More From This User
100% of the Most Dangerous Terrorists Are Muslims
no surprise...
Surrender, Genocide… or What?
by El InglésIntroduction
A few months ago, I wrote“The Danish Civil War”, a fictional scenario which served tostructure a consideration of various issues relating to the rise of Islam in Europe and thelikely consequences thereof. The essay finished with the conclusion that Islamconstituted an existential threat to the survival of European civilization, and that Islam’sinfluence on Europe therefore needed to be eliminated. It further concluded that,logically speaking, the various ways of achieving this goal could be broadly subdividedinto three categories:1) inducing Muslims to leave of their own free will,2) mass deportations, and3) genocide.(Hereinafter referred to as options one, two and three, respectively)This final conclusion was delivered as dispassionately as possible due to a desire to present the situation objectively, as if an alien super-intelligence were viewing theconflicts of various warring tribes of hairless apes. If I am correct in arguing that thenumber of Muslims in Europe must be reduced to no more than a fraction of its currentvalue, then the three options I discussed
are
the only three options for achieving thisgoal. We may consider all three to be morally abhorrent and decide to submit to Islamrather than avail ourselves of any of them, but that does not alter the brute analysis of what could, in principle, be done in response to the Islamization of Europe.Having now had several months in which to further consider this issue, it seems to methat my conclusions in this regard can be considerably refined. For reasons that I hopeto make clear in this essay, I no longer believe that it is possible to solve the problemthat Islam has become by means of option one, and I have little confidence that evenoption two could constitute an effective tool in this regard. I therefore predict thatEurope is being swept into a position where it will be forced to choose between relyingoverwhelmingly on option three and surrendering.To the type of people most likely to read this essay, this suggestion will not necessarilycome as much of a surprise. However, I feel that an issue of such gravity should be
analyzed with as much rigour as possible, and this essay will constitute my attempt toconduct this analysis. I have much confidence in parts of it, but less in others, andwould appreciate comments from those who feel they have greater or additional insightinto key topics. There is certainly a huge amount of variety among European countriesin key respects, which I have largely ignored here. Ideally the key claims of the essaywould be explored on a country-by-country basis, but such an analysis is quite beyondme. There is also great variety in terms of the current degree of Islamization of thesecountries, and the amount of braking room that they therefore have available. To theextent that the analysis herein captures the imagination of any of its readers, I wouldwelcome opinions on the likelihood or likely timelines of the different discontinuitiesdiscussed below.- - - - - - - - -These caveats out of the way, I will briefly describe the structure of the essay. It isdivided into three parts. The first, “Decay”, will consist of an overview of certainaspects of the current situation in an attempt to establish the momentum alreadyestablished by the forces of Islamization. The second, “Consequences”, will analyze theextent to which our options in dealing with Islam have been and will continue to benarrowed for some time yet by this momentum. The final part, “Violence”, will take thisanalysis further whilst also considering the likely nature of the large-scale societal breakdowns we will see as Islam in Europe continues to be what it cannot help but be.
Decay
Information pertaining to the decay of European societies in the face of the onslaughtfrom Islam comes so thick and fast these days from such a variety of sources that thereis no particular need to try and summarize it here. Instead, I would like to examine one particular aspect of the decay of one particular country in an attempt to establish thesheer momentum already inherent in the process of Islamization, which will haveramifications later on in the essay. Sadly, the country in question is my own, the UK,and the institution already in an advanced degree of cultural and political putrefaction isthat of the British police. I will briefly summarize three examples of their egregiousness.The first relates to that most sweet-natured of Muslim terrorists, Abu Hamza (CaptainHook to the tabloids). In 2005, under the Freedom of Information Act, the MetropolitanPolice were forced to reveal that they had spent nearly £900,000 over a 22-month periodfrom January 2003, stewarding (i.e. protecting and enabling) illegal street sermonsgiven by Hamza after he was evicted from the Finsbury Park Mosque. Patrick Mercer,the Conservative frontbench spokesman on homeland security at the time thisinformation came to light, had the following to say in response: “The effect of the policeaction was to make it easier for poison and subversion to be preached openly on our streets.”However, according to an article in
The Times
, the paper which made the originalrequest for the information, Sir John Stevens, the Commissioner of the MetropolitanPolice, expressed himself to the effect that his force had been presented with “achallenging policing operation” that had been handled with “appropriate sensitivity.”Contrary, it seems, to the lowbrow prejudices of xenophobes like the current author,spending vast sums of money on protecting criminals openly engaged in criminalactivities in public is an appropriate response to the challenges of multiculturalism.Whether similar consideration would have been shown to large, illegal gatherings of white supremacists advocating, say, the ethnic cleansing of London, remains an open
question.Moving on, we have the inspiring response of the police to the online publishing of one of theMohammed cartoons by the British magazine, TheLiberal. In an online editorial explaining the decisionto put the image on the magazine’s website, theeditor, Ben Ramm, wrote the following: “[TheLiberal] will not be coerced into self-censorship bythe threat of violence from those who use a platformof free speech to call for the destruction of the verysystem that enfranchises them.” In other words,despite the very real possibility of being the target of violence, Mr. Ramm refused to allow himself to beintimidated by Muslim fanatics. Unfortunately, hewas subsequently intimidated somewhat more effectively by “senior officers” at Scotland Yard, who conveyed tohim that the resources of the police were “not infinite.”Given that this is, in fact, a statement of the crashinglyobvious and therefore conveys no information if interpreted literally, we would surely be justified inassuming that the police meant something else by it,something they could not say explicitly. I will herebyhazard a guess that the police had decided that bywithdrawing the protection of the state from law-abidingcitizens exercising their historic rights in the face of murderous religious savages, they could successfullyconclude another “challenging policing operation” withthe “appropriate sensitivity.” Presumably the fact thatthey were acting as highly effective force multipliers for the enforcers of a totalitarian political creed, whichwould destroy British society if it could, did not occur tothem.Finally, we have the controversy over the Britishdocumentary “Undercover Mosque,” which showedundercover footage from a variety of British mosquesand Islamic centres of Muslims being Muslims. Theresponse, predictably, was split down the middle, withMuslim groups taking the presentation of the filth spouted by Muslims as beingevidence of Islamophobia (yes, really) and everyone else calling for a policeinvestigation. The investigation, far from resulting in the charging of anyone caught ontape, resulted in the West Midlands Police complaining to Ofcom, the media watchdog,that the film had been selectively edited in a manner “sufficient to underminecommunity cohesion” and “likely to undermine feelings of public reassurance andsafety of those communities in the West Midlands for which the Chief Constable has aresponsibility.”This development allowed the usual apologists for Islam, Muslim and non-Muslim, tocrawl out of the woodwork, claiming that the revelations in the film were meaningless,the intent Islamophobic, and the featured imams victims. This significantly blunted any
of 00
Surrender, Genocide… or What?
894 Reads
Info and Rating
| Category: | Uncategorized. |
| Rating: | |
| Upload Date: | 11/19/2009 |
| Copyright: | Attribution Non-commercial |
| Tags: |
Leave a Comment