Neocon Douglas Murray Got It Wrong about Islam

I have always admired Douglas Murray, mostly because of how he courageously stood up for Israel against politically correct inanities, but now I have a problem.

You can see my problem in the above video in which Douglas Murray, "radical Muslism cleric" Anjem Choudary and British convert to Islam - representing the "moderate" Muslims - Julie Siddiqi discuss on Channel Four News the Woolwich attack, and in particular the fact that one of the perpetrators, Michael Adebolaj, had been associated to Choudary and participated in at least one of Choudary's protests.

The media and politicians love to use these classifications about Muslims, like "moderate" and "radical"; I follow the custom but in inverted commas.

The serious problem that I have with Murray's intervention in the Channel Four discussion is that he distinguishes between Islam and militant Islam, and says that most Muslims are peaceful and hunky-dory. I'd like to ask him how he knows that, since most polls of Muslims in the UK contradict what he says.

But, even more importantly, by making such distinctions within Islam he confirms, reinforces and perpetuates the myth spread by Western mainstream media, opinion-makers and political leaders about the peaceful nature of Islam. This misconception is exactly the foundation on which all the irrational policies of all Western countries, none excluded, vis-à-vis Islam in foreign and domestic affairs are built.

That is the pillar of all our dhimmitude and eventual Islamization.

For further evidence, here is another video interview of Douglas Murray, this time with the Canadian TV channel Sun News.

The organization of which Murray is now one of the directors, The Henry Jackson Society - he changes them often, I don't know why - , corroborates my suspicions about his wrong stance on Islam.

The Henry Jackson Society seems to be very misguided in its position on Syria and shamefully underplaying the terrible predicament of Syrian Christians at the hands of the "rebels" (read 95% jihadis).

This piece by the Society's Executive Director Alan Mendoza manages in a relatively short space to cram many more fatal errors about Libya, both the Bosnian and Syrian civil wars, and much else than I thought it was humanly possible.

But maybe it was my mistake not to check Murray's credentials before. All I needed to know was that he is a neoconservative.

UK Muslim Paedophile Rings Are an Epidemic



The Russian TV channel RT is, as usual, doing something right and something wrong, often in the same breath.

Two days ago I saw its broadcast on the anti-Islam backlash in the UK following the brutal beheading of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich, East London. In it they mentioned graffiti on mosques, attacks on Muslims and protest marches by the English Defence League (EDL), whose images were shown.

Even in me, despite my distrust for the mainstrean, socio-communist media, they created a subliminal, temporary association between the first two, which are criminal acts, and the third, which is lawful exercise of freedom of expression, moreover amply justified in this case. I recovered from that association almost immediately, by using my critical spirit, but many will have not.

That was followed by an interview with Paul Weston, the chairman of the newly-formed counterjihad party Liberty GB, to which I belong. He rightly said that the EDL should not be called far-right for protesting against such a horrific murder, and then went on to suggest that drastic measures should be taken by the government to eradicate Islamic militancy, for example closing down the mosques that spread radical and violent ideologies (which, I venture to add, are probably many more than we think).

Then I found that RT has a few days ago tackled another big issue related to how Islam "enriches" our cultural environment, namely the Muslim gangs that groom white girls for sexual exploitation.

Maybe something is moving in the right direction here. It only took 20 years after all, from the early 1990s if not before, a jiffy in geological terms! The police, social services and prosecutors, not to mention the politicians, have required two decades, first to recover from the shock of finding out that someone, or rather a lot of people, in the Muslim community were not acting as uprightly as the apologists of the "religion of peace" keep telling us that its followers do; then to master the extreme courage of braving the chance of various epithets, from "far-right" to "racist", being thrown at them; and then finally to find, as in the recently-tried Oxford gang case, a Muslim prosecutor who could do the dirty job for them without risking his career.

Add to the picture the help, or lack thereof, from the media, and 20 years indeed appears like a quick response.

All this can be compared to the 20 minutes taken by the police to get to the crime scene in Woolwich. The contact with, or even proximity to, Islam slows down our betters' reflexes.

The Oxfordshire child-sex-trafficking ring was allowed by the authorities' negligence to drug, rape and sell for sex girls aged 11-16 over seven years. Seven gang members, all Muslim, have been found guilty of a string of sex offences just over two weeks ago.

Here is an interesting quote:

The fact is that the vicious activities of the Oxford ring are bound up with religion and race: religion, because all the perpetrators, though they had different nationalities, were Muslim; and race, because they deliberately targeted vulnerable white girls, whom they appeared to regard as ‘easy meat’, to use one of their revealing, racist phrases.

Indeed, one of the victims who bravely gave evidence in court told a newspaper afterwards that ‘the men exclusively wanted white girls to abuse’.

But as so often in fearful, politically correct modern Britain, there is a craven unwillingness to face up to this reality.

Commentators and politicians tip-toe around it, hiding behind weasel words.

We are told that child sex abuse happens ‘in all communities’, that white men are really far more likely to be abusers, as has been shown by the fall-out from the Jimmy Savile case.

One particularly misguided commentary argued that the predators’ religion was an irrelevance, for what really mattered was that most of them worked in the night-time economy as taxi drivers, just as in the Rochdale child sex scandal many of the abusers worked in kebab houses, so they had far more opportunities to target vulnerable girls.

But all this is deluded nonsense. While it is, of course, true that abuse happens in all communities, no amount of obfuscation can hide the pattern that has been exposed in a series of recent chilling scandals, from Rochdale to Oxford, and Telford to Derby.

In all these incidents, the abusers were Muslim men, and their targets were under-age white girls.

Moreover, reputable studies show that around 26 per cent of those involved in grooming and exploitation rings are Muslims, which is around five times higher than the proportion of Muslims in the adult male population.

To pretend that this is not an issue for the Islamic community is to fall into a state of ideological denial.

But then part of the reason this scandal happened at all is precisely because of such politically correct thinking. All the agencies of the state, including the police, the social services and the care system, seemed eager to ignore the sickening exploitation that was happening before their eyes.

Terrified of accusations of racism, desperate not to undermine the official creed of cultural diversity, they took no action against obvious abuse.

Amazingly, the predators seem to have been allowed by local authority managers to come and go from care homes, picking their targets to ply them with drink and drugs before abusing them. You can be sure that if the situation had been reversed, with gangs of tough, young white men preying on vulnerable Muslim girls, the state’s agencies would have acted with greater alacrity.

Another sign of the cowardly approach to these horrors is the constant reference to the criminals as ‘Asians’ rather than as ‘Muslims’.

In this context, Asian is a completely meaningless term. The men were not from China, or India or Sri Lanka or even Bangladesh. They were all from either Pakistan or Eritrea, which is, in fact, in East Africa rather than Asia.

What appalling, Islamophobic, right-wing extremist wrote that? A Muslim leader, the imam Dr Taj Hargey.

I've quoted him at length due to the exceptionality of a member of the Muslim community in Britain, and an imam at that, being honest enough to admit, and therefore willing to redress, Muslim grooming gangs. Hargey also has the audacity to accuse imams of promoting grooming rings by encouraging followers to think that white women deserve to be “punished”.

Only a week before the Oxford trial, it had been the turn of another gang of "men" (as the media tactfully or, shall we say, cowardly, call them), in this UK epidemic of sex-slave rings run by Muslims, to be convicted in Telford, a town in Shropshire, for sexually abusing schoolgirls in cases stretching over two years.

Writer and journalist Sean Thomas, in his interview with RT in the video above, correctly identifies these as clear cases of racist crimes in which the victims are targeted for being white.

A Police Chief Constable warned that child sex-slave gangs could exist in every British city.

The Mirror newspaper reports that there are now at least 54 active investigations on grooming rings in Britain. Steve Heywood, chief constable at Greater Manchester, said that child exploitation was now the force’s “number one priority”.

Out of the 43 police divisions in England and Wales, at least a whopping 31 have ongoing investigations into these crimes. The other 12 did not respond to the paper's request for information. Of the 43 that did, 3 refused to tell The Mirror how many investigations they had. So, 54 is the number of probes disclosed to the paper, but their number is likely to be higher.

Last week another trial involved 10 "men" with names like Mohammed Adnan, Mudassar Hussain, Rameez Ali and Ammar Rafiq, accused of abusing and exploiting a girl in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, over a four-year period.

In April, probably Britain’s biggest child-sex ring, with the highest number of victims by one gang, 50 (the youngest of whom was 12), was discovered by the police. The suspects, six men "of various nationalities", were arrested in Peterborough, near Cambridge.

In March, 7 men were charged in Newham, East London, on a range of offences against a 14-year-old girl, including rape and human trafficking for sexual exploitation.

And last year 5 men were charged with rape in Stockport, Greater Manchester, after an investigation showed they had 39 potential victims.

Sean Thomas in the video interview above sums up the grisly situation in its numeric terms: "Fifty-four gangs is an astonishing figure. Each gang may have dozens or hundreds of victims, so we're talking about possibly thousands and thousands of white girls who have been abused, raped and even murdered in the last 20 years, because this crime has been ignored. It's shocking".

It's Not Only Islam that Threatens Our Freedoms

If you, like me, are worried about the Islamization of the West because it will erode our civil liberties, like freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, you should carefully consider that there are other trends in our society that have nothing to do with Islam but are taking us in the same anti-libertarian direction, both giving too much power to the government and at the same time paving the way to quasi-totalitarian societies, thus indirectly enabling Islamic supremacism to flourish and do its damage.

I am examining here the case of Britain, but the pattern is similar in many other Western countries. The UK government is trying to make us believe that its proposed introduction of a gay marriage law is a progressive move with the declared purpose of giving gays equal rights of which they are deprived at the moment. But this is not true: in fact homosexuals of both sexes already have equal rights, due to the legalization of civil partnerships.

This is so much true that many gays don't want same-sex marriage. This is from the website Gays against Gay Marriage, and is written by a gay:

I don’t understand the reasoning behind the suggestion that civil unions or some other marriage equivalent, with all the benefits of traditional legal marriage, are somehow not good enough. Olbermann seems to be saying that it is only the exact legal label applied to heterosexual unions — actual “marriage” — that will do. But why? What is the reason that it’s not good enough? Allow me to put my Freud hat on.

For gay supporters of marriage, this may be an attempt to force society to recognize and, well, love their love. It’s a way to make up for the rejection many of them felt by their hick Christian families, or their meathead peers in school as a child. The fact is, they will hate you even more if you are allowed to get married. Now, I don’t deny that it is hilarious and delightful to make bible beaters uncomfortable — the idea of a religious government official forced to legally refer to two men as “husbands” puts a smile on my vindictive face — but inflicting pain on one’s enemies alone is not reason to call for gay marriage.

Ben Summerskill, the Chief Executive of the UK lesbian, gay and bisexual equality organisation Stonewall, the largest gay equality body in Europe, famously said in an interview with Pink News: "Lots of gay and lesbian people don’t actually want marriage". Stonewall refused to endorse same-sex marriage until it was intimidated and pressured to do so by other gay groups: "Mr Summerskill also accused PinkNews.co.uk of running an 'unethical campaign' against Stonewall after it asked every LGBT rights organisation/ political group to outline their stance on marriage equality. Only Stonewall refused to answer."

In an article entitled I'm a gay man who opposes gay marriage. Does that make ME a bigot, Mr Cameron? (a reference to the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg's calling of opponents of gay marriage "bigots"), journalist and broadcaster Andrew Pierce wrote (all emphases in this post are mine):

Now, a submission by the Church of England into the Government’s consultation on gay marriage has warned of an historic division between the Church’s canon law — that marriage is between a man and a woman — and Parliament.

It suggests the schism could even lead to ‘disestablishment’, a split between the Church and the State, and the removal of the Queen as Supreme Governor of the Church.

Despite the opposition of every major faith group — notably the Catholic Church — Mr Cameron is arrogantly pressing ahead with an issue which excites his chums in the metropolitan elite, but which disregards the sentiments of millions of ordinary people who, as poll after poll has shown, are against it.

Even some of the Prime Minister’s admirers concede that the policy has less to do with offering equality to the gay community and more to do with decontaminating the allegedly ‘toxic’ Tory brand.

Perhaps the Prime Minister has calculated that anyone who stands up and argues against his proposals will be branded a homophobe and a bigot.

Well, Mr Cameron, I am a Conservative and a homosexual, and I oppose gay marriage. Am I a bigot?

And what about Alan Duncan, the first Conservative MP to come out as gay? Mr Duncan, the International Aid Minister who is in a civil partnership, is implacably opposed to gay marriage.

So is Dr David Starkey, the celebrated historian, who is openly gay...

Yet I understand the Government’s Equalities office, having approached a polling company to test the opinion of the gay community, then decided not to go ahead.

Were the officials worried what the conclusions might be? None of my gay friends want gay marriage to be written into law...

The truth is that no one has been able to explain to me the difference between gay marriage and a civil partnership. I have asked ministers and friends. None has an answer.

But I do. We already have gay marriage — it’s called civil partnership. Why can’t Mr Cameron just leave it there?

A gay man wrote in a letter to a London newspaper:

I am the surviving civil partner of a long-term gay relationship. The state has recognised this relationship fully in all my dealings since my civil partner’s death from cancer in 2007. I do not support 'gay marriage’ because the term adds nothing of substance to what I already have received and needlessly offends some members of certain religious faiths (which, incidentally I do not hold).

One of the first openly homosexual MPs and the first to enter into a civil partnership, former Culture Secretary and Labour MP Ben Bradshaw,

said homosexuals had already won equal rights with the introduction of civil partnerships and had "never needed the word 'marriage' ".

The Labour MP claimed the Prime Minister's motivation was simply to try to show that the Conservatives had modernised their views of society...

"This isn't a priority for the gay community, which already won equal rights. We've never needed the word 'marriage'."

So, if the gay community already won equal rights, why is Prime Minister David Cameron pushing for same-sex marriage?

Cameron is the true representative of a political class that tries to enlarge the size of government and increase what it can control.

Personal relationships don't need to be regulated by the state. The only exception is marriage, for the reason that it is a unique relationship: it has the capability of producing new life, and the role of society is to protect the vulnerable, of whom children are a prime example.

If their parents don't look after children, society will have to. Hence the legalization of marriage between a man and a woman, an institution which pre-dates law and church in human history. There is a rational reason for this legalization, namely to ensure that the natural parents take responsibility for their children in front of society and the law.

No other relationship can produce children, which is why no other relationship needs to be regulated in the same way.

But regulating what does not need to be regulated and legislating on matters that don't require the intervention of the law is what governments do when they want to extend their sphere of influence and grow their power.

We also have to understand the repercussions of this new, proposed legislation on censorship and the freedom of speech, which will be endangered in a way which has echoes of the blasphemy laws demanded by Muslims.

The methods used by Islamic supremacists, like death threats, are also similarly used. MP David Burrowes, during his speech in the Commons debate on the bill, described how he had been called a Nazi and a bigot and subjected to death threats because of his views. "His children had been told that their father is a bigot and a homophobe."

Once the bill on same-sex marriage legalization becomes law, automatically everyone who publicly disagrees with the view behind that law will be doing something at best subversive and at worst illegal.

People can even be threatened with legal action, arrested, prosecuted or otherwise silenced for expressing a different opinion: this is what has been happening in countries where same-sex marriage has been legalized, like Canada for instance.

Since the introduction of same-sex marriage there in 2005, relatively few gay couples got married, but what happened to freedom of speech and conscience is terrifying. Canadian author and broadcaster Michael Coren writes:

In the few debates leading up to the decision, it became almost impossible to argue in defense of marriage as a child-centered institution, in defense of the procreative norm of marriage, in defense of the superiority of two-gender parenthood, without being thrown into the waste bin as a hater. What we’ve also discovered in Canada is that it can get even worse than mere abuse, and that once gay marriage becomes law, critics are often silenced by the force of the law.

...it’s estimated that, in less than five years, there have been between 200 and 300 proceedings — in courts, human-rights commissions, and employment boards — against critics and opponents of same-sex marriage. And this estimate doesn’t take into account the casual dismissals that surely have occurred.

In 2011, for example, a well-known television anchor on a major sports show was fired just hours after he tweeted his support for ‘the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage’. He had merely been defending a hockey player’s agent who was receiving numerous death threats and other abuse for refusing to support a pro-gay-marriage campaign. The case is still under appeal, in human-rights commissions and, potentially, the courts.

The Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, Fred Henry, was threatened with litigation and charged with a human-rights violation after he wrote a letter to local churches outlining standard Catholic teaching on marriage. He is hardly a reactionary — he used to be known as ‘Red Fred’ because of his support for the labour movement — but the archdiocese eventually had to settle with the complainants to avoid an embarrassing and expensive trial…

What has become painfully evident is that many of those who brought same-sex marriage to Canada have no respect for freedom of conscience and no intention of tolerating contrary opinion, whether that opinion is shaped by religious or by secular belief.

There have been a lot of cases in Canada and elsewhere that we can consider big infringements of freedom of speech, concerning people who disagreed with the law.

Legalizing same-sex marriage means that the law is saying that same-sex marriage is right, fair and in fact it's a recognition of equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals, in fact this is the way in which both the bill and the whole debate in the UK are framed.

So, everyone who disagrees with something like this which is put in terms of equality of rights will de facto, automatically become a bigot. This has far-reaching consequences for the freedom of speech. If we are serious about freedom of speech, we should understand all these implications of the bill on same-sex marriage.

In numerous ways not homosexuals themselves, who in many cases are opposed to same-sex marriage, but some homosexual activists are acting like Muslims, in that they are trying to impose their views on everybody else and classifying everyone who disagrees with them as bigot, homophobic in one case and Islamophobic in the other.

Even the ad hoc pejoratives newly created for the purpose of ad hominem attacks are similar, with the insistence on the -phobic suffix. When I say "Muslims" I intend the term in a general sense, not a universal sense, i.e. not every Muslim will comply with what the Quran commands, not every single Muslim will be and do what the Quran preaches, prescribes and requires, but the latter, although not being what every Muslim is and does, is what every Muslim should be and do, hence the generalization, but not universalization, in my use of the term "Muslim" here.

The passing of the law on same-sex marriage would have these serious consequences, among others: teachers in state schools will be forced to teach pupils about it and endorse it, or they may be lawfully disciplined or dismissed; parents will not be free to withdraw their children from such lessons, and legal action could be taken against those who do; children will be taught to disregard their parents' opinion as "bigoted", creating a division between kids and parents; NHS/University/Armed Forces/Police chaplains could be legally fired for expressing disagreement even outside work time; so could public sector workers; foster carers could be lawfully rejected by local authorities if they disagree; registrars will be forced to act against their conscience, and conscientious objectors will be fired; churches, synagogues and other places of worship could be forced to perform same-sex marriages if the European Courts overturn the UK government's position on this issue; the Church of England may have to disestablish or face legal action because, as the established Church, it will be obliged to marry same-sex couples; clergy who disagree with same-sex marriage, but belong to denominations that don't, could be taken to court if they follow their conscience; dissenting faith-based charities will be penalized in a number of ways, from a ban from hiring public facilities to being closed down, as has been the case of adoption agencies.

All this because the UK government has chosen to interfere with people's personal relationships, which it has no business of doing, and to decide what the definition of marriage should be, which society, and not government, should decide.

And not because this is an issue that many people care about, not even many gays. The majority of public opinion is actually against same-sex marriage. Opinion polls indicate that, when the rights offered to homosexual couples through civil partnerships are clearly explained, most people in the UK oppose same-sex marriage.

Many polls have been commissioned by both sides of the debate, but using small samples and therefore unreliable. The largest and most statistically significant poll so far is the British Social Attitudes Survey (BSA) 2008, which asked:

“About how same sex couples should be treated in law. Which comes closest to your view … they should be allowed legally to marry OR should be allowed legally to form civil unions, but not marry OR should not be allowed to obtain legal recognition for their relationships?”

The result was: 33.7 % replied that they should be allowed to marry, and 62.6 % answered that they should not (putting together the second two responses).

I'll end with a quotation from the article by Andrew Pierce linked to above:

Mr Cameron seems to have learned nothing from the follies of the Labour government when it comes to imposing an equalities agenda on Britain’s leading faiths.

In 2007, Labour passed legislation which effectively ordered Roman Catholic adoption agencies to place children with same-sex couples.

Now I have to declare an interest in this aspect of the argument: I spent the first two years of my life in a Catholic orphanage in Cheltenham run by nuns and, to this day, I am eternally grateful to the Catholic Children’s Society which placed me in a loving home with my adoptive parents, who cared for me as one of their own. But, disgracefully, societies like the ones that rescued me and thousands of other abandoned children have now been forced to close down because the Catholic Church understandably could not accept the Labour government’s diktat — which ran contrary to its sincerely-held beliefs.

As a lapsed Catholic, I am not going to defend that Church’s teaching that homosexuality is a sin, but to force its adoption agencies to close on a point of moral principle was a scandal which has resulted in countless vulnerable children being denied the possibility of loving homes. What madness!

And for pity’s sake, which gays would have gone to Catholic agencies in the first place?

Those terribly depressing consequences of Labour’s sweeping changes should serve as a warning as the Tory-led Government presses on with the rewriting of the centuries-old tradition of marriage.

UK Authorities Crackdown on Free Speech in the Wake of Woolwich

Now, finally, the British authorities are determined to do something serious and decisive in relation to the Woolwich beheading.

They have warned, charged, arrested and released on bail several people for making inflammatory and anti-Muslim comments on Twitter and Facebook. Police say people should be careful about what they write on Twitter as the 'consequences could be serious'.

Now you're talking! Our authorities are not cowered into submission by a bunch of extremist, radical, dangerous and murderous Islamists, sorry, Islamophobes!

Two of the men arrested were trying to organise an anti-Muslim protest in Bristol and made racist and “anti-religious” remarks.

I like that "anti-religious". Would they have been arrested for insulting Christianity?

The two Bristol men were held under the Public Order Act on suspicion of inciting racial or religious hatred.

In the meantime, militant Muslims like Anjem Chourdary, who mentored and inspired Woolwich beheader Michael Adebolajo, are living free and on £25,000 a year of tax-payer-funded state benefits.

How the Media Solve a Problem Like the Woolwich Attack

The English vocabulary will soon be depleted of words, if everybody starts speaking like the mainstream media. In connection with the Woolwich killing, the media talked about "religious centres", not "mosques", a now obsolete word. Other archaic, disused terms are "Islam" and "Muslim": we just say "man", "woman" and as useful data we add their age.

A news flash on BBC Radio 5 Live delivered the information that, basically, a man had been killed in Woolwich by two men, and there were another man and a woman, both 29, involved. Of course it is that magic age, 29, that makes all the difference. There are plenty of men and women aged 29 who go around slaughtering and slaying, but thankfully none aged 28 or 30. How could anyone listening to that news flash be enlightened on the nature of the act by this kind of very general, non-specific "information"?

A TV news reporter, in a desperate attempt to exculpate Islam, said that there have been more Muslims than non-Muslims killed by Muslim attacks.

What does that mean? The first victims of Islam are Muslims themselves, that seems pretty obvious to me. The simplest way to realize that is to look at the Muslim-majority countries of the world and see in what terrible state they are. But this does not exonerate the doctrine of Islam and its violent nature.

The media commentaries seem to attach a lot of importance to finding out whether this was a "lone wolf" attack or had an organization behind it, the assumption probably being that lone wolves should provoke less concern, causing only a one-off incident.

If that is the assumption, it's far from correct. If we have not had another 7/7 in London and generally the UK, it is because a vast amount of money and resources from our cash-strapped government has had to be allocated to the police and intelligence services' task of keeping an eye on the "Muslim community".

When an attack is planned, it is easier for the security services to discover the plan and foil it. Yesterday's murder, on the surface, looks like it might have been one without much planning or organization: these killings will be practically impossible to be prevented, as the police said.

Therefore, some other Muslim "lone wolf" who has observed the success of this murder and the impossibility of thwarting it may be encouraged to repeat the enterprise. It is likely that we will see many more of these attacks, since the plots by organized groups are more vulnerable to preventative actions by security services.

This is also the prediction of radical Muslim Anjem Choudary, who led the ominous-sounding group Islam4UK, in its own words "working for the establishment of the Shariah - to make it dominate all other ways of life." The group is now banned, but not on YouTube.

Choudary prophesied: "We are a very politicised community. Some people are angered by draconian measures such as 'stop and search' and restrictions on free speech. There is a chance of more lone wolf attacks happening again due to these draconian measures".

A TV commentator said that the killer we saw on a video speaking to the camera is British and has an obvious London accent, but still feels closer to places, like Afghanistan and Iraq, that he's probably never even visited.

But shouldn't that ring an alarm bell? Oughtn't that to be an indication that place of birth and accent are irrelevant in this context? Of course he feels loyal to his "brothers" in Muslim countries. The nation-state is a European invention that followed the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. For Islam the nation is the Ummah, all the world's Muslims. This man does not feel British, he feels Muslim - and many other Muslims living in the UK will feel the same allegiance to the "Nation of Islam", as in the name of a black racist and Islamic supremacist organization in the USA.

The pathetic utterances about searches for "motives" behind the murder are also ridiculous. There is nothing to search: the jihadist on the video shown by TV stations the world over makes it very clear.

In the fuller version of the video published by Jihad Watch, at the beginning he mentions Surat at-Tawba, the ninth sura (chapter) of the Qur'an, which contains exhortations to kill infidels. He says:

The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one. It is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. By Allah, we swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. So what if we want to live by the Shari'a in Muslim lands? Why does that mean you must follow us and chase us and call us extremists and kill us? Rather you lot are extreme. You are the ones that when you drop a bomb you think it hits one person? Or rather your bomb wipes out a whole family? This is the reality. By Allah if I saw your mother today with a buggy I would help her up the stairs. This is my nature. But we are forced by the Qur'an, in Sura At-Tawba, through many ayah in the Qu'ran, we must fight them as they fight us.

He also said that he wanted to "start a war in London tonight".

Could this be any clearer?

The only problem is that this is precisely the part that the mainstream media have cut out: it's not so much a search for motives that is needed, as refraining from covering them up.

It would appear that the jihadists were tired of media lies and wanted the public to know why they committed this atrocious beheading, in this day and age a quintessentially Islamic way of killing. The media won again, by depriving them (and more importantly us) of the benefit of telling (and hearing) the truth.

What a strange coincidence, having omitted just that highly explanatory bit!

The parents of at least one of the two perpetrators came from Nigeria, another interesting country where Muslims slaughter Christians like there's no tomorrow. Nigeria is in fact one of the worst countries in the world in this respect, called by International Christian Concern The deadliest place to be a Christian.

The Christianity Today blog has this information:

Nearly 1,000 Nigerian Christians were killed in 2012, and more than 100 have died in the first few months of 2013, according to Jubilee Campaign. Executive director Ann Buwalda says this accounts for “almost 70 percent of Christians killed globally” last year, making Nigeria “the most lethal country for Christians by a huge margin.”

But, in the West, who cares? And, further, who is informed by the media? After we've been ignoring what Nigerian Muslims do to people in their country, now they are carrying out the same job here. Will we still ignore it?

Another thing that may make you laugh or cry, depending on your temperament, is the recommendation not to wear uniform in public given by commanders to troops, which has led the soldiers to the opposite behaviour of posting pictures of themselves in uniform on social media.

What next? Clergy advised not to wear cassocks and dog collars? Oh that's already happened, after a number of Muslim attacks on priests in East London some years ago.

We have made so many concessions to Islam that one more or less doesn't make much difference. What's a uniform between friends?

This kind of advice is akin to trying to cure pneumonia with paracetamol. The real treatment would be a bit more radical (from "radix", the Latin word for "root"), going to the root of the problem, addressing the disease rather than the symptom: if there were no Muslims in Britain, there would hardly be any terror attacks.

British People No Longer Fooled by Appeasers of Islamic Supremacists

Paul Weston, the Chairman of Liberty GB, the UK's newly-formed counterjihad, truly conservative party, has this interesting article on the party's site commenting on the reactions by PM David Cameron, London Mayor Boris Johnson and assorted mainstream media voices to the Woolwich murder.

I agree with everything he says, except his mention of one perpetrator's Nigerian nationality as a lack of motive for opposing in such a violent manner the UK's military presence in a country which is not his, Afghanistan. For Muslims, European-invented nation-states don't mean as much as the Ummah, the "Nation of Islam", all Muslims of the world.

But he is good. Come and see him, Dr George Whale and Matthew Roberts, speaking at the first-ever public meeting of Liberty GB Saturday 25 May 6.30pm in Croydon (details here).

Here is Paul Weston's great article, "British Elites Wish Away Islamic Reality" (links in the original, emphases mine):

With the first jihadi murder of a British soldier on British soil, the nation awoke on Thursday morning to a new multicultural reality. Prime Minister David Cameron, notably absent from the political scene whilst thousands of young white girls were being raped and tortured by Muslim paedophiles, suddenly discovered his inner Churchill and stated the following:

"What happened yesterday in Woolwich has sickened us all. On our televisions last night and in our newspapers this morning we have all seen images that are deeply shocking. The people who did this were trying to divide us. They should know something like this will only bring us together and make us stronger ... this country will be absolutely resolute in its stand against violent extremism and terror. We will never give in to terror or terrorism.”

Mr Cameron seemed to sound very brave and statesmanlike, but by deliberately leaving out words such as Muslim, Islam or jihad, he rather negated his point about never giving in to terror or terrorism. He then went even further and made the following astonishing quote:

"This view is shared by every community in our country. This was not just an attack on Britain and the British way of life, it was a betrayal of Islam and the Muslim communities. There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act. Britain works with our international partners to make the world safe from terrorism. Terrorism that has taken more Muslim lives than any other religion. It is an utter perversion of the truth to pretend anything different."

London Mayor Boris Johnson also made his appeasing appearance when he claimed "it is completely wrong to blame this killing on Islam but also wrong to draw a link between this murder and British foreign policy." Sorry Boris, you are wrong on both counts. Islam is entirely to blame when it kills in the name of Islam, and if you are going to get involved in the invasion of Islamic countries it would be unduly optimistic if this did not upset home-grown British Muslims who make their loyalty to religion before country very plain indeed ...

But Cameron and Johnson know only too well they are reciting dhimmi appeasement. Robert Spencer at Jihadwatch duly lays out the verses from the Koran acted out by the Muslim murderers yesterday, including this quote from one of the murderers, which strangely was omitted by the mainstream media: "But we are forced by the Qur'an, in Sura At-Tawba, through many ayah in the Qu'ran, we must fight them as they fight us.”

The BBC weighed in with its usual 'apologist for Islam' propaganda. Their home affairs editor, one Dominic Casciani had this to say:

"The mindset of violent jihadists is influenced by many different factors – but one common factor among those who have been involved in acts of politically-motivated violence is the basic principle that they oppose a Western presence in the Islamic world.

"Sometimes when purely political Islamists refer to this presence, they mean cultural pollution – the arrival of influences that they don't particularly want to see. Think scantily-clad pop stars beamed around the world on satellite TV.

"But for jihadists, it really comes down to the presence of soldiers – and an entire framework of belief that sees those personnel, whatever role they have been given under international law, as the enemy of Islam. That argument is often backed up with graphic images online of the suffering of ordinary women and children."

Unfortunately for the BBC appeasement brigade, one of the two Muslim murderers was a Nigerian, and if memory serves me correctly I don't believe British forces are oppressing Nigerians in Nigeria at this moment in time. In point of fact, I believe Nigerian Muslims are extremely busy slaughtering Nigerian Christians, but we must not let such Islamic reality cloud the world-view of the left-liberal children within al-Beeb.

Some 'right-wing' newspapers, such as The Telegraph, allied themselves with Dave's appeasement policy. Their writer Jake Wallis Simons penned an odious column titled "Far-Right EDL Exploit Woolwich Terrorist Attack" which made no mention of the evil of Islam, preferring instead to dwell on the EDL presence in Woolwich, whose members "exist in a state of perpetual febrility, gunpowder waiting for a spark ... led by Tommy Robinson ... fighting the police in Woolwich".

Brave Jake switched off the comments section of course, because he knew his view was out of kilter with mainstream opinion. Another equally cowardly journalist, this time at The Spectator, also turned off the comments section linked to his article "Not In Our Name" which quoted any number of prominent Muslims tweeting their view that Islam had nothing to do with the murder.

One newspaper which did allow comments was the Daily Mail, which carried a story about the EDL presence in Woolwich, along with details of various anti-Islamic slogans sprayed on mosque doors and walls. The comments were interesting. The least popular, with minus 2,616 votes said: "EDL are scum! Violence only generates more violence." The top rated comment however, with 9,046 positive votes said: "Funny how the police managed to clamp down on the EDL immediately yet they took 30 minutes to get to the scene of the murder.”

The appeasing elites appear to be well out of line with popular opinion on this jihadist murder. But pretending it has nothing to do with Islam, whilst suggesting the EDL is just a bunch of opportunistic racist thugs, is clearly no longer being accepted as the truth by the British people. In other words, the left-liberal elites are in terrible trouble and know it.

In 2007 I wrote a two-part article called "Is European Civil War Inevitable by 2025" (see here and here in which I made the following point:

Somewhere between 2017 and 2030, during a period of heightened tension, Islamists in France, Holland or Britain will blow up one church, train or plane too many. Retaliation will begin and they, in turn will respond. So will the spiral begin. When the violence reaches a tipping point every person – be they moderate or extremist in their views – will be forced to take sides in this war. There will be no bystanders, and no civilians. Moderate Muslims will in all likelihood take the sides of the extremists. This war will resemble none of Europe's previous conflicts, with their standing armies massed along clearly delineated lines. In the coming conflagration, it will initially be civilians, armed not with tanks and machine guns, but with knives, bombs and terror, who will call out the dogs of war.

We are slowly getting closer to this inevitable point, no matter how much our quisling rulers strive to deny or wish away the logical consequences of their perverted, leftist, multicultural ideology.

We Are Not Safe in Broken-Borders UK

A very interesting article by Michael Copeland on the UK counterjihad party Liberty GB's website, on how allowing thousands and thousands of people from distant and alien cultures into Britain, many of whom are breaking the law even at the time of entry into the country, is leading us - or already has - to a situation where law is difficult to enforce due to the break of consensus on norms of behaviour.

This obviously follows yesterday's jihadist beheading of a British soldier in broad daylight on a high street of London.

It's got a clever title too, "The West Made Wild" (all emphases added):

Law and order, as we mostly assume, are achieved by legislation and law enforcement. It is not quite as simple as that, though. Observance of the law is not accomplished solely by those agencies: it is the product of consensus. We citizens are aware of the accepted norms and observe them by consensus for the sake of peaceful mutual coexistence. Most of our behaviour is governed by this understanding, by custom and practice, not by detailed knowledge of the law. It is this consensus, though, that has been destroyed – yes, not 'lost', but destroyed.

Governments in the West in recent years have encouraged and permitted the arrival of thousands and thousands and thousands of people from hugely different foreign cultures, including some cultures where carrying a weapon is normal. Some arrivals are of unknown criminal background, and most will, of course, be completely unfamiliar with our laws and customs. Quite a number speak no English. In addition considerable though unascertainable numbers of entrants have arrived unlawfully and are living 'under the radar'. By definition these are not law-abiding, nor are they citizens. As a result the consensus for observance of the law is eliminated. In effect governments in Europe have made the West into a sort of recreated Wild West. The level of law enforcement appropriate for the old consensus is not adequate for the new free-for-all.

We are less safe. Quality of life has been adversely affected. We know that. Perforce our response has been to adjust our behaviour to our own disadvantage, by reducing our expectations to a new lower standard. We do this and subconsciously adjust: the loss becomes normalised. Pensioners refrain from going out at night. Women are not safe on their own. Indigenous British refrain from setting foot in problem areas where they know they are likely to be assaulted. It is a loss of life quality.

When Enoch Powell made the speeches for which the Left have ever since continually vilified him the level of immigration giving him concern was 30,000. Later it grew. By 1978, when Mrs. Thatcher voiced her concern, it was half as much again and more. She said: "We must hold out the clear prospect of an end to immigration because at the moment it is about between 45,000 and 50,000 people coming in a year."

The clear prospect never came. The end never came. Instead, after Labour came to power in 1997 they sent immigration into overdrive. Powered behind the scenes by the EU, and quite possibly helped by petrodollars, this was Labour's social engineering for voter population replacement: the aim was to outnumber the Right and "rub their noses in diversity". The immigration figure for 2011 was 593,000. This is unsustainable. It is a surreal Mickey Mouse and the broomsticks.

This state of affairs has been inflicted on us, largely by the EU. We did not request it. We were never consulted. Our objections have not been heeded. The hideous irony is that we are paying for it, and paying dearly in numerous ways. We pay the government to govern and this is what we get. We pay into the EU but have no control over the unelected decision-drivers. We pay for these arrivals' welfare, housing, health, schooling, interpreters and social facilitators. We pay for bogus 'single mothers' who are, in fact, polygamous wives. We pay in the loss of whole neighbourhoods, whole towns even. We pay in crime. We pay police, expensive lawyers, judges, prisons, the whole apparatus. We are less safe, and, worse, we are bankrupt.

We need a halt to immigration. We need a referendum. There is more trouble ahead.