Another day, another Muslim-perpetrated shooting in Europe. And despite the gunman having the rather un-European name of Omar El-Hussein, the incident has provided yet more opportunities for redundant warnings against ‘European’ anti-Semitism. These killings, like those in Paris, disturb and irritate me for a number of reasons.
Firstly, and most obviously, I am troubled at the perpetration of Islamic murder and lawlessness in Europe. Secondly, media representations of these events refuse to disclose that they are a product of disastrous immigration and foreign policies — policies which have been demonstrably influenced by Jews. Thirdly, the simplistic and primitive drama inherent in shootings and fugitive hunts inevitably diverts mass attention from the broader and more subtle picture of how those policies are affecting Europeans. Intentionally or not, these are acts of distraction as much as acts of terrorism. Fourthly, the shootings provide opportunities for Jews to amplify their victimhood narrative, and to regurgitate tired old ‘lessons’ to Europe. These lessons are then tied in to further Jewish demands, which include the restriction of arms and free speech. Finally, I am considerably irritated by the way in which these events have been used as a means for Jews to present themselves as the perennial victims of terrorism, when they have a rich history of engaging in it themselves.
We are daily fed the idea that ‘Islamic terror’ is the number one threat to our way of life. It’s certainly a serious threat to the way we live our lives, but not in the way the media tries to make us believe. You see, I don’t limit my perception of Islamic terror to the obscenely theatrical, but relatively few, mass murders through which Muslim fanatics have managed to imbue their fossil creed with some relevance and publicity in the 21st century. No. I see ‘Muslim terror’ also in the everyday, more banal but no less important, impact of Muslim crime on Europe. I see ‘Muslim terror’ not, as the Zionists would like us to see it, as a foreign policy issue. It is primarily domestic. It requires domestic solutions. I argue that the ‘War on Terror’ can be won most conclusively not with aircraft carriers, bombs, ground-troops, regime-changes and mass casualties — but with deportation lists filled with the names of the undesirable and the demonstrably unassimilable.
England’s The Independent reported last year that Muslims make up 4.7% of the population of England and Wales, but comprise 14% of the prison population in those countries. The figures still don’t give the full picture of Muslim-perpetrated crime because Muslims tend to engage most often in serious crime. For example, the report adds that “in some prisons the proportion of Islamic inmates is more than one-third, and in Whitemoor, a Category A prison in Cambridgeshire, it is as high as 43 per cent.” Explanations from Muslim apologists have been predictable:
Muzammil Quraishi, a senior lecturer in criminology and criminal justice at Salford University, said: “Young Muslim men are under the official gaze from their school days onwards — they have the lens of the state turned on them. Certain populations can become suspect populations in the eyes of the law enforcement agencies.” Amal Imad, of the charity Muslim Aid, suggested that poor educational performance, problems finding fulfilling jobs and family breakdown were factors in the increasing numbers of Muslims behind bars. She said: “It may be that they can’t integrate into society, they don’t think they have a positive chance to integrate into society.” Mizanur Rahman, a spokesman for the organisation Muslim Prisoners, blamed the spike on Islamophobia and racism among police officers.
So basically, these foreign apologists are arguing that ‘the lens of the state,’ ‘problems finding fulfilling jobs,’ and ‘racism among police officers’ are the reason why, by the British government’s own admission, Muslims are over-represented in rape convictions by three times their proportion of the population — not to mention the horrendous scandal showing that Muslims have been raping with impunity because police, social workers and politicians have been afraid of being stigmatized as racists. These biased commentators don’t feel the need to offer any substantial evidence for their argument, relying on buzzwords like ‘racism’ to deftly side-step any opportunity for rational debate and terrify authorities to simply allow Muslim crime to go unpunished.
But we truly live in a “Through the Looking Glass” kind of world, and while Muslim crime soars, the refrain from the media is that it is actually anti-Muslim ‘hate crime’ that is soaring. But is it? The Guardian reported that there were 500 ‘Islamophobic crimes’ across Britain in 2013. Many of these ‘crimes’ were of the “pig’s head left outside a mosque” variety. To put this into some kind of perspective, in the same year Muslims perpetrated at least 676 rapes. So for every pork-inspired teenage prank, there were probably a couple of Muslim rapes being carried out at the same time. I know which crime I view most seriously.
Even looking at the picture from a racial rather than religious viewpoint, the figures of the Crown Prosecution Service show that Whites are under-represented in rape convictions relative to their proportion in the population, whereas Blacks, ‘Asians’ (the label most often applied to Pakistanis, etc.), and those of mixed ethnicity all far exceeded their proportion of the population. So the media prefers the false alarm over hate crime to the real alarm which needs to be sounded over the ethnic rape epidemic.
This state of affairs has not gone un-noticed by a professor at the world-renowned University of Cambridge, Julian Hargreaves, who weighed into the debate by asserting that “an examination of statistics taken from the Crime Survey of England and Wales between 2006 and 2010 reveals a surprising counter-narrative to commonly-held perceptions of British Muslim communities and their relationships to crime victimisation and the criminal justice system.” Unlike the inept bleating of Quraishi, Imad, and Rahman, this research and its findings originated from the head of Cambridge’s Centre for Islamic Studies, and was produced by someone with a rather more native-sounding name.
Hargreaves found that the vast majority of Muslims actually reported very positive interactions with police forces (at a level higher than non-Muslims), categorically disproving the ridiculous theory that police racism was to blame for the Muslim crime epidemic. Hargreaves also tackled left-wing coverage of ‘Islamophobic crime’ by noting that his findings suggested, above all, “a growing need to move beyond misleading and potentially damaging generalizations which seek to cast British Muslim communities only as the victims of violent crime and police discrimination.” He further castigated mainstream media coverage of ‘hate crimes’ as “highly politicized and rhetorical in character, rarely rooted in statistical evidence and seldom substantiated by empirical findings.”
But the myth of Muslim victimhood at the hands of ‘hate crime’ is just one among many. Another great myth that we are force-fed is that these criminals are somehow not ‘real’ Muslims. This is a common ploy, and one pioneered to a great extent by Jews. You see, ethnic transgressors have a malleable function in their communities. Arrested, tried, or even incarcerated, they can play the role of ethnic victim to the ‘racist’ state. They can be stripped of anything but their ethnic or religious identity, adding to that all important statistical base which allegedly shows that higher rates of incarceration equal ‘institutional racism’ rather than a higher rate of criminality. However, if the crime is a little too serious, or its potential to rock the inter-ethnic boat too considerable, then the perpetrator can be cut loose from the community — “he was never one of us anyway,” etc. But of course he was. And he remains tied to his community by bonds of religion, cultural heritage and blood.
Moreover, empirical evidence demolishes this pillar of the Muslim narrative. According to a joint survey by the German Interior Ministry and the Institute for Criminology Research of Lower Saxony (KFN), “the willingness to commit violent crimes grows among young Muslim immigrants in Germany the more religious they become.”
In case you think that this is linked purely to acts of conventional terrorism such as assassination and bombing, the report is actually commenting on willingness to commit crimes such as armed robbery or assault and battery. The research also stated, by way of contrast, that “the willingness to commit violent crimes, such as armed robbery or assault and battery, among young Catholics and Protestants decreases with religious fervor.” Coming at least somewhat closer to forming an explanation for the Muslim rape epidemic, the report suggested that Islam cultivates “the acceptance of macho behavior,” and that Muslim immigrants “lay claim to a variety of male privileges.” The result is a burgeoning population of young Islamic males in Europe who have a sense of entitlement to White women, a disregard for our laws, and an open disgust for the effeminate “integration” policies of our governments. Meanwhile, Europe hermetically seals its avenues for free speech and the rape of a Continent goes on unchallenged.
The Washington Times reports that “in Sweden, Muslim immigrants account for 5 percent of its population but commit 77 % of its crime. Sweden’s “rape crisis” is a direct result of an influx of Muslim asylum seekers.” Amnesty International reports that Sweden has the highest number of rapes in Europe and the lowest conviction rate. According to Swedish Public Radio, in Stockholm alone, over 1,000 Swedish women reported that a Muslim immigrant raped them; 300 were under age 15. (One third of those living in Stockholm are immigrants; 24 percent are Muslim). These numbers represent only 25 percent of all rapes in Stockholm because officials claim the majority are unreported. Despite this, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention and the European Commissioner for Home Affairs “refuse to admit the assailants are Muslim.”
Turning our attention to France, which has endured the full spectrum of Muslim crime, the 40% Muslim population of Marseilles has made it “the most dangerous city in Europe.” When Marseilles was labelled a “cultural capital of Europe” in 2013 (a rotating European Union honor), the award only refocused attention on Marseille’s growing reputation as a European drug-smuggling hub, a place where entire neighborhoods have slipped away from police control and fallen under the command of gangsters who earn millions importing and selling North African hashish and settle turf disputes with AK-47 assault rifles. “Marseille is sick with its violence,” Interior Minister Manuel Valls said.
In fact, Marseilles is sick with its Muslims. In case you think that the immolation of human beings is something ‘extremist’ Muslims do in far-off scratches of barren desert, reconsider that in Marseilles they regularly find bodies burned to a crisp with bullets in their charred skulls — victims of an execution ‘style’ that local Islamic traffickers call the “barbecue.” Each year, gangs from France’s 6.5 million-strong Muslim population compete with each other for the media spotlight over who can cause the most destruction. An estimated 40,000 cars are burned in France every year. Rape, that other feature of the lesser-reported Muslim terror in Europe also occurs with alarming frequency. Demonstrating the saturation of anti-European hatred among this population and confirming some aspects of the German study, on March 31 2014, police arrested four Muslim boys (three Turkish brothers between the ages of 13 and 15, and one 17-year-old from Morocco) for gang raping an 18-year-old woman as she left the main train station in Évry, a commune in the southern suburbs of Paris. During police questioning, the minors said that they attacked the woman because she was French and “the French are all sons of whores.”
In Denmark last year a 39 year-old Syrian Muslim asylum seeker climbed into a window of a family’s home in Graestad, a small village, to rape their 8-year-old daughter. Her parents got to her in time with the help of a neighbor. The incident was nothing new. Denmark’s 10news.dk reports that eight out of the nine ethnic groups who commit the most crimes are Muslim “asylum” seekers who entered Denmark from Lebanon, Pakistan, Morocco, Turkey, Syria, Somalia, Iran, and Iraq. Seventy percent of inmates in youth prisons are immigrants; the majority are Muslims. Denmark, like other European countries, and the EU, has implemented entire agencies dedicated to useless “integration” programs for Muslim immigrants.
One result from this mostly redundant effort is insight offered by Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels who coined the term “Criminal Muslims.” His assertion that Islam creates a “psychology of an unhealthy culture that spawns criminal minds,” led to a national debate about freedom of speech and Denmark’s Integration Program. Based on extensive research, interviews, and analysis, (and echoing the findings of the German report) Mr. Sennels states, “Muslims are taught to be aggressive, insecure, irresponsible and intolerant.” For being intellectually honest, Sennels has been condemned by Islamic sites such as The American Muslim, which illustrates its knowledge of how to navigate multicultural Europe by stating that Sennels produces “Nazi style propaganda,” and that “his articles on Muslim inbreeding, mental deficiencies, etc. sound exactly like Nazi eugenics theories.” Note the complete reliance on what Sennels’ theories “sound like” rather than any real confrontation with his evidence or arguments.
Regardless of what Sennels’ theories “sound like,” his arguments are compelling in relation to Muslim criminality. In particular, he has produced significant contributions on the effect of inbreeding on sanity, noting extremely high rates of stillbirths in Pakistan (where 70 percent of all marriages are between first cousins) and Turkey (where the figure is 25 to 30 percent). Of those offspring which survive, Sennels notes that “a large part of inbred Muslims are born from parents who are themselves inbred — which increase the risks of negative mental and physical consequences greatly.” The rate of inbreeding in Muslim populations internationally is staggering and is in fact higher than the Muslim average in some European countries. Sennels notes that:
Statistical research on Arabic countries shows that up to 34 percent of all marriages in Algiers are consanguine (blood related), 46 percent in Bahrain, 33 percent in Egypt, 80 percent in Nubia (southern area in Egypt), 60 percent in Iraq, 64 percent in Jordan, 64 percent in Kuwait, 42 percent in Lebanon, 48 percent in Libya, 47 percent in Mauritania, 54 percent in Qatar, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, 63 percent in Sudan, 40 percent in Syria, 39 percent in Tunisia, 54 percent in the United Arabic Emirates and 45 percent in Yemen (Reproductive Health Journal, 2009, “Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs.”)…Research, conducted by the BBC and broadcast to a shocked nation, found that at least 55% of the community was married to a first cousin. This is thought to be linked to the probability that a British Pakistani family is at least 13 times more likely than the general population to have children with recessive genetic disorders.” (Times of India, 17/11 2005, “Ban UK Pakistanis from marrying cousins”).
Importantly for considerations of Muslim criminality, as well as the threat of stillbirth and a high number of genetic disorders, the population is also extremely likely to have lower intelligence and to be deficient in social ability. Sennels comments that “the IQ is 10–16 points lower in children born from related parents and that abilities related to social behavior develop slower in inbred babies (Indian National Science Academy, 1983, “Consanguinity Effects on Intelligence Quotient and Neonatal Behaviours of Ansari Muslim Children“).
Depression, schizophrenia, and various forms of psychosis have also been conclusively linked to the offspring of consanguineous marriages, and Sennels noted the fact that in Denmark “immigrant patients are stressing the psychiatric system and are strongly overrepresented among insane criminals: “In Sct. Hans Hospital, which has the biggest ward for clinically insane criminals in Denmark, more than 40 percent of the patients have an immigrant background” (Kristeligt Dagblad, 26/6 2007 “Ethnic minorities overrepresented among the criminal insane”).
This is all evidence indeed that the injection of vast numbers of Muslims into the European bloodstream has proved toxic. As Sennels puts it, we have imported a self-perpetuating population which has “limited social skills and understanding, limited ability to manage education and work procedures. … The negative cognitive consequences also influence the executive functions. The impairment of concentration and emotional control most often leads to anti-social behavior.”
The costs mount up. Not only does Europe fall victim to the crimes perpetrated by the inbred population, but it must also look after its increasing number of defective offspring. As Sennels comments:
“Disabled immigrant children costs Danish municipalities millions. In Copenhagen County alone, the number of disabled children in the overall increase of 100 percent at 10 years. … Meredith Lefelt has contacted 330 families with disabled children in Copenhagen. She estimates that one third of their clients have a foreign cultural background.” (BT, 10/11 2003 Immigrants inbreeding costing one million.) On top come the expenses for Muslim immigrants who – because of different consequences of being born from blood related parents – are not able to live up to the challenges of our Western work market: Muslim immigrants and their descendants in Europe have a very high rate of unemployment. The same goes for Muslims in USA, where the Gallup Institute made a study involving 300.000 people concluding “The majority of Muslims in USA have a lower income, are less educated and have worse jobs than the population as a whole.” (Berlingske Tidende, d. 3. marts 2009: Muslims thrive in USA.
Additionally, statistics show that:
I had to laugh recently when I read that Islamic State has been reported as telling an embedded journalist that:
We will conquer Europe one day. It is not a question of IF we will conquer Europe, just a matter of when that will happen. But it is certain. For us, there is no such thing as borders. There are only front lines. Our expansion will be perpetual. And the Europeans need to know that when we come, it will not be in a nice way. It will be with our weapons. And those who do not convert to Islam or pay the Islamic tax will be killed.
This from an ethno-religious group which has managed to win the Nobel Prize just nine paltry times, five of which are for the dubious achievement of “peace.” The vast geographic area which comprises the Islamic lands produces a mere one tenth of the World average when it comes to scientific research. This boast from a culture which disdains the book so much that 70% of Turks will never read one, and the UN Arab Human Development Report concludes that there have been fewer books translated into Arabic in the last thousand years than the amount of books translated within the country of Spain every year. I doubt Islamic State could even find Berlin on a map.
Even now, with Europe demographically weak, no Islamic nation could form a meaningful challenge to the Continent. Refuting science and progress as the mark of the ‘Crusader’ or the Devil, they will sink once more into the morass of in-breeding and cultural decay that they languished in until so very recently. We have no genetic interest in these people. We should assign no resources to them. They are best simply ignored and quarantined because the Muslim’s worst enemy is, and always has been, himself. He becomes harmful to us only to the extent that we, or the facilitators of his immigration, allow him opportunity to do so.