Muslim Immigration

In Defence of Anjem Choudary

/in /by
CHOUDRAY_2573353b

Anjem Choudary

The death of Gunner Rigby, mown down by a car driven by two Sub-Saharan Muslims and then cruelly butchered in the street, is not going to go away. And thank god or Allah for that, for the sooner Gunner Rigby is forgotten the more valueless his death becomes.

There are powerful interests working day and night trying to devalue that death, trying to make it seem like a random, trivial act of insanity or a deed of extremism only endorsed by a tiny minority of fanatics; most importantly as an act that must never ever divide the denizens of Britain’s multicultural paradise (now available as a mental implant following lobotomy).

As the cracks continue to appear thick and fast in the crumbling Victorian terrace house belonging to old Mrs. Britannia, the tendency to twitch the lace curtains and paper over the cracks grows strong and intense.

The old lady who lives there, obsessed with the appearance of decorum, has no wish to get the builders or pest control experts in to fix the rot, rising damp, rats in the cellar, subsidence, or other structural problems in the decrepit structure. She feels that might reflect badly on her, and she is hoping to eke out her last few years in calm respectability, even if the rats gnawing away under the floorboards and the cockroaches scuttling around in the kitchen at night disturb her sleep. Read more

Muslims dominate the natives on the streets of Norway

/8 Comments/in , , , /by

Gates of Vienna has an article showing just how unfathomably bad things are in Norway as a result of immigration and multiculturalism (“Everything You Have Learned in School Is Wrong“). The main story is the familiar one throughout the West: elites encourage immigration and are able to avoid the costs. As noted in Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech,  the costs are paid by those who can’t flee the areas impacted by immigration.  In Norway

well-off natives can afford to move to safe, pleasant white enclaves, where they may send their children to school among white native speakers of Norwegian. Less affluent citizens are not so fortunate, however, and are forced to endure the humiliation and degradation of the Multicultural behavioral sink in which their political masters have consigned them to live.

The costs for the less fortunate are dramatic. The article is important because it shows how aggressive the Muslim immigrants are, especially against the native boys. This is a Darwinian dominance struggle between males.

At TOO we often emphasize the individualism of Western societies and the collectivism of pretty much the  rest of the  world. This dichotomy is much on display here: Muslims have large social networks based on kinship and they are aggressive in groups, whereas they are cowardly when alone. The result is a very clear dominance hierarchy, with the natives at the bottom and groups of Muslims at the top. One of the informants, Andreas, says

“There is a hierarchy, where ethnic Norwegian boys are on the bottom rung on the ladder. They will be targeted unless they accede to their rules, if they don’t they become Norwegian immigrants. If a Norwegian boy gets into trouble, odds are that he has a small family and a tiny social network. Unlike a Pakistani or Somali boy, he doesn’t have a clan of brothers and cousins and uncles who come rushing to his aid in the event of a conflict. Most of the time the only thing he has is a single parent.”

An astute commenter on the article writes: “That atomisation and isolation celebrated as ultra-individualism and the contempt for association or commonweal, branded as socialist conspiracy in progressive conservative political dogma, is inhibiting the formation of a mass European opposition particularly at street level.”

The  article makes clear that not only are the Norwegians forced to encounter  hostile gangs of Muslims without social support from friends and relatives, they get no support from the schools (which accommodate Muslim culture and excuse Muslim aggression as resulting from war in their native countries) or the media (which refuses to publish accounts of the reality of life on the streets). (It should also be noted that the justice system fails native Norwegians by giving out lenient punishment and failing to invest resources against the epidemic of Muslim men raping Norwegian women). Read more

Breivik: Sending a message to the elites

/169 Comments/in , /by

Is this the very first time that a gathering of leftists in a Western Nation, post 1960, has been made to pay the ultimate price for their anti democratic multicultural impositions?

If so, then I suspect that the pictures of dead young adults will have a rather powerful deterrent effect on parents who might otherwise encourage their kids to be leftists.

It is hard to imagine a more powerful and socially compelling deterrent than to inject the sort of horrific risk that these pictures implant into the minds of multiculturally inclined parents .

Viewed without emotion, this incident implies a multi-layered level of calculation that I find quite remarkable –  an example not to be emulated to be sure – but remarkable nonetheless.

Thus far, Islamic terrorism has been confined to subway commuters in Spain, Street car commuters in Britain, and primarily, office workers in Manhattan – all nobodies that the elites could, quite frankly, care less about losing. Read more

The Political Ideas of Anders Behring Breivik

/434 Comments/in , , , /by

A quite clear picture of Anders Behring Breivik emerges from this collection of his online posts. I thought the following quotes were reasonably representative; they are edited slightly for English usage.

These snippets portray a Geert Wilders-type of cultural conservative, very opposed to ethnocentrism as a strategy, very positive about the Vienna School, staunchly pro-Israel (which he sees as beset by militant Islam), and very hostile toward Islam—what in the U.S. is called a neoconservative. Breivik sees Islam as eventually taking over Europe via differential fertility if nothing is done, noting historical data on other areas (e.g., Turkey, Lebanon, Kosovo). Based on his reading of history, he believes that the triumph of Islam would unleash horrific repression and violence against Europeans and against all manifestations of traditional European culture. It would be the end of European civilization based on Christianity and ordered liberty.

He also has a 1500-page book, titled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, suggesting his actions were intended to call attention to himself as a way of publicizing the book and maximizing its impact. See also the (very powerful) video below which is based on the ideas of the book. The video images strongly suggest that he identifies with historical figures like Charles Martel who fought to prevent the Muslim conquest of Europe in previous centuries. Note the many photos of Christian knights battling Islam (suggesting he sees Christianity [correctly] as a historically powerful force for the preservation of Europe rather than mainly about religious faith) and (at the very end) photos of himself in military dress and armed with automatic weapons.

In general, it must be said that he is a serious political thinker with a great many insights and some good practical ideas on strategy (e.g., developing culturally conservative media, gaining control of NGOs. and developing youth organizations that will confront the Marxist street thugs). (8/31/2016: Note to leftist idiots who quote from the previous passage [but leave out Breivik’s specific suggestions for strategy]: This is not an endorsement of his actions.) (Parenthetically, during a recent lecture tour of Sweden, I was struck by the elaborate security procedures that were taken out of fear of physical beatings by “Communists,” described to me as typically the children of leftist elites. It is no exaggeration to say that racially conscious Scandinavians feel physically intimidated.) It could well be that Breivik’s silence on Jewish hostility toward Europe and the West and his rejection of ethnocentrism (see here) are motivated by his strategic sense.  Read more

The Labour Party War Against White Britain

/88 Comments/in , , , /by

Paul Weston’s article “Why is this not treason?” will make your blood boil. It describes the Labour Party’s war against White Britain. (The article links to another article, “Ethnically cleansing the English” that is also well worth reading.) Key quotes:

Despite the obvious violence that emanates from massed Muslims wherever they are in the world, the Labour government went to great lengths to portray Islam as The Religion of Peace, even as Christianity was mocked and defiled, and decent, moral and patriotic Britons were re-cast and criminalised as Islamophobic, race-hating Nazis….

There were two main reasons for such treachery. The first was held by Labour’s minority hard-left who wanted to destroy utterly the hated traditional establishment, and in this respect they had no choice but to declare war on their own people. To the hard-left, the enemy was the conservative, Christian, capitalist West of liberal-democracy Western civilisation — or, in other words, the majority of the English.

The second reason, held perhaps by the majority of Labour apparatchiks, was to ensure a socialist government in perpetuity via the imported foreign vote. Research into voting patterns conducted for The Electoral Commission in May 2005 showed that Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshis voted 56%, 50% and 41% for Labour. The equivalent figures for the Conservatives were 11%, 11% and 9%. … Read more

Timothy Garton Ash: We need more pro-multicultural propaganda

/73 Comments/in , /by

Timothy Garton Ash has an op-ed in today’s LA Times showing once again the high anxiety pervading European elites about the rise of anti-Muslim parties (“Geert Wilders and how to handle a gold-medal hypocrite“). The idea is that Wilders is a hypocrite because he “calls for the holy book of some 1.5 billion people to be banned!” Ash leaves out Wilders’  charge that the Koran is a fascist book that incites violence. And Ash never mentions Wilders’ point that Islam in Europe has had a chilling effect on free speech:

Speech now deemed suspect includes subjects that are commonly and openly aired when not involving Islam: women’s subordination, violence, child marriages, criminalization of homosexuality and animal cruelty. While not all such cases resulted in convictions, all contribute to a broad and chilling effect on speech. Because there is little predictability in the prosecution and adjudication of such cases, hinging as they do on subjective feelings, nobody knows what can be said with impunity. The flawed premise that religious views can easily be compartmentalized into personal or social realms itself violates the teaching of most religions.

Not to mention the fact that people critical of Islam have been threatened, physically attacked, and even murdered. Wilders has an around-the-clock body guard. Read more

Ritual Slaughter: Holland worse than Russia… or Switzerland?

/4 Comments/in /by

Jews are growing bolder in their attack on the proposed ban on ritual slaughter in Holland. Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld wrote an op-ed in Volkskrant (April 19, 2011) under the title “Animals on the rise, Jews in retreat” He states that never before have so many Jewish organizations from abroad been campaigning against Holland. In February, the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles began a campaign to influence major political parties in the Dutch Parliament.  Gerstenfeld notes that the chief rabbi of Moscow and acting chairman of the Conference of European Rabbis, Pinchas Goldschmidt, wrote a personal letter to the Dutch Parliament stating that during the Soviet period Jews in Russia looked up to Holland as a beacon of religious tolerance. However, if ritual slaughter is banned, Holland would be in the same category as the Soviet Union.

Despite this attempt to link banning ritual slaughter with Soviet oppression, there were (and are) several countries with a fairly pacifist and democratic track record that have banned ritual slaughter and other aspects of Jewish culture. In Switzerland, one of the oldest states based on popular consent and grassroots democracy, ritual slaughter was banned as early as 1897, followed by Norway in 1930 and Sweden in 1937. Read more