Category Archives: Immigration
We can all see where this is headed.
Christianity could be facing a catastrophic collapse in Britain according to official figures suggesting it is declining 50 per cent faster than previously thought.
A new analysis of the 2011 census shows that a decade of mass immigration helped mask the scale of decline in Christian affiliation among the British-born population – while driving a dramatic increase in Islam, particularly among the young.
It suggests that only a minority of people will describe themselves as Christians within the next decade, for first time.
Meanwhile almost one in 10 under 25s in Britain is now a Muslim.
The proportion of young people who describe themselves as even nominal Christians has dropped below half for the first time.
Initial results from the 2011 census published last year showed that the total number of people in England and Wales who described themselves as Christian fell by 4.1 million – a decline of 10 per cent. [...]
They disclosed that there were in fact 5.3 million fewer British-born people describing themselves as Christians, a decline of 15 per cent in just a decade.
At the same time the number of Muslims in England and Wales surged by 75 per cent – boosted by almost 600,000 more foreign born followers of the Islamic faith.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
by SPARTA on MAY 9, 2013
Uploaded on Sep 3, 2010 by CBNnewsonline
The French have become increasingly fed up with what they see as the growing Islamization of France… The Christian Broadcasting Network CBN http://www.cbn.com
PARIS – Friday in Paris. A hidden camera shows streets blocked by huge crowds of Muslim worshippers and enforced by a private security force.
This is all illegal in France: the public worship, the blocked streets, and the private security. But the police have been ordered not to intervene.
It shows that even though some in the French government want to get tough with Muslims and ban the burqa, other parts of the French government continue to give Islam a privileged status.
An ordinary French citizen who has been watching the Islamization of Paris decided that the world needed to see what was happening to his city. He used a hidden camera to start posting videos on YouTube. His life has been threatened and so he uses the alias of “Maxime Lepante.”
His camera shows that Muslims “are blocking the streets with barriers. They are praying on the ground. And the inhabitants of this district cannot leave their homes, nor go into their homes during those prayers.”
“The Muslims taking over those streets do not have any authorization. They do not go to the police headquarters, so it’s completely illegal,” he says.
The Muslims in the street have been granted unofficial rights that no Christian group is likely to get under France’s Laicite’, or secularism law.
“It says people have the right to share any belief they want, any religion,” Lepante explained. “But they have to practice at home or in the mosque, synagogues, churches and so on.”
Some say Muslims must pray in the street because they need a larger mosque. But Lepante has observed cars coming from other parts of Paris, and he believes it is a weekly display of growing Muslim power.
“They are coming there to show that they can take over some French streets to show that they can conquer a part of the French territory,” he said.
France’s Islamic Future?
If France faces an Islamic future, a Russian author has already written about it. The novel is called “The Mosque of Notre Dame, 2048,” a bestseller in Russia, not in France.
French publisher Jean Robin said the French media ignored the book because it was politically incorrect.
“Islam is seen as the religion of the poor people, so you can’t say to the poor people, ‘You’re wrong,’ otherwise, you’re a fascist,” Robin explained.
The book lays out a dark future when France has become a Muslim nation, and the famous cathedral has been turned into a mosque.
Whether that plot is farfetched depends on whom you ask. Muslims are said to be no more than 10 percent of the French population, although no one knows for sure because French law prohibits population counts by religion.
But the Muslim birthrate is significantly higher than for the native French. Some Muslim men practice polygamy, with each extra wife having children and collecting a welfare check.
“The problem of Islam is more than a problem of numbers,” said French philosopher Radu Stoenescu, an Islamic expert who debates Muslim leaders on French TV. “The problem is one of principles. It’s an open question. Is Islam an ideology or just a creed?”
“It doesn’t matter how many there are,” he aded. “The problem is the people who follow Islam; they’re somehow in a political party, which has a political agenda, which means basically implementing Sharia and building an Islamic state.”
In Denial or Fed Up
From the 1980s until recently, criticizing or opposing Islam was considered a social taboo, and so the government and media effectively helped Islam spread throughout France.
“We were expecting Islam to adapt to France and it is France adapting to Islam,” Robin said.
About the burqa controversy, one French Muslim man told a reporter that Europeans should respect Muslim dress. One Parisian woman wearing a headscarf said “the veil is in the Koran” and “we only submit to God and nobody else.”
But even if many government elites are in France are in denial over Islam, the people in the streets increasingly are not. Some have become fed up with what they see as the growing Islamization of France.
They’ve started staging pork and wine “aperitifs,” or cocktail parties in the street. They’re patriotic demonstrations meant to strike back against Islam. Another national demonstration is planned for Saturday, Sept. 4.
A Warning to the West
The French parliament debated the burqa law in this year. Jean-Francois Cope, president of the Union for a Popular Movement political party, has a warning for the West and for America.
“We cannot accept the development of such practice because it’s not compatible with the life in a modern society, you see,” he said. “And this question is not only a French question. You will all have to face this challenge. ”
For more insight on the slide toward a post-Christian Western society, check out Dale Hurd’s blog Hurd on the Web.
For more insight on ‘Islamization’ around the world, check out Stakelbeck on Terror
**Originally published September 1, 2010.
1. What made you get involved in countering radical Islam in France?
For me, as for many people, 9/11 was a turning point. It was the proof that Muslim terrorists will stop at nothing to kill as many people as possible. I began to read more and more about Islam and its threat, in the books and in the news. Then, in July 2009, I witnessed, in the heart of Paris, my beloved town, thousands of Muslims taking over 4 streets, and praying on the pavement.
2. What have you done as part of these efforts?
In August 2009, I joined Riposte Laïque, a French secular organization dedicated to fight islamization. I bought a hidden camera, and went in the 18th district of Paris, to videotape those illegal Muslim prayers, which take place there each Friday, only 500 meters away from Sacré-Coeur, a big and famous church. In one year, I have produced 40 videos showing this scandal, and I have uploaded them on our French YouTube channel. I also wrote more than 80 articles denouncing this scandal. Finally, one week ago, I opened a new channel on YouTube, totally in English, on which I have already uploaded 5 of my videos translated in English. I’m planning to translate and upload on this channel 30 other videos showing the illegal Muslim prayers in Paris, in the coming months, with the help of a professional translator.
3. How do you define radical Islam? How is it different than Islam?
Radical Islam equals Mohammed plus the Koran, and Mohammed plus the Koran equals Islam, so radical Islam and Islam essentially are the same thing. The only difference is that radical Muslims don’t hesitate to kill, while standard Muslims don’t usually kill. But both share the same goal: to impose Islam on the world by establishing a worldwide caliphate under shariah, Islamic law.
4. What was the most shocking thing you discovered in your fight against radical Islam?
Everything in radical Islam is shocking, and therefore everything in Islam is shocking, since Islam is the doctrine of radical Islam. I watched some horrendous videos of Muslims slaughtering and beheading men and women, and many photos of Afghan women disfigured by sulfuric acid, I read about all those good Muslim fathers who suddenly butcher their daughters because they haven’t made their prayer or because they have put some lipstick on… The list could go forever.
5. What do you think the government could and should do to help stop radical Islam?
Shariah law has to be denounced as fascism and banned from all the Free World. Governments have to arrest and expel all Muslims who refuse to denounce shariah law. Immigration from Muslim countries shall be completely stopped. Islamic finance has to be banned, and all money transfers from Muslim countries forbidden.
6. Is radical Islam something that should concern everyone? Why or why not?
Radical Islam’s aim, the same as Islam’s aim, is to submit or kill every human being. So everyone is at risk and should be concerned.
7. You may not be a prophet, but do you think radical Islam will ever be stopped?
Yes, radical Islam, and its doctrine, Islam, will be stopped. There are 5 times more non-Muslims than Muslims in the world, and the fastest growing religion is Christianity, not Islam. So the Muslims don’t have demography on their side, contrary to what the mainstream media say. But this will not be an easy task. Many people are killed by Muslims around the world and many more people may die before Islam is stopped.
8. What’s the danger of radical Islam to the typical person?
The first danger is simply to be killed. Then, to be maimed or hurt in a bombing. Then, to be threatened to be killed if the person refuses to convert to Islam. Then, to be raped, if the person is a woman wearing a skirt. And so on.
9. How could the average person help fight radical Islam?
There are many way to fight radical Islam, and its doctrine, Islam. First is to inform people of the danger, like what Radicalislam.org does. You can make personal inquiries about illegal actions committed by Muslims, like I do with my hidden camera. Contact the MSM and ask them to report the truth about Islam, and to stop to ban the words “Muslims” and “Islam” when Muslims commit a crime or a bombing, as they often do. Tell your elected official to fight shariah. Demonstrate against political leaders who are siding with Muslims, and are therefore traitors. Vote for political leaders who are aware of the threat that the Free World is facing.
10. You have an opportunity to tell something to our 45,000+ subscribers. What do you wish you to say?
I want to say that we, people of the Free World, are facing a threat even bigger than what Nazism was. The more we wait to fight back, the more innocent people will die, killed by Muslims. This is an existential battle. No less. I want to survive, do you?
From 1389 Blog: http://1389blog.com/
Gets what you wonder? This!
Fox News analyst Bob Beckel defended his comments about temporarily prohibiting Muslim students from entering the country Tuesday saying it wasn’t a position he takes lightly.
“My point is not to suggest that there’s a cell of 70,000 people here. What I’m suggesting is that those students coming from those countries where [they] harbor resentment against the United States, if we could save one Boston marathon event or one child’s life by saying we’re going to take a two-year hiatus from countries that we know do not like us and know from whence terrorism is coming,” Beckel told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly on her show.
On Monday evening’s edition of “The Five,” which Beckel co-hosts, he suggested “cutting off” Muslim students from coming into this country for some time, in response to the Boston bombing.
“I think we really have to consider, that given the fact so many people hate us, we’re going to have to cut off Muslim students from coming to this country for some period of time so that we can at least absorb what we got, look at what we’ve got and decide whether some of the people here should be sent back home or sent to prison,” Beckel said Monday.
We area sovereign nation, and therefore possess every right to determine who we give visas to.
From he Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Posted by Defend the Modern World
I am not a moderate on the Islam-in-Europe debate. I do not want ‘European’ Muslims reformed, still less integrated. I oppose any kind of Muslim presence in Europe on the grounds of security and the preservation of liberal society. In my more sentimental moments, I long for a sublime evening of victory, when young Englanders toast with drinks and fireworks, a new, Muslim-free London.
So you see, my position has at least clarity on its side. What it lacks, still, is popular understanding or support. Who in Europe speaks openly such ideas?
“Lots of people!” might come back the answer, so let’s redesign the question.
Who in Europe with any power speaks such things?
The answer here is ‘a few’; a tiny clique, most members of it already familiar to one another, and to the rest of us. One of them is a Dutch politician named Geert Wilders.
Since 9/11, only Wilders has spoken clearly about the endgame of our confrontation with Islamism. While most are happy to state in a variety of new, tedious ways the nature of the problem, Wilders strides ahead into the (altogether more perilous) domain of how to fix it.
Who has the stomach to join him?
Not the Dutch apparently, who lamentably knocked the flame-haired hero out of the political mainstream in the 2012 election. The BBC said, at the time, that the Dutch had ‘bigger’ things on their mind than Wilders and his ‘fringe’ concerns….
Really? Like what? Europe, Taxes, Unemployment?
All of these will be become meaningless if Wilders is not re-embraced.
You see, the Islam/Europe battle is winner-takes-all. If the Muslims win, the Christians will be made extinct. If the Christians are to win, then Muslims must be made extinct from Christian nations. This understanding motivates the truest type of opposition to Islam in Europe. All others, however admirable, are falling short.
When Wilders elucidates his manifesto, mouths are typically left long and open. The politician is direct like a bullet, sharp like a meat cleaver and (most troubling for the bourgeois) entirely unconcerned with the sentiment of political correctness.
But however ‘horrifying’ they are, Wilders’ political views have behind them a very sensible moral realization – one that we must all, in time, heed for ourselves, and this is it -
Given that there are still many more Christians than Muslims in the Netherlands, the vital ethical measure concerns which option harms the greatest number – the forcible Islamisation of the 80% who do not currently profess Islam, or the Christianisation or expulsion of the 20% of the population who do, and the only sane, rational answer to this is the former. The second, though unpleasant, rescues us from the first.
Christopher Caldwell in his admirable but incomplete book ‘Reflections on the Revolution in Europe’, went so far as to defend the idea that native Europeans have a moral right to say who should enter their countries and who should not. Perhaps predictably, reviewers were violently shocked by this. Caldwell you see, is not some fringe lunatic, but a lead writer for the Financial Times of London. And yet here he was, openly promoting a selective immigration policy!
Such outrage as greeted Caldwell’s book, demonstrates how much work still has to be done on this debate. If people are shocked by the suggestion that future immigration must be modified for the sake of social cohesion, how distant they must be from the idea that previous immigration must be modified.
Perhaps they understand that there is only one way of modifying immigration that has already taken place, and that is deportation. Wilders, alone in the political class, has recognised this, and has spoken of his intentions to work towards that end.
If you find Wilders shocking now, then brace yourself for a surprisingly ‘shocking’ future. Islamisation in Europe is an entirely safe prediction, or as safe as can be made. The sturdy force of mathematics supports it. We know that the number of Muslims will increase, and because of those increasing numbers that the number of converts will also grow, and because of those conversions that the number of excited Islamists taking up arms will rise too. Information like this should terrify anyone who believes in a liberal, tolerant society.
After the 2012 elections, Wilders is politically alone. He is jogging on ahead, as if in a different race to those behind him.
But he isn’t, and if he loses, we all do.
From Defend the Modern World: http://defendthemodernworld.wordpress.com/
AUSTRALIA asking its senior citizens, yes, SENIOR CITIZENS, to take Muslim illegal aliens into their homes
asylum welfare benefits seekers will be used as live-in companions for retirees and to ‘help out’ on farms across Western Australia under a new homestay scheme starting next month and backed by the Dhimmigration Department.
(Well, there you go, a win-win solution for the Gillard government – get rid of the ‘no-longer productive’ retirees while getting cheap housing for the Muslim entitlement whores)
The Australian (h/t Liz) Every West Australian with a spare room is being urged to sign up for the Homestay Helping Hand program, with hosts paid $50 a week for each asylum seeker in exchange for providing board and food.
Asylum seekers, in return, are urged to “help out around the home or farm”, “pick up the shopping”, or “provide company for someone who’s lonely.” (Will the government provide emergency neck alarms so the elderly hosts can call police after they’ve raped, beaten, or robbed by their new “companions”)
Muslim invaders torch Christmas Island detention center
The scheme will be run by the Australian Homestay Network, which finds accommodation for asylum seekers after they are processed on Christmas Island and released by the Immigration Department on bridging visas while their refugee claims are assessed.
Villawood Detention Center after being torched by Muslim invaders
Executive chairman David Bycroft said placements would start within a month and it was a “chance for Australians to put their hand up and be part of the solution instead of complaining about the problem.” He said live-in asylum seekers could not replace paid staff but they were available to help with jobs and chores around the house or farm.
The scheme is separate from another homestay program called the Community Placement Network (CPN), which started in May last year but has stalled with just over 30 placements so far this year. CPN placements last six weeks but in the Helping Hand program, asylum seekers can stay with a host for years if both parties want it.
Mr Bycroft said there would soon be thousands of would-be refugees living in the community under the Helping Hand program because Australia “faces a massive wave of asylum seekers looking for affordable accommodation”. “The asylum seeker can help out, pick up the shopping, perhaps drive the car,” he said.
“We’re after retirees or couples, maybe their kids have left the home, they’ve got empty rooms and they want to do something good. For a single person it gives them company a great idea for someone who’s lonely.”
SHE admits to “a little bit of trepidation”, but Fremantle retiree Maureen Ramsay will soon open her home to an asylum seeker and says she is looking forward to it. The former TAFE lecturer and manager is a mother of four and grandmother of eight who now lives alone and has two empty bedrooms.
Fremantle retiree Maureen Ramsay, with a death wish, will soon open her home to an asylum seeker and says she is looking forward to it
“I feel quite concerned about the situation for asylum seekers and refugees and I thought, ‘I can do something, I’ve got space’,” the 70-year-old said. ”It might be intense at the beginning but I feel it would be more frightening for them than for me. (Lock this woman up, she has clearly lost her mind)
“I have no idea what to expect. I suppose there will be some cultural hurdles. They may not speak English. (Yep, Granny, ‘communication’ will be your main problem)
“Some of my friends think I’m quite naive and I guess I have a little bit of trepidation because some people are quite anti-refugees and think that anyone who is sympathetic is a bit naive. I don’t agree with that. We should give people a chance.
Mrs Ramsay said her family supported her decision. She said the $50 a week she will receive under the Homestay Helping Hand program would mostly cover the cost of providing meals.
From Bare Naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
Found at 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
02 Tuesday Apr 2013
“Europe becomes more and more a province of Islam, a colony of Islam. And Italy is an outpost of that province, a stronghold of that colony…In each of our cities lies a second city: a Muslim city, a city run by the Quran. A stage of Islamic expansion.”
The most beautiful, talented and inspiring political writer of the millennial age was an Italian named Oriana Fallaci.
Her name, so musically pleasant to hear and say, unlocks a reputation of beauty, courage and indefatigability (let’s not allow that last word to be forever tarnished by Mr Galloway).
Fallaci wrote, before most of us had found our bearings on the issue, the two greatest books about the Islamisation of Europe ever written – “The Rage and the Pride” and “The Force of Reason”.
These volumes are not like any other book on the subject published before or since. They are written not by an academic, or a soapbox agitator, but by a witness to history of the first rank. The language used in the expression of their content is so passionate, well-chosen and spiritual, it easily ascends to poetry. While the books aren’t particularly complex, they reward slow and thoughtful reading and settle eventually more as philosophy than journalism.
Praise for Ms Fallaci (particularly in her native Italy) often takes on a tone reminiscent of Saint-worship. This is easily explained. As a polemicist, she wrote with an emotional, Latin urgency which tends to either greatly repel or greatly endear.
When her writing repels, it shocks. When it endears, it turns one from an admirer into a devotee.
Fallaci’s prematurity created a strong and strange mystique, much like that which attaches to George Orwell and his lonely stand against prevailing orthodoxies. Fallaci like Orwell, got to the point of the era before the intellectuals. She had the correct answer before the question was widely known. To protest against Muslim immigration now is common-sense, but when Fallaci wrote those books, it was regarded as outrageous racism. Her willingness to be misunderstood in this respect truly deserves the epithet ‘heroic’.
Fallaci was instrumental in waking up the Western intellect to the horror of Muslim immigration (and not just terrorism). Her books predate those which made the anti-Islamisation position easy and fashionable. Her volumes never topped the bestseller stands either here or in Europe. She tragically died of cancer before her opinions were vindicated or broadly accepted. As terrible as such facts are, they have served to embalm her reputation from the arrows of her (numerous) critics.
Fallaci’s physical beauty greatly amplifies the effect of her writing. This brilliant, beautiful, empowered Italian woman when compared against the house-bound wretches of the Islamic World adds great emphasis to our struggle. How could we give up the cultural foundations which allow for this superior kind of womanhood?
Age and ill-health never completely diminished Fallaci’s appearance. At 75, she still looked like a film star. The fight for liberty never looked so dignified.
Leftists – of course – continue to despise her. For as long as they do this, I will despise Leftists. On dozens of occasions liberals have trotted out the same Fallaci quote in which she complains that Muslim immigrants ‘breed like rats’ and held it up as if it was a bleeding knife, hard evidence of some kind of nascent National Socialism in her personality.
But this is ridiculous. As a metaphor, it is nicely to the point and entirely correct. Muslim immigrants are breeding like rats. Rats, rabbits, bacteria…whatever you might want to compare it to, that is what they are doing, and should it continue, we will end up with a continent burning with hatred and war.
Fallaci’s tone was often furious, even – some say - ’fanatical’, but since our enemies are so easily enlivened by the dictats of Sharia law, we could do worse than become fanatical about our own beliefs and virtues. The Muslims are fanatical about the need for women to be veiled. We can (and should) match that fanaticism with a desire that they should remain free. Let’s not be afraid of anger, even less of passion.
As we go forward in the struggle to avoid the destiny she forewarned us of, Fallaci’s books must be our manifesto. I will continue to read her and take encouragement from her words. I hope that she will not be forgotten now that her views have become widespread. No-one has yet matched her tone of moral anger, her poetry, her cruel exactness. Her words still perfectly define our challenge….
“There are moments in Life when keeping silent becomes a fault, and speaking an obligation. A civic duty, a moral challenge, a categorical imperative from which we cannot escape.”
From Defending the Modern World: http://defendthemodernworld.wordpress.com/
As promised in the comments here a couple of days ago, Paul Weston presents the evidence for a carefully planned takedown of the English Defence League by the “Conservative” British government.
David Cameron Declares War on the EDL
by Paul Weston
David Cameron’s Con/Lib government really doesn’t like the English Defence League. Here is Cameron on the EDL:
“The hon. Gentleman speaks not only for his constituents, but, frankly, for the whole House in deprecating the English Defence League and all it stands for. On its attempt to say that it will somehow help to restore order, I have described some parts of our society as sick, and there is none sicker than the EDL.”
When Cameron talks about Islam, however, he adopts a slightly different approach:
“Many Muslims I’ve talked to about these issues are deeply offended by the use of the word ‘Islamic’ or ‘Islamist’ to describe the terrorist threat we face today… it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.”
So some Muslims feel upset that Islamic terrorists are carrying out terror attacks both in the name of Islam and in accordance with the Koran, which Cameron apparently sympathises with, but when it comes to the EDL he hates everything they stand for?
But what does the EDL stand for? They would rather our vulnerable young girls were not gang-raped; that sharia law should have no place in Britain; that young girls should not suffer female genital mutilation; that imported imams should cease encouraging sedition, terrorism, anti-Semitism, the murder of homosexuals, the inequality of women, etc. etc. etc.
And Mr Cameron is against The EDL And All It Stands For?? The British government, police and media were able to keep the countless Muslim gang-rape abominations away from the mainstream news-headlines for over a decade, so perhaps one can understand Cameron’s hatred of the EDL, without whom the internationally embarrassing Muslim gang-rape news would have been buried for another decade — along with several thousand new victims…
So no one should be surprised that a traitor and a quisling — for that is what David Cameron is — who clearly hates his country, its traditions, and its people, should now be trying to designate the EDL a terrorist organisation with a view to closing them down completely.
In order to do this, he has assembled a varied group of high level people to get the process underway. Cameron, incidentally, does not mix socially with the centre-right. Cameron clan dinner parties hosted by his alleged Marxist wife attract predominantly the great and the good of the leftist world, which perhaps include The Guardian’s Mark Smith, who wrote the following on 13 March 2013:
The EDL is exploiting concerns about sex-grooming gangs to fuel its anti-Islam agenda and help forge networks with far-right groups across Europe, according to a university report… Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens of KCL’s International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation said: ‘The EDL has successfully exploited concerns about the sex-grooming gangs in the north of England, turning the issue into one of Islam versus the west…there’s a danger that the UK will export this kind of vicious, far-right activism to the rest of the continent.’
The EDL and its partners have worsened community tensions and further promoted ideas that helped inspire the Norwegian mass killer Anders Breivik… this ‘rape jihad’, as it has become known, is a significant concern for the EDL, says Meleagrou-Hitchens. ‘Interest has risen since revelations in the British media about the existence of sex-grooming gangs made up of Muslim men of south-Asian origin.’
The far-right group is sharing these tactics with partners in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and other countries, the report found. The EDL has had an online presence for some time but it is making efforts to move to the physical world… the attacks in Norway (Breivik) were the first example of an individual inspired to pursue terrorism in direct response to perceived Islamisation, and they are unlikely to be the last.
Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens, the author of the report quoted by the Guardian above, is no lightweight. His organisation, based at King’s College London, is called the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR) which is a counter-terrorist organisation taken very seriously by the British government.
The ICSR held a conference recently, which it described as follows:
At this major conference, experts, analysts and policymakers from across Europe will discuss the evolving threat from a new breed of far right extremists, the so-called “Counter-Jihad” movement. The event will also launch ICSR’s latest policy report A Neo-Nationalist Network: the English Defence League and Europe’s counter-jihad movement written by Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens and Hans Brun.
There were some very influential people present at this conference, including: Ian Bradshaw, from the ‘Tackling Extremism & Hate Crime Division’ of the government’s Department for Communities and Local Government. Matthew Collins, Hope not Hate. Jonathan Birdwell, Demos. Maria Margaronis, The Nation. Magnus Ranstorp, Swedish National Defence College. Vidhya Ramalingam, who specialises in countering far-right extremism, from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, and Professor Roger Griffin, Oxford Brookes University.
The conference was moderated by Professor Peter Neumann and Dr. John Bew of ICSR and was hosted in partnership with the Community Security Trust (CST); the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies (CATS) and the Swedish National Defence College which has high level military links.
The keynote speech at this ICSR conference was delivered by the Conservative minister James Brokenshire, Parliamentary Under Secretary for Security who made some of the following observations, as reported by the Evening Standard:
Right-wing extremists could pose an al-Qaeda-style threat in Britain, the security minister warned today. James Brokenshire said the “ugly face” of the far Right was a “real” danger to public safety and had the same aim as Islamist extremists of wanting to reshape society… He warned of the risk of attacks by Right-wing “lone wolves” [a.k.a. Breivik — PW].
He also said the activities of the English Defence League could ‘stoke radicalisation’ and push people towards terrorism. Such groups “can provide ‘gateway ideologies’ through which individuals may migrate to more extreme organisations… where these lines blur, from a counter-terrorism perspective, is where the real risk lies.’
The people at this conference range from the Neo-Communist hard Left, all the way through to genuine military counter-terrorism departments and high level politicians. When they invoke al-Qaeda and Breivik in relation to the EDL, we can see clearly the direction David Cameron is taking. This is a blatant attempt to link the EDL with genuine terrorism in order to close them down.
This is just the first stage. Get genuine counter-terrorist organisations and friendly left-wing media outlets like The Guardian to denounce the EDL, link them to Breivik and al-Qaeda and then get Britain’s government security chief to say the same. Stage two — having set the EDL up for a fall — is to place an MI5 man within the organisation; give him a fake bomb and a handy mosque and arrest him in a huge televised police operation just before he was due to “set it off” then blaze the headlines across the country: “EDL Terrorist Bomber Arrested at East London Mosque” and bob’s your uncle, proscribe the EDL under counter-terrorism laws.
If they succeed in this, which I think they will, then Britain will have taken just another step toward temporary totalitarianism which will replaced well before 2050 by outright Islamic rule. Cameron is now on the list of quislings who must one day be held accountable for treason.
Paul Weston is a British-based writer who focuses on the damage done to Western Civilisation by the hard left’s ongoing cultural revolution, which seeks to destroy the Christian, capitalist and racial base of the West. He is the leader of Liberty GB, his website may be found here, and his political Facebook page here.
For links to his previous essays, see the Paul Weston Archives.
From Gates of Vienna: http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/03/david-cameron-declares-war-on-the-edl/#more-27717
For all the phony hype about bullying, here’s a real bullying story that doesn’t seem to be getting much traction in the media. I wonder why:
The devastated family of a nine-year-old boy who hanged himself say he took his life after racist taunts by Asian bullies.
Aaron Dugmore — thought to be one of Britain’s youngest suicides after bullying — was found in his bedroom after months of jibes at school, they claim.
His family say that Aaron was threatened with a plastic knife by one Asian pupil — who warned him: “Next time it will be a real one.”
But despite complaints to the school, where 75 per cent of pupils come from ethnic backgrounds, they claim nothing was done to stop the bullying.
“Asian” is the British media’s euphemism for Muslim. Usually it refers to Pakistani welfare colonists.
Here’s one of the multiculti gems young Aaron brought home from his 75% non-British school, according to his stepfather:
“He said one kid even said to him, ‘My dad says all the white people should be dead’.”
Our moonbat rulers don’t put it in such coarse terms. They believe white people should be displaced. As this continues to occur, driven by liberal welfare and immigration policy and demented multicultural ideology, schools will become ever more terrifying places for children unlucky enough not to be “ethnic.”
On tips from Sean C and Wilberforce.
UK: Islamist Cleric Tells Followers To Sponge Off British Society By Going On Welfare, “Claim Your Jihad Seeker’s Allowance”…
We should be learning lessons on what not to do from the Brits, and yet we seem to be headed down the same path.
Via The Sun:
SCROUNGING hate preacher Anjem Choudary has told fanatics to copy him by going on benefits — urging: “Claim your Jihad Seeker’s Allowance.”
He cruelly ridiculed non-Muslims who held down 9-to-5 jobs all their lives and said sponging off them made plotting holy war easier.
The Sun secretly filmed him over three meetings also saying leaders such as David Cameron and Barack Obama should be KILLED, grinning as he branded the Queen “ugly” and predicting a “tsunami” of Islamic immigrants would sweep Europe.
Father-of-four Choudary, who has praised terrorist outrages, pockets more than £25,000 a year in benefits — £8,000 more than the take-home pay of some soldiers fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.
He laughed as he told supporters:
“You find people are busy working the whole of their life. They wake up at 7 o’clock. They go to work at 9 o’clock. They work for eight, nine hours a day. They come home at 7 o’clock, watch EastEnders, sleep, and they do that for 40 years of their life. That is called slavery.
“And at the end of their life they realise their pension isn’t going to pay out anything, the mortgage isn’t going to pay out anything.
“Basically they are going to lose everything, commit suicide. What kind of a life is that, honestly. That is the life of kuffar (non-believer).”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
America’s facing so many problems and the Dems are focused like a laser on pandering to a tiny fraction of the population.
Via The Hill:
More than a dozen House lawmakers reintroduced legislation that would let immigrants in same-sex marriages sponsor their partners for legal residency.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) reintroduced the bill, the Uniting American Families Act, on Tuesday. The legislation is cosposored by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Reps. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.), Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.), David Cicilline (D-R.I.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Mark Takano (D-Calif.), Sean Maloney (D-N.Y.), Mike Honda (D-Calif.), and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).
Currently, only immigrants in heterosexual marriages can sponsor their spouses for legal residency. The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) would include “permanent partner” in the Immigration and Naturalization act in order to include immigrants in same-sex relationships. The same benefits and penalties applied to heterosexual marriages would apply to same sex marriages under the legislation.
From Weasel Zippers:
Where Will All The Native Anglo-Saxons Go Now That They Have Turned Their Country Over to The mooslim Parasites?
BRITISH WHITE FLIGHT? The unintended consequences of forced multiculturalism when the majority of immigrants are Muslim supremacists
The failure of multiculturalism in the UK is directly connected to the mass importation of a group who not only refuses to assimilate with the native culture, but desires to replace it with Islamic culture, laws, and traditions of misogyny, bigotry, racism, and homophobia.
UK Daily Mail Britain is ‘self-segregating’ as white families flee urban areas for the countryside and outer suburbs. The trend is causing an ‘ethnic cliff’, in which the proportion of households from minority backgrounds is vastly different in areas just a few miles apart.
Some outer London boroughs – including Enfield, Waltham Forest and Redbridge – have seen their white British population drop by as much as a quarter over the past decade. The same applies to urban areas around the capital such as Luton, Reading and Bedfordshire.
Meanwhile, the white British population in many suburban and rural districts just next door has soared, according to research produced by Birkbeck College, University of London, in conjunction with think tank Demos.
‘Between 2001 and 2011, the proportion of white British in London’s population fell from 58 to 45 per cent,’ said Birkbeck professor of politics Eric Kaufmann. ’The share of ethnic minorities reached 40 per cent of the total, a 39 per cent increase.’
‘This has caught many by surprise… Analysts implied that London would not become “majority minority” in most of our lifetimes, but the latest census figures suggest otherwise.’ Affluent white families from diverse wards in London are shifting to less diverse (less Muslim) wards in the outer suburbs.
In the extreme example of Barking and Dagenham, the research shows, a third of the white British population departed between 2001 and 2011. Since many lack the resources to move or are council tenants, this suggests that a majority of local white British who could leave may have done so.
The phenomenon has gone largely unnoticed until now because British city centres tend to have a fairly broad racial mix visible on the streets, in shops and restaurants and in many workplaces. Prof Kaufmann added: ‘While white avoidance of ethnic (Muslim) minorities is the first thought that comes to mind, it’s important to consider the alternative explanations. Most diverse wards are urban and poor.
‘Whites may be leaving for better schools, cheaper homes, fresher air, or because they are more likely to be retirees, wealthier or better educated. Only a statistical approach which controls for these factors can tell us whether ethnic preferences are key.’ (Nope, they are moving to get away from Muslims. Period)
The share of minorities in London has increased by a percentage point a year since 1991. Prof Kaufmann likened the situation to that in the US – where white Americans leave or avoid ‘majority minority’ neighbourhoods and seek out areas that are over 70 per cent white.
He added: ‘Whether Britain will follow in America’s footsteps is an open question: much will depend on the residential preferences of working-class British whites and whether they are able to realise them.’
From Bare naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
AUSTRALIA: New legislation could make it unlawful to wear a cross if another person (i.e., Muslim) is offended because of that person’s religion
The Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012
An unprecedented threat to freedom of speech and thought
On 20 November 2012, the Commonwealth Attorney-General made public an Exposure Draft of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 (‘the Bill’). The Bill was referred to an inquiry of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Submissions to the inquiry close on 21 December 2012, with its report due by 18 February 2013.
The Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 makes a number of significant changes to anti- discrimination law in Australia, including:
• broadening the definition of discrimination to include conduct that ‘offends’ and ‘insults’ (clause 19-2)
• making it easier for a person to claim they were discriminated against, by requiring them to establish only that they were personally offended, not that a reasonable person would have been offended (cl 19-2)
• expanding the range of personal characteristics against which it is unlawful to discriminate, to include not only matters such as disability, race, and religion, but also ‘political opinion’ and ‘social origin’ (cl 17-1)
• reducing the legal protection of a person accused of discrimination, by: declaring them guilty unless they prove their innocence, i.e. the ‘onus of proof’ is reversed (cl 124-1) restricting their right to legal representation (cl 110-4) requiring them to pay all the costs of their own defence even if they are found to be innocent (cl 133)
If passed into law, the intended consequences of such a draconian Bill are far-reaching.
Impact on freedom of speech and thought
• Almost any comment about anything has the potential to offend someone under the Bill. There would be a chilling effect on freedom of speech and thought if someone could claim the expression of a political viewpoint insulted them and was therefore discriminatory.
• The consequences of the Bill go beyond restricting speech. Flying the Australian flag would be unlawful if a person felt such an action insulted them on the basis of their political opinion.
Impact on freedom of religion
• The Bill would make it unlawful for a person to publicly express their religious belief (for example, by wearing a crucifix) if another person was offended because of that other person’s religion. (How about wearing a burqa or headbag?)
• The Bill would also make it unlawful to debate religion and religious practices if another person was offended because of their religion.
Government officials gain enormous power
• Both the potential grounds of discrimination in the Bill—such as a person’s political opinion or their social origin—and the defences against claims of discrimination—such as the conduct being ‘in good faith’ and having a ‘legitimate aim’ (cl 23-3)—are unclear and vague. These ambiguous terms give bureaucrats and judges broad discretionary power to determine the boundaries of lawful behaviour.
• Discrimination on the grounds of political opinion and social origin is unlawful if it is in connection with ‘work and work-related areas’ (cl 22-3). These terms are so broad as to potentially apply to spheres of activity well beyond the workplace. Furthermore, the government intends to take a ‘broad’ interpretation of what constitutes ‘work- related areas.’
Process and penalties
• An accusation of unlawful discrimination starts a legal process that could last years. Complaints are heard by the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Federal Magistrates Court, or the Federal Court of Australia. Penalties for unlawful discrimination range from a forced apology, to the payment of monetary damages, to court-ordered censorship (cl 125).
To read the IPA’s submission visit Freedom Watch IPA or for more information contact: Simon Breheny, Director, IPA Legal Rights Project, 0400 967 382, email@example.com
From Bare Naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
Found at FIJAW: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
The new American dream?
Via Daily Caller:
Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your new country can do for you.
“Welcome to USA.gov,” a website maintained by the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), bills itself as the “primary gateway for new immigrants to find basic information on how to settle in the United States” — featuring a prominent section for new immigrants about how to access government benefits.
“Depending on your immigration status, length of time in the United States, and income, you may be eligible for some federal benefit programs,” the Web page reads.
“Government assistance programs can be critically important to the well-being of some immigrants and their families. Frequently, however, there is a lack of information about how to access such benefits. Benefit programs can be complicated and you may be given misleading information about how they operate.”
The DHS page offers links to government websites that explain how to access benefits including food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, Medicare, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the “official website with information on all available federal benefit programs,” with a nonworking link to Benefits.gov.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
But it keeps the left alive. Without diversity, the left is a bunch of corpulent unions protecting their pensions while the young people look at brochures of London and Los Angeles and finish their fourth degree. Without it, the left eventually dries up, blows away in the wind and dies after running a few protests against austerity and then has to implement it anyway.
Diversity isn’t a moral principle. It’s oxygen for a dead movement. It’s the only way that the left can stay alive long enough to fulfill the accidental mission of every parasite by killing its host. It’s the numbers game and as long as the left can cobble together these coalitions built on the backs of immigrants and tied together with community associations and piles of free stuff, then it can go on squatting on a society, dipping its proboscis in the sweet nectar of wealth and power, and then when the nectar runs out, switching to sipping its blood.
The left needs immigration to run its numbers game. It needs immigration to survive. It needs immigration to force further change on societies that would be static if left to their own devices. It needs immigration to provide it with a permanently disadvantaged working class from an infinite supply of billions. It needs to make its own failed society fail in new ways by injecting other failed societies into it.
Play the diversity of numbers and the kids stop dreaming of London and LA and start hanging out at clubs where diversity seems to make life more exciting. The declining native upper class and the immigrant working class shake hands over the bodies of the native working class and the whole broken train rumbles forward into the night.
The Nature of Tyranny
by Nick McAvelly
The philosopher Isaiah Berlin gave a lecture at the University of Oxford in 1958 which has appeared in print several times since. In that lecture, Berlin discussed two concepts of liberty, and argued that a form of tyranny exists which claims the name of freedom, but which has fuelled some of humanity’s darkest excesses. I argue here that we are on a slippery slope towards that same tyranny today.
Playing devil’s advocate here, it might be asserted that no such tyranny could arise in a democratic society. But as Berlin, and John Stuart Mill before him, have pointed out, this is indeed logically possible. To believe otherwise is to indulge in wishful thinking.
In Britain today, a country where elections still take place, the political class are wedded to the doctrine of multiculturalism, but this doctrine is barely discussed by the majority of British voters.
In his lecture, Berlin defined “negative freedom” as the range of actions open to an individual and argued that this could be extended, and your liberty increased, by either overcoming and defeating obstacles in your way, or by taking steps to reduce your desires and aims. The latter course of action would result in a condition being reached where you no longer wanted what you couldn’t have and, having no frustrated desires, you could therefore be said to be more “free” than someone who did.
This process of eliminating your desires was likened by Berlin to retreating into a citadel. In Britain today people are more concerned with watching The X Factor in their free time than they are with discussing the doctrines of Islam, or of considering the long-term consequences of uncontrolled immigration. And that is the way mainstream British politicians like it.
Any British citizen who speaks openly about the fundamental tenets of Islam, or the character of Islam’s prophet, or the policies of shariah law, will find himself in for a rough ride. As more and more British citizens are finding out, speaking about Islam in our country today means your character will be assassinated, your livelihood will be in jeopardy, and you may very well lose your liberty. Your life may even be at risk. This state of affairs serves two purposes. It reinforces the citadel which the political class are happy to see British citizens live inside, and it lets everyone know what will happen to those who venture beyond the walls.
In Britain today, under Section 4A and Section 5 of the Public Order Act, it is a criminal offence to use insulting words. The negative freedom of British citizens has been reduced by this legislation, and this has happened in a democratic society.
The political class don’t want working class British citizens to question the doctrine of multiculturalism. And they will sacrifice your liberty and mine in order to implement their solution to the problem of how we all ought to live. In one of the most well known passages in philosophy, Berlin said:
“One belief, more than any other, is responsible for the slaughter of individuals on the altars of the great historical ideals – justice or progress or the happiness of future generations, or the sacred mission or emancipation of a nation or race or class, or even liberty itself, which demands the sacrifice of individuals for the freedom of society. This is the belief that somewhere, in the past or in the future, in divine revelation or in the mind of an individual thinker, in the pronouncements of history or science, or in the simple heart of an uncorrupted good man, there is a final solution. This ancient faith rests on the conviction that all the positive values in which men have believed must, in the end, be compatible, and perhaps even entail one another.” (Isaiah Berlin)
We are told that all cultures and values are compatible and that our own British culture will be “enriched” because of uncontrolled immigration, which will apparently cause “diversity”; that multiculturalism provides the final solution of how mankind ought to live, and the freedom of British citizens to think or say otherwise can, and indeed must, be sacrificed in its name.
But if it cannot be logically demonstrated that different values (from one culture, never mind different cultures) are compatible with one another, and our experience shows us that different cultural values are not in fact reconcilable with each other then as Berlin argues, the very notion of a final solution to the question of how we are to live is “a formal contradiction, a metaphysical chimera”.
The fundamental tenets of Islamic doctrine contradict absolutely those of Christianity, for the religion founded by Mahomet denies the crucifixion, denies that Jesus was the Son of God, and denies the Trinity. Therefore the religion of Islam cannot be reconciled with Christianity. Experience shows us that the demands made by Islam upon those who submit fully to it cause people to act in ways that are directly contrary to our most cherished cultural values. And as societies becomes shariah-compliant, the negative liberty of women, children (who are brought up to think of themselves as Muslims) and non-Muslims is significantly reduced, a fact which clearly demonstrates that Islamic doctrines are logically incompatible with human freedom.
It follows that we are as likely to see a beast walk the earth with the head of a lion, the tail of a serpent, and the body of a goat as we are to see multiculturalism actually work.
That will not prevent those politicians entranced by multiculturalism from striving to implement their final solution to the question of how we should live our lives. We have seen tyrannies arise throughout history, and some of the worst began by restricting the negative freedom of their own citizens, and silencing political opposition. In the landmark television series The World At War, Christabel Bielenberg, who was married to a German at the time, said that the Nazis inflicted their tyranny upon German society “drip by drip, rather like an anaesthetic, one could almost say, and it was only when a specific thing that he did hit you personally that you actually realised what was going on.”
No one living in Britain today can seriously believe that our politicians are infallible. To paraphrase John Stuart Mill, British politicians do not have the authority to decide how we ought to live our lives. But to refuse a hearing to an opinion which contradicts theirs because they are sure it is false is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. The political class in Britain today believe that, in the doctrine of multiculturalism, they have the final solution to the question of how humanity should live.
So we have fallible people chasing a logical impossibility, a “metaphysical chimera”, and slowly restricting the negative liberty of British citizens so that any dissenting voices who might speak out against that fabulous project cannot be heard. History teaches us that when these conditions obtain a society is heading down the slippery slope to tyranny.
There is no final solution to the question of how we should all live our lives. That is precisely what makes our freedom so important. Knowing that the claims of the religion founded by Mahomet absolutely contradict both our own British cultural values and our own religious beliefs, we are free to reject it, lock, stock and barrel.
That is what it means to be free. If anyone doesn’t understand that, of doesn’t like it, then quite frankly, I just don’t care.
From Gates of Vienna: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-nature-of-tyranny.html#more
Nearly half of all American Muslims polled who plan to vote in the 2012 presidential election (more than 90% for Barack Hussein Obama) believe parodies or insults of the prophet Muhammad should be prosecuted criminally in the U.S., and one in eight say the offense is so serious that violators should face the death penalty.
WND The results came in a groundbreaking scientific poll by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies. It was taken Oct. 22-26 and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3.98 percentage points.
The poll also found 40 percent of Muslims in America believe they should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Sharia standards.
“Almost half of those Muslims surveyed – an astonishing 46 percent – said they believe those Americans who offer criticism or parodies of Islam should face criminal charges,” said pollster Fritz Wenzel in an analysis of the survey’s results.
“Even more shocking: One in eight respondents said they think those Americans who criticize or parody Islam should face the death penalty, while another nine percent said they were unsure on the question,” he said. Wenzel said even the 9 percent “undecided” on that particular question is alarming.
“Seldom in survey research does a response of ‘not sure’ carry such significance, but the response to this question certainly is a surprise, given the severity of the question, and offers insight into the conflict that some Muslims appear to face in making the ideals under-girding American society fit into their religious lifestyle,” he said.
Wenzel’s poll said 7.2 percent of the respondents said they “strongly agree” with the idea of execution for those who parody Islam, and another 4.3 percent said they somewhat agree. While 80 percent said that they somewhat or strongly disagree with the idea, when those who said they were not sure are added, one in five Muslims across America cannot say they believe Christians or others who criticize Muhammad should be spared the death penalty.
More Muslim women (10.4 percent) than Muslim men (4.9 percent) said they strongly agree with the idea, while 12.4 percent of the women and 7.1 percent of the men were uncertain about the issue involving Muhammad.
Four in 10 said Muslims in America should not be judged by U.S. law and the Constitution, but by Islamic Shariah law. “A smaller percentage said they think the U.S. should establish an entirely separate court system to adjudicate matters involving Muslims,” Wenzel said.
While the respondents overwhelmingly lean toward the Democratic Party and like the direction Barack Obama, who repeatedly has praised Islam around the world, is leading this nation, they also have a fundamental conflict with American life, expressing objections to the freedom of speech and religion guaranteed in the Constitution. American Muslims, Wenzel said, “show signs of ambivalence toward the U.S. Constitution generally and the First Amendment specifically.”
“These survey findings show a community in conflict with the foundations of our nation, as many Muslims favor and enjoy the freedoms offered by the U.S. Constitution, including participation in elections here, but at the same time significant percentages want to be treated differently than the average non-Muslim when it comes to legal matters,” he said.
39 percent of Muslims said they believe existing U.S. courts should consult Shariah law when adjudicating cases involving Muslims. Asked if the U.S. should establish separate courts based solely on Shariah law to adjudicate cases involving Muslim, 21 percent said it should.
While 9 of 10 of the Muslim respondents said they agree with the First Amendment, they are also in conflict with it, Wenzel said, citing evidence in answers to “another question in the survey which found that one-third of Muslims – 32 percent – believe Shariah should be the supreme law of the land in the United States,” Wenzel said.
“Another shocking finding from the survey is how Muslims view the religious freedoms of Christians. Asked whether U.S. citizens who are Christians have the right to evangelize Muslims to consider other faiths, just 30 percent agreed Christians have such a right. Another 42 percent said they do not have such a right, while 28 percent said they were unsure on the question.”
One in five say Muslim men should be allowed to follow their religion in America and have more than one wife, and 58 percent said criticism of their religion or of Muhammad should not be allowed under the Constitution.
While 43 percent said they disagreed with the idea of Christians evangelizing Muslims, another 27 percent said they were undecided. Only 19 percent said they “strongly agree” with the idea that Americans have a right to invite Muslims to consider another faith.
Nearly one in three said Israel either has no right to exist or they were uncertain whether it does.
From Bare Naked islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
Anti-islam ad airing in Belgium is so clear without any words being spoken. Wake up America. From 1389 Blog.
The French Muslim Council urged the government to ban an upcoming and popular patriot group, ‘Generation Identitaire,’ that occupied a mosque on Saturday and issued a ‘declaration of war’ on the Islamization of France. Not to be outdone, pro-Muslim leftists called on French authorities to take action against such groups that promote hatred and seek to divide the country.
(If that’s what they want, they should be taking action against the Muslim invaders)
WEBSITE (French): Generation Identitaire
REUTERS Some 73 protesters from a movement called Identity Group seized a mosque in the western city of Poitiers on Saturday and unfurled a banner referring to Charles Martel’s historic defeat of advancing Muslim troops there in 732. They stayed for more than six hours before police ejected them.
In a video posted on its website, the movement issued what it called a “declaration of war” on multiculturalism. It also called for a referendum to block further immigration from outside Europe and further construction of mosques in France.
“We demand the dissolution of this group,” Moussaoui said. The public prosecutor’s office in Poitiers has placed four of the protesters under judicial investigation for spreading racial hate and discrimination. Moussaoui said the protest, the first time a mosque in France had been occupied like that, represented “a new escalation in violence against Muslims”.
Anti-racism organisations in France are demanding the government launch a swift crackdown against right wing patriot groups, following the storming of a mosque in the west of the country.
France24 In strongly worded statements released on Sunday, two of France’s most high-profile racism (What race is Islam?) watchdogs and a Muslim organization asked the government to ban
extremist anti-Islamization groups, close their websites and prosecute individuals for inciting racial hatred. (What race is Islam again?)
The dawn raid was intended as a protest against what the resistance group regards as Islam’s growing influence in France.
“What they did was scandalous. They basically declared war against Muslims in France,” (HALLELUJAH!) Bernadette Hetier, co-president of MRAP, told FRANCE 24. “These groups are dangerous because they promote hatred. We have asked the government to prevent them publishing their intolerable propaganda.” They are a real threat to cohesion because they want to divide France and Europe.
The protesters stormed the mosque at around 6am, climbed onto the roof and unfurled a banner daubed with the symbolic phrase “732 Generation Identity” – a reference to the year 732, when Charles Martel halted the advance of the invading Muslim army to the north of Poitiers. The group have also made their views clear on their website, which bears the statement: “We do not want more immigration from outside Europe or new mosque construction on French soil”.
French media and politicians keep talking about a supposed “provocation” by Génération Identitaire.
Islam vs Europe At this stage, it seems useful to us to make clear that for us:
- The true provocation is to let more than 300,000 immigrants into France every year.
- The true provocation is the daily anti-white racism in our country.
- The true provocation is the Saudi money that is financing the construction of the mosque in Poitiers.
- The true provocation is the islamist imam of Poitiers and the tolerance of the state towards the UOIF [Muslim Brotherhood-linked umbrella organisation for Muslim associations in France].
- The true provocation is to accuse three young people of causing damage because three prayer carpets got damp.
- The true provocation is to support Pussy Riot in Russia and to curse Génération Identitaire in France.
- The true provocation is to call yourself a democrat and to want to dissolve a group of young people calling for a debate and a referendum.
- The true provocation is the forced-march islamisation of a country that saved Europe from the Arab-Muslim invasion 1280 years ago.
- The true provocation, ultimately, is to build a mosque in Poitiers, which ought to be a place of historical memory.
All of that – and many other things too – seem to us to be much more provocative and damaging to the sacrosanct vivre-ensemble than a hundred young people on the roof of a building that is still under construction.
Excuse me, when did Islam become a race? Muslims blame the media, the EDL, the National Front party, and all the ‘Islamophobic’ bloggers for making Muslims the most reviled people on earth. Yet never once, do they ask themselves, what are we doing that makes people so hostile toward us?
Share this From Bare Naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
Muslim parasites cost British taxpayers a staggering £18+ billion ($29 billion) per year, while Muslim harems account for much of that
British citizens are sinking under the weight of astronomical welfare costs, a majority of which go to Muslim immigrants, both legal and illegal, many of them Islamic extremists, and even more of them the large families of suspected and convicted Muslim terrorists.
Muslim Issue Huge numbers of Muslims contribute nothing but live off the state. According to government statistics we spend a minimum £18 billion a year only to feed Muslims. And the majority of them don’t have even a basic College degree!
Daily Telegraph reported in 2012 statistics that 75% of all Muslim women are unemployed while 50% of all Muslim men are unemployed - rise from 13% for men and 18% for women in 2004.
Muslims are also on sick leave more than anyone else, with 24% of females and 21% of males claiming a disability (2001 figures). Muslims are the most likely among all religious groups to be living in accommodation rented from the council or housing association (28%); 4% live rent-free (2004 figures).
Money-wise it means that out of 5 million Muslims living in Britain (2012 demographics), 4.25 million Muslims, or 85%, live off tax payers. If we average this with the minimum benefit payment of £67 a week, at least £ 284,750,000 per week (£1.1 billion per month) is spent from taxpayer money to feed and care for Muslims who don’t contribute anything whatsoever to Britain’s revenues.
And that calculation doesn’t even include housing benefits, childcare support, medical care and other coverage utilized by the population. We can estimate that with housing, child subsidies and healthcare, Muslims cost the British government at least £1.5 billion a month, or £18 billion a year.
The Muslim population doubles every 7-years in Britain. By 2030 Britain will have a 40% Muslim population. And who will feed and house them? There is simply nowhere for the British economy to go but a complete collapse. 32 percent of Muslims on UK campuses believe killing in the name of religion is justified, 54 percent wanted a Muslim Party to represent their world view in Parliament, and 40 percent want Muslims in the UK to be under Sharia law (2004 report).
Polygamous Muslim marriages, recognized as legal under British immigration law, cost taxpayers a minimum of £5 million ($8 million) every year. And even that figure is two years out of date.
Muslim Issue The outrageous costs are calculated on the estimated 1,000 polygamous Muslim marriages which were in existence in Britain in 2007. Given the massive increase in “legal” Third World immigration — amounting to over half a million every year — this figure is likely to have dramatically increased.
Although polygamy is illegal for the indigenous population, the insane immigration policies pursued by successive Tory and Labour administrations have made an exception for Muslims.
Polygamous marriages are officially recognised in Britain provided the weddings were “legal in the countries where they took place.” This means that a Muslim male can marry up to the four wives he is allowed under Islamic law in a Muslim country such as Pakistan. He is then able to legally bring them all to Britain.
Here, the wives are all able to claim income support benefit at a special rate of £36.65 a week. In addition to this, they are able to claim child support for each baby produced, the one-off maternity benefit payment for each child and other benefits including housing, utilities payments and so on. A husband may claim housing benefit for each wife even if she is abroad, for up to 52 weeks, as long as the absence is temporary and for pressing reasons.
This scandalous situation is further evidence — if it was needed — that the British people are paying to be dispossessed of their country through systematic ethnic cleansing.
MICHIGANISTAN: Students at Muslim-dominated ‘Edsel Ford’ High School in Dearborn protest Pastor Terry Jones’ First Amendment right to criticize Islam
How fitting. Students from a school named for the biggest failure in American Car history, the ‘Ford Edsel,’ want you to know how the ‘misunderstanders’ of Islam have hurt their wittle fweewings.
Florida pastor Terry Jones caused riots in the Muslim world back in 2010 when he set fire to a Quran, prompting the Obama Regime to enlist the help of CIA head, General David Petraeus, to warn Jones against exercising his first amendment rights because it might endanger our troops in Afghanistan. As if everything our troops do doesn’t already outrage Muslims anyway.
Detroit News Florida pastor Terry Jones and about a dozen supporters left Edsel Ford High School Wednesday afternoon after a protest against “Muslim gangs” that lasted about an hour. Jones, 60, a Florida pastor, said he came to Dearborn to meet with school officials about Muslim students bullying other kids as well as to defend the First Amendment by speaking out against what he sees as a threat from “radical Islam.”
“We cannot have a ban on free speech,” Jones said. He offered to speak with local Muslim leaders but defended his tactics. ”I believe in dialogue, but I also believe in my way, which is in your face,” Jones said. Jones, 60, was denied a meeting with the school’s principal about what he says is a problem with Muslim teens beating up other students. Dearborn schools spokesman David Mustonen has said Jones’ claims of bullying by Muslim students are unfounded. Jones has been a frequent visitor to Dearborn, where he has criticized what he calls “radical elements of Islam.” Jones’ critics say his protests have been nothing but “hate speech.”
Students at the school are fighting back against Jones’s attacks. Several of them have started the Intergroup Dialogue Student Leadership Team, which will begin student-led workshops and host guest speakers to help “facilitate dialogue to celebrate different cultures.” They outlined some of their goals in this video. (It’s uncanny how these kids have adopted the exact same woe-is-me victimization rhetoric perfected by CAIR and all the fascists on the Left)
From Bare naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
“Our generation are the victims of the ‘May ’68ers’ who wanted to liberate themselves from tradition, from knowledge and authority in education. But they only accomplished to liberate themselves from their own responsibilities.”
“It seems that the youth are revolting against their elders everywhere: In France, the kids are declaring war upon the hippies now ruling them.” — Jewel
From the Generation of National Identity: A Declaration of War
“We are Generation-Identitaire”
“We are the generation who get killed for glancing at the wrong person, for refusing someone a cigarette or having an ‘attitude’ that annoys someone.”
“We are the generation of ethnic fracture, total failure of coexistence, and forced mixing of the races.”
“We are the generation doubly punished: Condemned to pay into a social system so generous with strangers that it is unsustainable for our own people.”
“Our generation are the victims of the ‘May ’68ers’ who wanted to liberate themselves from tradition, from knowledge and authority in education. But they only accomplished to liberate themselves from their own responsibilities.”
“We reject your history books, to regather our memories.”
“We no longer believe that ‘Khader’ could ever be our brother. We have stopped believing in the ‘Global Village’ and the ‘Family of Man’.”
“We discovered that we have roots, ancestry, and therefore, a future.”
“Our heritage is our land, our blood, our identity. We are heirs to our own future.”
“We turned off the TV to march in the streets.”
“We painted our slogans on walls. Cried through loudspeakers for ‘youth in power’ and flew our Lambda flags high.”
“The Lambda, painted on proud Spartans’shields, is our symbol.”
“Don’t you understand what this means? We will not back down. We will not give in.”
“We are sick and tired of your cowardice.”
“You are from the years of post-war prosperity, of retirement benefits, S.O.S. Racism and “diversity”, sexual liberation and a bag of rice from Bernard Kouchner.”
“We are 25 percent unemployment, social debt, multicultural collapse,and an explosion of anti-white racism.”
“We are broken families and young, French soldiers dying in Afghanistan.”
“You won’t buy us with a condescending look, a state-paid job and a pat on the shoulder.”
“We don’t need your youth policies. Youth IS our policy.”
“Don’t think this is simply a manifesto. It is a declaration of war.”
“You are of yesterday. We are of tomorrow.”
“We are Génération-Identitaire.
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/