France Will Be 40 Percent Muslim in 2030

The quotation below is liberally translated from the French from Muslim Immigration to France. You Won't Be Able to Say You didn't Know.

I didn't write it, only translated it, so I cannot provide sources for the data or indeed how they have been arrived at.

Although it's true that France is prohibited by law from collecting official statistics about its citizens' race or religion, it's possible to make estimates based on studies calculating the number of people in France originating from Muslim-majority countries.

Nevertheless, I think that the precise figures should be of less concern than what will become of France and indeed what is already happening there. There is no doubt that France is becoming progressively Islamised, and Muslims only need to be a 10-20 percent of a country's population (even less) to try to turn it into a sharia state, as it's evident by just looking at a map of the world.

Does this piece want to alarm people? Yes, it does.

In 1968 the French population was 49.7 million people. Muslims in France were 610,000 or 1.23% of the population.

In 1988 the French population was 56 million. Muslims in France were 2,000,000 or 3.6% of the population.

In 2009 the French population was 67 million. Muslims in France were 8,000,000 or 11.94%.

These are official figures, which are likely to underestimate the real number of Muslims.

France's Muslim population has been multiplying by at least 3.5 every 20 years since 1968.

If this growth is not stopped or reversed, in 2030 the French population is projected to be 70 million people, of whom 28 million will be Muslim, or 40% of the French population.

Therefore, at the current rate of immigration, in just 17 years nearly one in two people living in France will be Muslim. This is shocking for a country that has no Islamic tradition and had no Arab population as late as 1930.

So what will the situation in France look like 20 years from now, since Islam is a conquering religion that rejects any coexistence with other religions?

Anti-white Racism Growing in France

In France, cases of anti-white racism have recently started being tried in court, with anti-white racism as an aggravating circumstance, following the pattern of other cases of racism.

That happened when a young man at the Paris Station Gare du Nord was attacked with a knife without apparent reason by three men shouting "dirty French" and "gawerer" ("dirty white" in Arabic). Witnesses heard the insults.

In Toulouse, Houria Bouteldja, the spokeswoman for a movement representing immigrants from France's former colonies, went on trial for insulting white French and was charged with "racial injury":

Bouteldja, of the movement Indigenes of the Republic, called native white French "souchiens" in a TV interview. The word derives from "souche," or stock, as native white French are commonly called, but could sound like a hyphenated word meaning "lower than a dog."

A study from the French government's statistical agency INED has brought to light that 18% of French "indigenes" (who are neither immigrants nor the children of immigrants) have been the target of racist insults, remarks or attitudes.

Politician Jean-François Copé, who wants to succeed ex-president Nicolas Sarkozy at the head of France’s main right-wing party, has written a book, excerpts from which were published in Le Figaro newspaper.

In the book he says that more and more inhabitants of Meaux, the town of which he is mayor, complain of being victims of anti-white racism. He writes:

An ‘anti-white racism’ is developing in neighbourhoods of our towns where individuals – some of whom have French nationality – express contempt for French people, calling them ‘Gaulois’, on the basis that they are not of the same religion, the same skin colour or the same origins as them.

Despite the predictable protests against the book by the Left, even the Socialist Party's spokesperson Najat Vallaud-Belkacem had mentioned “anti-white racism” in her book Raison de plus!.

“Copé can’t make his mind up whether to be the spitting image of Sarkozy or the parrot of Marine Le Pen,” tweeted the newly appointed leader of the Socialist Party, Harlem Désir, who started his political career at the head of the anti-racism campaign SOS-racisme.

It is worth mentioning that Harlem Désir, the first black to lead a major European political party, has a criminal conviction, having "served 18 months in prison for fraud related to an immigrants rights group he was with".

The “anti-white racism” is manifested according to Copé “by the fact that there are areas where it is not good to be a woman, be white… some of our countrymen to flee the area where they live because they understand that they are not at home, it is unbearable,” he said.

More quote from Copé's book:

I hear more and more people complain of Meaux and this racism is as unacceptable as any other form of racism and we must denounce it as we condemn all other discrimination. I know I broke a taboo by using the term “anti-white” but I do deliberately, because it is the truth that some of our citizens live this way and silence exacerbates the trauma.

These phenomena are impossible to see from Paris, in the media and political spheres where the vast majority of officers are French of white skin born of French parents. In these microcosms, the lack of diversity limits the presence of people of color or of foreign origin. But let’s face it: the situation is reversed in many parts of our suburbs.

Of course, if you decide by diktat that only whites can be racist, as ex-London-mayor Ken Livingstone's former senior advisor on race policy Lee Jasper did, then the problem is solved, right? Or, more likely, enouncing this statement is in itself another sign of anti-white racism.

If you consider that Lee Jasper is currently also co-chairman of Black Activists Rising Against the Cuts, chair of the London Race & Criminal Justice Consortium, political adviser to the 1990 Trust and board member of Lambeth Police Consultative Group, no less, you start getting an idea of why anti-white racism is on the rise in the UK as well, and indeed throughout the West.

Moderate Muslims and Nicolai Sennels

The excellent psychological and sociological essay linked to below is by the Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels, who has worked with many Muslims and non-Muslims of similar age and socio-economic background in a Danish prison, making his - quite unique in this field - a scientific study of the experimental group, young Muslims, for the presence of a control group in which the only different variable is the one under study.

This and other writings by the same author gave me a lot of inspiration and food for thought.

Nobody so far seems to have devoted much attention to this subject: not so much what Islam is, or the Koran says, or Mohammed did, or the history of the Muslim world past and present, as what individual Muslims' psychological makeup is (in this case Muslims living in Europe).

It is very interesting for many many reasons, one of which is this: it breaks apart the distinction between Islam as a doctrine - something abstract - and the concrete reality of Muslim persons.

This in turn dissolves, or at least greatly dilutes, another distinction, which may be real but is also puzzling: that between the intransigence, intolerance, violence and criminality found in both the teachings of Islam and at least some - though we do not really know how many and what proportion of the Muslim population in every country they are - Muslims on one hand, and the so-called "moderate" Muslims on the other.

To be honest, I find this concept, "moderate Muslims", very unclear and imprecise, more prone to raise questions than capable of answering them.

What do we mean by that?

These are the possibilities:

a) Muslims who are not involved in violence. Obviously there will be many of them, particularly in the West where they are still a minority. But does it change anything? No population in history has ever gone to war with another en masse (it would be impossible biologically, because it would lead to the self-destruction of that population): it's always a minority, an avant-guard, that engages in actual combat. Britain during WWII did not take the approach that it was not at war with Germany because there were many "moderate Germans" who were not taking direct part in the military conflict. And German, as well as Italian, nationals were interned in camps, whether they were peaceful and even opposed to the war or not. We may keep saying that we are not at war with Islam, but it matters not one iota because Islam is at war with us.
A further problem with this definition is that it is too vague and general: is it enough for a person not to act violently and criminally to be considered "moderate"? No, this is not the common definition of the word, because the term is applied in reference to opinions and attitudes, not just behaviour.

b) Muslims who are opposed to the use of violence in the name of Islam by their correligionaries. Here the number of individuals covered by this definition will start decreasing from definition a, but how much we don't know. There aren't enough opinion polls among, say, British Muslims to give a full picture, although those that exist are not very promising, showing high percentages of them approving of Islamic violence.
This seems perfectly consistent with what we see every day. For example, although Muslims are amply represented in demonstrations of various types (against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, against Salman Rushdie, Mohammed cartoons, Bush, Blair, and other examples), we have never seen a Muslim demonstration against Islamic violence, against Al Qaeda, Bin Laden and so on.
Furthermore, there are too many nuances and needs for refinement to the definition. Individual Muslims may approve of some episodes of Islamist violence but not others. It is so complicated as to be useless as a definition.
And again, the fundamental problem raised in "a" applies here too: is this the same definition of the term "moderate" that we use for non-Muslims? No, a "radical" or "extremist" could be opposed to violence and still be considered such if he holds views at the extreme poles of the political or cultural spectrums.
So, why should we make an exception for Muslims? In respect for their "cultural identities", because we recognize that what for us is extreme and radical, anything but moderate, for them is the norm? But this is exactly the problem from which we started, the reason why coexistence is difficult if not almost impossible.
Saying that some - or even many - Muslims are "moderate" because the radical views they hold are the norm for their culture and religion is simply answering the question with the same question, it means getting stuck in a vicious circle.
The problem is exactly that: that we need to use the word "moderate" with a different meaning when applied to individual Muslims because they are not moderate at all by the general definition of the word.

This essay by Nicolai Sennels seems to confirm my suspicions. This concept is an artefact of the appeasers, the Chamberlains in our midst (no shortage of them, especially in the Left). The differences between Muslim mindset - cultural and sociological, and therefore psychological - and Western one are real and profound.

What Sennels says in relation to solutions and to the wishful thinking of Westerners about hopes of "integration" is also particularly important and illuminating. What Westerners do - or at least have done so far - reminds me of what they call "battered wife syndrome". Wives regularly beaten by their husbands or partners apparently continue in the relationship without leaving their men thinking that these will change.

As psychologists and wise people know, human beings do not change just because somebody else desires them to change.

People only change due to an internal motivation which, as Sennels very eloquently and descriptively shows, overwhelmingly is lacking in Muslims living in Europe.

And, if someone wants his circumstances or the people in his life to change, what he must do is take the initiative, change himself first, and the rest will change as a consequence. In the case of a battered woman, for instance, becoming aware of her problem and leaving her abusive partner could likely lead to a better relationship.

Western countries and societies are acting in relation to Muslims in their midst in perfect analogy with the battered wife with her husband.

They anxiously and hopefully wait for Muslims to "change", in this case to integrate (and become good, much less troublesome British, or Danish etc citizens).

What they should instead do is start from themselves, look at the mistakes they have made - since all evidence, as this Danish psychologist says and we already know, points in the opposite direction of integration, with each immigrant generation being more radicalized, violent and criminal than the previous - and begin making changes to "their" own views, attitudes and policies regarding the Muslim community, and only after that they will very likely see changes among the Muslims.

People like Ken Livingstone saying that London (and the UK) are good examples of integration must be deluded to the point of madness.

If several riots and bombs, and the facts that London is now a centre of international Muslim terrorism and a haven for criminal Islamists wanted all over the world, are not enough to show the idiocy of such a statement, just think of the police and security forces having to be in continuous alert over possible Islamic terrorist threats which, squandering precious resources, has now become the permanent condition and possibly the only reason why we have not had more bombings and attacks.

It is true that Sennels has studied young, imprisoned Muslim criminals, but through them he has had a unique insight into the European Muslim community in general.

Nicolai Sennels: Report from the therapy room: Why are Muslims more violent and criminal?

Rolling Stones Mock Pro-Palestinians and Honour Israel's 65th Birthday

I've always loved the Rolling Stones. Now I know why.

The Rolling Stones openly taunt pro-Palestinians.

Despite a barrage of attacks and even threats from European and American anti-Israeli groups, Mick and co. maintained their planned concert in Jerusalem for Israel's Independence Day on 15 April 2013.

Mick Jagger said that they received many criticisms and provocations, but that only made them resolve to have two concerts rather than one.

A pro-Palestinian activist retorted that this was a huge mistake by the Stones, and threatened that they would lose much money and fans, many of whom support the boycott of Israel.

When Jagger was asked if indeed this move could damage the Rolling Stones' image or career, he answered that he is not a businessman.

It is an important gesture because they are prepared to lose fans over this, and they are a role model to many. If many more people in the West had their courage or at least defiance for group-think, things would get better.

There have been accusations that the above picture has been photoshopped with the addition of the Israel flag, but the news remains true.

A Soviet Spring Spells Christian Persecution

There has been an increase in the persecution of Christians in the former Soviet Union, especially the central Asian republics where it looks like the collapse of the Soviet dictatorship, in a pattern maybe similar to that of the “Arab Spring”, has “liberated” the radical elements within the Muslim communities.

The above video is an interview with Sergey Rakhuba, President of Russian Ministries, an expert on mission issues related to Russia and the former Soviet Union.

It's been a long road since the revolution that swept away atheistic communism in Eastern Europe 20 years ago. The wave of religious freedom that swept the region now seems to be receding.

Citizens of the former Soviet Union are facing growing restrictions on their religious freedom. On Wednesday a panel of experts in Washington reported that governments are closing more churches, fining and arresting their religious leaders, and destroying church literature.

"Twenty years ago when the Soviet Union fell apart, collapsed, when the Berlin Wall fell, everybody was sort of excited about all the future possibilities. Twenty years later we are again talking about freedom. What happened?" Victor Ham, vice president for the Billy Graham Evangelical Association Crusades, said.

The situation might not be a return to the Soviet era, but the signs spell trouble.

"Churches are being torched, crosses are being burned. There's a lot of anti-Semitism, a lot of negative things appearing in the press about different organizations. So there's some reason for concern," Lauren Homer, with Homer International Law Group, said.

The atmosphere is thick with intolerance in these countries. Individual pastors are reluctant to speak out against abuses and restrictions.

"He's not so interested in going to the government and speaking to the ministers and so on because really it is a question of security most of all," Matti Sirvio, with Greater Grace Protestant Church, said. "Will it be used against them? Will their persecution become even worse."

In Uzbekistan, Sirvio encouraged church members to connect to the outside world as their best defense.

"I think people should all learn how to use the Internet, they should all learn the English language," he said. "And these two things will connect them in the future with the rest of the world and especially with the Body of Christ around the world."

Russian Ministries hopes that by shining a spotlight on these issues, international politicians and human rights proponents will do more to defend religious minorities in the former Soviet Union.

UK: Jihad Seekers Allowance Is the New Form of Jizya

Jihad Seekers' Allowance (a pun on Jobs Seekers' Allowance that unemployed British people receive as state welfare benefits) is considered by many Muslims as 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 the remarkably candid video above Anjem Choudary, a Muslim cleric and preacher, tells other Islamists that they should follow his example and live on welfare paid for by British taxpayers who, as infidels, are slaves and are supposed to give money to their Muslim masters. This is nothing other than Islamic law:

Anjem Choudary, who in the past has planned to disrupt the minute's silence on Remembrance Sunday, also openly mocked hard-working Britons, calling them 'slaves'.

The Sun newspaper secretly filmed him saying Islam will overrun Europe, David Cameron and Barack Obama should be killed and calling the Queen 'ugly'.

But today he said he had been 'joking' and his words had been misconstrued.

He also maintained that Osama Bin Laden was his 'hero'.

The father-of-four takes home more than £25,000 a year in benefits and lives in a £320,000 house in Leytonstone, East London.

He told a crowd of around 30 fanatics: 'People will say, 'Ah, but you are not working'. But the normal situation is for you to take money from the kuffar (non-Muslim).

'So we take Jihadseeker's Allowance. You need to get support.'

In another video a grinning Choudary is recorded telling his disciples that it is justifiable to take money from non-believers.

He said: 'The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar. You work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar (God is great).

'Hopefully there's no one from the DSS listening to this.'

He also called Mr Cameron, Mr Obama and the leaders of Pakistan and Egypt the 'shaitan', or devil, and said he wanted them to be killed.

Choudary spoke glowingly of the 9/11 attacks and urged his followers to have 'hate' in their hearts for core British concepts like democracy, freedom and freedom of religion.

The 45-year-old former lawyer added: 'We are going to take England — the Muslims are coming. Brussels is 30 per cent, 40 per cent Muslim and Amsterdam. Bradford is 17 per cent Muslim.

'These people are like a tsunami going across Europe. And over here we're just relaxing, taking over Bradford brother. The reality is changing.'

O'Neill Got It Wrong: Gay Activists Want More than Liberation, not Less

Brendan O'Neill totally missed the point.

He compares the gay radicals of the past who did not want marriage because they saw it as a form of oppression to the LGBT movement of today who demand same-sex wedlock, and concludes that the latter have become bourgeois and integrated, renouncing the radical ideology of the beginning, when Stonewall was young and fighting for liberation from matrimony, not enslavement by it.

The point he misses is that the homosexual activists have become more radical, not less.

What they demand from society now is a total redefinition of marriage, something that goes to the core of this institution and pierces it through the heart. They want to shape society in their own image, not just more or less politely ask society to leave them alone.

What was a negative request, "Do not interfere with our personal lives", has become a much stronger, positive demand, "Change the meaning of marriage to fit our bill".

This can be seen especially clearly when you consider the LGBT movement's request for same-sex marriage in church, when it is obvious that the people who intend to take advantage of this "right" do not believe in the precepts of the Churches whom they would require to celebrate their wedding.

It is transparent that church gay marriage is a travesty of Christian marriage, as I have written elsewhere:

We must not forget that, for believers, marriage is a sacrament; and for non-believers, what's the point of wanting to marry in church other than mocking the Church?

There was a male gay couple interviewed on the [British] TV. One of the two, in late middle age, with all the seriousness in the world said: "I want to marry in a church because this is the way I was brought up". One should ask: were you also brought up to have a homosexual relationship? And, if you can accept to depart from your background and education in one aspect, what's wrong with doing the same for the other aspect as well?

If as a gay couple you got married in church, it would not mean anything, because the creed and doctrine behind the sacrament of marriage does not include unions of this kind. It would be an empty ritual, a gesture without significance behind it.

It would confuse form with substance, appearance with reality. It would be a travesty.

It would be like thinking that a man wearing a wig and fake breasts is a woman. He may look like a woman, but he is not; similarly, a church gay marriage may look like a Christian marriage, but it is not.

Homosexual wedding in church is an insult to the people who believe, it's like an enormous joke at the expenses of Christian clergy and faithful alike. Why does a homosexual really want to marry in church knowing that, given the Christian teachings on homosexuality, that "marriage" is meaningless, if not to give Christianity the finger?

Why should gay activists want to make a mockery of other people's genuine Christian beliefs? And why should the British government want to give in to this offensive request, as it has already done to all other gay requests without exception [bar abolishing the minimum age of consent]?