must satisfy the spiritual, moral, social, and cultural needs of Muslim pupils. State schools
    with non-Muslim monolingual teachers are not in a position to satisfy their needs. A good school is not just a knowledge factory or a conveyor belt for churning out exam passes - it is a community, a family. A community is held together by common values and principles

    Bilingual Muslims children have a right, as much as any other faith group, to be taught their culture, languages and faith alongside a mainstream curriculum. More faith schools will be opened under sweeping reforms of the education system in England. There is a dire need for the growth of state funded Muslim schools to meet the growing needs and demands of the Muslim parents and children. Now the time has come that parents and community should take over the running of their local schools. Parent-run schools will give the diversity, the choice and the competition that the wealthy have in the private sector. Parents can perform a better job than the Local Authority because parents have a genuine vested interest. The Local Authority simply cannot be trusted.

    Indiscipline, incivility, binge drinking, drug addiction, gun and knife crimes, teenage pregnancies and abortion are part and parcel of British schooling. These are the reasons why majority of Muslim parents would like to send their children to Muslim schools with Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. Only less than 10% attend Muslim schools and more than 90% keep on attending state and church schools to be mis-educated and de-educated by non-Muslim monolingual teachers.

    The demand for Muslim schools comes from parents who want their children a safe environment with an Islamic ethos. Parents see Muslim schools where children can develop their Islamic Identity where they won't feel stigmatised for being Muslims and they can feel confident about their faith. Muslim schools are working to try to create a bridge between communities. There is a belief among ethnic minority parents that the British schooling does not adequately address their cultural needs. Failing to meet this need could result in feeling resentment among a group who already feel excluded. Setting up Muslim school is a defensive response. State schools with monolingual teachers are not capable to teach English to bilingual Muslim children. Bilingual teachers are needed to teach English to such children along with their mother tongue. According to a number of studies, a child will not learn a second language if his first language is ignored.

    1. The Muslim community is not part and parcel of western society. Arabs have to take on a secular form of Islam by replacing their law with western law if they ever hope to exist in the European ethnosphere. The western world does not tolerate brutal punishment and insane imbalances in individual rights. Most of the moral problems in the western world such as abortion stem from the fact that the western world allows third world people and thus third world genetics into their first world countries. People with third world genetics destroy first world countries. The moral problems unique to first world countries are things like misplaced altruism. These problems are no way comparable to the barbaristic problems that accompany third worlders wherever they exist.

    2. We don't want you.

  6. Whilst I agree with the thesis on the incompatibility of Islam with Western, Christian culture, I think these so-called attacks have all the marks of Zio-terrorism, designed to support the Samuel Huntington clash-of-civilizations-narrative. Even the BBC seems to be hedging its bets:

  7. Irredentists leave the hall15 January 2015 at 15:27

    Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down (—I do not say by what sort of feet—) Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly instincts for its origin—because it said yes to life, even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life! … The crusaders later made war on something before which it would have been more fitting for them to have grovelled in the dust -- a civilization beside which even that of our nineteenth century seems very poor and very "senile".

    Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist (1888), Nuvision Publications, 2007, p. 55

  8. Good work Enza - keep it up.

  9. Just so no one will misunderstand the financial figures mentioned by Ulfkotte:European numbers: thousand (1,000), million(1,000,000), milliard (1,000,000,000), billion (1,000,000,000,000)

  10. The reason you people will fail is because your animosity towards Muslims, legitimate as it may be, is mixed with the natural aversion you have to people of non-white skin. European elites my be inclined to believe, eventually, that muslim immigrants are a net negative for Europe but to lump such atrocious people with Christians from Syria or Iraq or Ethiopia or Eritrea or Buddhists from Myanmar and try to expel them all....will fail.

    Even though I support your right to deny entry into your country to anyone you don't want, you know, given the birth rate in your own White people will force you to allow some people in. Based on history and cultural relations, whom to allow in should be based on who can easily adapt to Western lifestyle without causing such fundamental contradiction as I"slam causes to its adherents....

  11. Charlie Hebdo was a false flag. If it was real, why does the footage of the 'policeman being shot' show that he is actually firing a fake detonation from a device strapped to his wrist, and was not 'shot' at all?