|Gates of Vienna Battle|
The practical implications of this are obvious enough, as they are everywhere else. The majority of Turkish immigrants polled by the Interior Ministry said that they want to see Sharia law introduced in Austria. Those same immigrants also stated by a decisive majority that Islamic laws were more important than Austrian laws, and blamed "democracy" for crime. The Austrian government has predictably tried to treat it as an integration problem, but as the survey shows, Muslims are enthusiastic enough about integration. They just mean to integrate Austrians into an Islamic Republic of Austria, rather than the other way around.
The example of Vienna, where the Islamic conquest of Europe was once halted, is a telling testament to the power of the Immigration Jihad. What the armies of Islam could not do en masse over several centuries, a permissive attitude toward Islamic immigration managed to do in only a few decades. The Gates of Vienna have not only been breached, they have been occupied by the enemy. And now the motto of the Vienna Tourism Bureau urging visitors to come is, "Vienna: Now or Never".
Where once upon a time Islamic armies had to lay siege, plant gunpowder charges and finally breach the walls in massive costly charges-- today they can simply hop a plane. And so what started out as a few newspaper vendors, factory workers and janitors, morphed into a full blown cultural invasion complete with a network of Islamic schools where students are taught that Islam is incompatible with democracy, that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims, and where 8.5 percent of the teachers surveyed said that it is understandable when violence is used to spread Islam. The pattern however is not limited to Vienna, it exists worldwide.
Muslims move into former depressed manufacturing centers, such as Detroit, Jersey City and Buffalo in the United States or Manchester in the UK, and buy in cheaply. and take over the base economy, moving into the lower echelon job market, replacing existing stores with cheap family run places, essentially servicing the decline. Like bacteria attacking an already weakened part of the body politic, they move into places already suffering from a declining population and looking for some means to revitalize themselves. And initially the rising Muslim population, which buys up property, opens new businesses and injects new energy into the city appears to be doing just that. Except of course whatever they put in, they quickly take out in the form of social services expenditures. The municipalities discover that the price for their newfound Muslim population is rather high.
|A Muslim Hate Protest in Vienna|
But like any takeover in which the enemy is allowed inside the gates, it could not happen without the active collaboration of those on the inside. And they have their various motivations. Left of center politicians and parties often expect that Muslim immigrants will serve as a reliable voting base for them, and they are correct about that-- in the short term. Meanwhile more middle of the road pols see rising population figures as a regional net benefit and a shot at elevating their own political importance, without examining the consequences down the road. Companies are always on the lookout for cheap labor, and particularly in countries and areas with a low birth rate, there are always some dirty jobs that need doing. The jobs that Americans, Austrians, Frenchmen, Israelis and Norwegians don't want to do. But those same jobs are also part of the critical infrastructure of a local economy. And by capturing them, they capture the base processes by which the system exists.
More civilized countries self destruct in order to save a penny, than in the name of any belief or ideology. And cheap labor and cheap votes are one of the more appealing economic drugs on the market. American industry dismantled itself to save money, and shipped off the parts to China, which now resells them to America. European industry tried to make do with Turks, Pakistanis and Yugoslavian Muslims. The American results were arguably less devastating, because the United States simply shipped its economy overseas to its enemy, instead of inviting its enemy in to maintain its economy for it.
And now even as European countries can't help but notice that they are destroying themselves through Muslim immigration, still the process continues. Because there are too many powerful people who have too much to gain from the process to cut it off. And in many cases, it would often be too late to do so without a civil war. Vienna, which once effectively used residency registration to carefully control its population, now has entire foreign districts where few non-Muslims would willingly set foot for long. Because control is an illusion when you have imported enough Muslims, something that uptight social regimes slowly begin discovering to their own misfortune, only once there are clusters and collectives of them embedded in one area.
|Islam Now Inside the Gates of Vienna|
Unlike the old forms of conquest, the Immigration Jihad is profitable for the Muslim countries that launch it, while its main expenses are borne by the non-Muslim countries who are its victims, and are forced to subsidize the social services burdens, crime and terrorism costs imposed on them by their growing Muslim populations. It is a mass invasion on the cheap. One where the new immigrants send back the loot to their old countries, spearhead crime and smuggling networks that reach from Eastern Europe and to the Middle East, plunged like a fishhook into Europe. Where the cost of each child who is taught to grow up and fight for Islam is borne by the country he is being trained to destroy. And so the Gates of Vienna have fallen. And the rest of Europe is not far behind.
What difference does it make if the German-Austrian culture is replaced by an Arab one? Their policies vis-a-vis the Jews and Israel will remain identicalReplyDelete
Austria (particularly) along with the rest of Europe have blood on their hands for supporting Hitler and condoning the Holocaust.
Why is their culture superior to a Muslim one in this respect?
It should be noted that there are also a lot of immigrants from Eastern Europe in Germany and Austria. We have probably more Russians and Poles than Turks and Arabs (at least in Germany). The former integrate fairly well. In the last few years I have the impression that more people from Africa have come. Some of them are Muslims, but the others are not exactly pillars of our society either.ReplyDelete
On the bright side, many people have grown more sceptical of Islam, even though there are practically no politicians or media outlets that speak out on behalf of them. I guess, the final point of no return would be if Turkey were admitted to the EU, because in this case millions of uneducated and often aggressive muslims could settle here.
In the end we are responsible for ourselves but it is unfortunate that both Bush and Obama have pushed for Turkeys EU-membership.
Solution to the problem please.ReplyDelete
Must be reasoned, rational, not illegal or amoral, and do not break civilised laws, or even laws that we do not have but could be deemed as intolerant. Any solution offered must not target Muslims in the West, as that would be discriminatory.
The problem is compounded that whatever is done, must be done soon, and must be effective. Twenty years from now is too late.
Sultan, I really enjoy reading your blog and you are right on most issues, but let me point out a few things where you got it wrong. Not a big deal, but it helps to set things straight:ReplyDelete
1. " Left of center politicians and parties often expect that Muslim immigrants will serve as a reliable voting base for them"- check. The crux is that the conservatives in Europe are Socialists too, and they also chase the Mohammedan vote, which should have never been granted to the soldiers of allah.
Left & right in Europe are Socialist high tax regimes, Australia is heading that way.
2. " Companies are always on the lookout for cheap labor, and particularly in countries and areas with a low birth rate, there are always some dirty jobs that need doing."
Almost entirely wrong. The labour market in Europe is totally over regulated, you can't hire a Turk or a Moroccan or Algerian cheaper than a Rumanian or Polish or a Portuguese, not legally, anyhow. Muslims don't do dirty jobs, period. Its hard to get them to do any jobs apart from operating kebab shops. Its too easy to cry poor and 'discrimination' and go on the dole than to go to work.
In America there is not only an argument for cheap labour, but also a fair bit of give and take when it comes to illegal Mexicans or South Americans. These people (for the most part) actually do work and take care of themselves, but that doesn't apply to Mohammedans in Europe.
Europe also shifted its manufacturing base to China, when it comes to that we are no different to the US.
If you like to discuss the matter further, I'm happy to take it up with you. The cheap labour argument is done to death, but it keeps popping up again and again. Why work if you can get everything you need for free?
Congratulations for another wonderfully written article, full of insight.ReplyDelete
Have a good Passover.
The question is, how do we save ourselves without destroying ourselves, or without admitting that in a free and fair fight, we were defeated and Islam won. This means the following rules towards Muslims in the West.ReplyDelete
1. No force or compulsion as regards the practice of their religion.
2. No forced repatriations of people who are citizens.
Breaking any of the above two rules means that we have breached our own rules of fair play and tolerance, i.e., we have broken our own society, as well admitted, that in a free and fair fight within a system and rules of our own making, we were defeated and Islam has won.
They must be reasoned, rational, not illegal or amoral, and do not break civilised laws, or even laws that we do not have but could be deemed as intolerant. Any solution offered must not target Muslims in the West, as that would be discriminatory.
The problem is compounded that whatever is done, must be done soon and must be effective. Twenty years from now is too late.
Sheikh wrote: The labour market in Europe is totally over regulated, you can't hire a Turk or a Moroccan or Algerian cheaper than a Rumanian or Polish or a Portuguese, not legally, anyhow. Muslims don't do dirty jobs, period. Its hard to get them to do any jobs apart from operating kebab shops. Its too easy to cry poor and 'discrimination' and go on the dole than to go to work.ReplyDelete
Quite right. You will see that the street cleaners are whites but never Muslims - the job is too low for allah's anointed.
As I've pointed out some of the Muslim work force in Austria started out selling newspapers on the street. Foreign Turkish workers rate on the low end of the pay scale compared to domestic workers. While many do wind up on the dole where the chance exists, they would never have been imported in large numbers if they did not fill an economic niche.ReplyDelete
Cheap labor is not as great a factor in Europe as it in the US, but it is a rather large one. More to the point though, Muslim labor has been used to fill birth rate gaps and gaps created by economic upturns.
German/Austrian culture is vastly superior to that of the middle eastern religion.ReplyDelete
Islam never produced anything of value.
if your parameters require that we defeat Islamic migration without selectivity or deportation, than some European countries are already gone. Because birth rate alone dooms them to become Islamic.
Within those parameters, the only policies possible resemble those already being pursued, to limit immigration and pursue integration. Those of course are not enough, if properly applied they might save Germany or England, assuming the EU was out of the way, but not many others.
But you're operating from several assumptions that I would question
First that "we made the system" and that we have to follow its rules. Meeting a crisis without being willing to change the rules, is a formula for disaster. We did not make the system, I would argue that the system was imposed as a result of poor judgment and political agendas.
Secondly that changing the system and its rules to selectively target an immigration Jihad would destroy our society. I am not at all sure that is so.
"For Muslim countries, the "Immigration Jihad is a profitable way to dispose of their own excess population. The average Muslim country suffers from heavy unemployment, or rather people employed on the far margins of the system, due to a rising birth rate. Immigration exports the population, and profits from the money they send back home to their relatives"ReplyDelete
Yes and this is the method Mexico uses as well.
Daniel Greenfield wrote: if your parameters require that we defeat Islamic migration without selectivity or deportation, than some European countries are already gone. Because birth rate alone dooms them to become Islamic.ReplyDelete
You are though implying that we break our own rules of a liberal and tolerant society to deal with the present internal threat. Your argument, I suppose rests on the principle, that we do this in war time, WWII for instance, when normal constitutional liberties had to be curtailed for the period of the war.
If so fine, but even in WWII, we did not forcibly and permanently deport those who we considered enemy aliens, especially so if they were citizens who had done no harm.
We have to make Muslims voluntarily quit the West, without us demanding anything from them, or encouraging them to leave, or making any laws that are discriminatory to Muslims or Islam only.
Any departure from the above means that we have broken the rules of our own society, as it was incapable of competing with Islam in our own system, and by our own rules.
On a completely different topic.ReplyDelete
Proponents of AGW, including Prof Lovelock, are forecasting a catastrophe beyond imagination- Prof Lovelock forecasts deaths in the region of 7 billion. Planetary devastation!
Lets re-examine AGW and ACC in light of the statements of the very respected Prof Lovelock. First, Prof Lovelock is a truly a great man and a great scientist. If he believes that we are facing a catastrophe due to climate change, then we are facing a catastrophe, in fact an extinction event. Such an impending catastrophe requires serious and urgent measures.
AGW by defintion is man-made. The more humans there are, and these demanding ever more energy usage, the more Carbon is going to be released, therefore making AGW worse.
As a matter of urgency, each nation should start a a process of stabilising the human population.
As each nation is going to be taxed on the basis of its energy generation/consumption, it follows that the less people there are in the nation, the less Carbon is created. In fact, less agriculture and farm animals will be required to sustain a smaller population, which means again that there will less Carbon.
Consequently, we should make 2-children per family the norm, with no benefits as well as punitive penalties, for those who break this limit. I mean, if a global catastrophe is in the offing, and humans are the cause, then we need to urgently institute the following measures.
1. Restrict family size to 2 children per family or woman.
2. As immigrants increase the population of a nation and therefore its Carbon footprint, while reducing the carbon footprint of the nation they left behind, immigrants should pay a once only carbon levy. If this is not done, immigration becomes a Carbon burden on the nation.
It is not enough for governments to simply legislate carbon taxes – they need to actively start to reduce the global human population- starting in the West, where the most profligate energy users are.
Now there will be protests from religious groups such as Catholics, on the restriction of family size. However, the calamity facing the planet is so huge (7 or 8 billion deaths), that Catholics will just have to go along with what is good for humanity as a whole.
Each nation therefore has to start the program. China is already way ahead in this. India would like to do it, but has been unable so far to find justifiable reason to do so.
I'm sure all will understand, that what is being proposed is for the good of mankind.
DG wrote : Secondly that changing the system and its rules to selectively target an immigration Jihad would destroy our society. I am not at all sure that is so.ReplyDelete
The main problem is that even if all immigration is stopped, the growth rate of Muslims will itself allow Muslims to impose sharia at some time in the future.
Consider the situation that all the Imams decided to preach that all Muslims in the UK behave in the most law-abiding manner. They did so, because they were aware that they must not do anything to give any excuse to the natives to pass laws that are discriminatory to Muslims and Islam.
How then are we to set up any laws that either disenfranchise a group or deport them on the basis that at some time in the future, their more numerous descendents may (they will) impose sharia via constitutional means.
There is then no realistic political strategy that is available that will allow laws that discriminate against Muslims, simply because they have larger families. Our goose is cooked.
If OTH, we did pass laws that impose severe restrictions on the present law abiding minority on the basis that their descendents posed a threat, we would have totally destroyed our claim to be a fair and tolerant society.
islam never produced anything of value.
Ture but arselifters take things of value. Its a tenet of pislam. And Austria is on the list.
As I've pointed out some of the Muslim work force in Austria started out selling newspapers on the street.
Yes, some asylum seekers were allowed to make a little extra money by selling newspapers and by selling roses in restaurants.
Foreign Turkish workers rate on the low end of the pay scale compared to domestic workers.
Waddaya know? That was 30 years ago, not now.
While many do wind up on the dole where the chance exists, they would never have been imported in large numbers if they did not fill an economic niche.
They have never been "imported." That's a myth. Mohammedan welfare seekers were forced on Western Europe by the OECD after the "oil-shocks" of in 1970 when the Arabs forced us to open up for immigration.
Cheap labor is not as great a factor in Europe as it in the US, but it is a rather large one. More to the point though, Muslim labor has been used to fill birth rate gaps and gaps created by economic upturns.
Nobody in his right mind hires Muslims, not anymore. There is growing awareness that the presence of large numbers of Mohammedans is a liability, not an asset. Unfortunately, no Western government has ever bothered to collect data for a proper profit & loss assessment. Geert Wilders & myself are the only ones who called for that so far.
No, we still have a long way to go. The future looks bleak....
Are we a liberal and tolerant society? Is a society that arrests a woman for selling a goldfish really liberal or tolerant, or is it simply liberal and tolerant toward Muslims... and increasingly illiberal and intolerant toward its own citizens?
Furthermore the current system is not our own. It is the system that some people and politicians like, but it is not an unchanging eternal system. The system we have has adapted over time, changing each generation. Even in the US, the Constitution bedrock has been altered by supreme court interpretation. Take the deprivation of citizenship which was judged as cruel and unusual punishment, a constitutionally dubious pronouncement.
Finally the strength of a system is that it adapts and learns to defeat threats. An inflexible system that cannot adapt is already inferior and incapable of competing. If our system cannot change to deal with a threat, then it has already failed.
How then are we to set up any laws that either disenfranchise a group or deport them on the basis that at some time in the future, their more numerous descendents may (they will) impose sharia via constitutional means.ReplyDelete
Why bother with their descendants. Those who believe in Sharia today, and they are a majority, could be disenfranchised now.
One does not have to disenfranchise a law abiding minority, one must simply demonstrate that the literal text of the Koran is incompatible with the law.
Political strategies become realistic based on context. A sizable number in the UK would support disenfranchisement now. If there was a constant focus on Muslim acts of violence, that number would quickly increase.
Looking back at the origins of Islam in Austria, or for that matter the current effects of the boom in Ireland, labor is obviously an issue.
Cheap labor has been a global vector for immigration, along with politicians looking for an easy dole voting base.
Regarding AGW, its application has always been selective, because it's only meant to creative specific restraints on developed countries, for profit and ideologyReplyDelete
DP, surely Sultan's suggestion that ideology, that of believing Islam to be valid where the Constitution is not, would be easier to enact through sedition laws than to be putting little contraceptives in the water supply, as you seem to easily suggest, no?ReplyDelete
Those who espouse the dominance of Islamic law over man's law in his own country on a governance basis (moral law aside...such that it is) should be tried on sedition and treason charges. Those whose da'wah includes this premise should be arrested and sentenced.
I suppose you could call it a political witchhunt. Yes, that sounds fine: A political witchhunt for those who don't believe in the constitutional body politic.
Too afraid to tout sharia in your little mosque because someone might turn you in? Good. No da'wah, no sharia.
In the U.S., there's plenty of room for more prisons.
Couldn't happen to a nizer zity! when they had all these Jooish intellectuals who made Vienna the intellectual capital of Europe: see Cannetti's 3 v. memoirs, they destroyed and killed them, hunted them like dogs, ooooh now they are reaping the wind. America beware, Detroit is on the way of becoming Vienna, but then Detroit never was Vienna.ReplyDelete
Daniel wrote: Finally the strength of a system is that it adapts and learns to defeat threats. An inflexible system that cannot adapt is already inferior and incapable of competing. If our system cannot change to deal with a threat, then it has already failed.ReplyDelete
I'm posing the problem what if the present day minority of Muslims decide to be totally peaceful and law abiding. And yet we know that they have to repatriated or else their more numerous descendents in the future will impose sharia when they have the opportunity. That is more or lerss certain.
How do you repatriate a law abiding minority when they are peaceful and law abiding, and even promise that will abide with the law of the land?
winoceros said...DP, surely Sultan's suggestion that ideology, that of believing Islam to be valid where the Constitution is not, would be easier to enact through sedition laws than to be putting little contraceptives in the water supply, as you seem to easily suggest, no?ReplyDelete
You support Sultan when he writes that a case can be made that those who make Islam above the constitution, are liable to be tried for sedition. That is right. But can you do this when the number of Muslims reaches 50% of the population?
The difficulty is that we cannot fashion any law that is discriminatory to a religion, particularly in the scenario I mentioned - that Muslims decide to be super-law abiding till the opportune time arrives.
As you know, or at least we are told so, AGW is the most frightening and alarming calamity that is very likely to befall on humanity.
As AGW is by definition caused by humans, then reducing, or at least stabilising the population at the present level, is the best way to
minimise the catastrophe of AGW. This proposition is totally open, nothing secretive or furtive about it. This policy is best adopted in the West where energy usage is the greatest, and therefore the impact on Carbon release the greatest.
Two children per woman or something like that is proscribed for all. Those who do not comply are fined, or even imprisoned, as what we are facing is a calamity beyond measure. Most people will understand when they realise the gravity of the situation. It is for the good of all humanity.
Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said... Regarding AGW, its application has always been selective, because it's only meant to creative specific restraints on developed countries, for profit and ideology.ReplyDelete
Quite. I'm relying on that so there is no opposition to it from Third world countries.
If the present day minority of Muslims were peaceful, we wouldn't have much of a problem, aside from cultural integrity.ReplyDelete
But if they are "peaceful" but actually plan a takeover that will eliminate the rights of the minority when they become the majority, then they are not in fact peaceful, even if they are currently non-violent.
A series of Communist cells plotting a Communist takeover but willing to be peaceful at the moment, is neither peaceful nor law abiding. Just another Hudna.
IS THE COLLAPSE OF CHRISTIANITY OPENING THE GATES TO ISLAM?ReplyDelete
Prof. Richard Dawkins, formerly a militant atheist, is now getting worried that the collapse of Christianity in Britain is destroying a 'bulwark against something worse'.
"In Britain religious belief is in freefall, according to the most recent figures from the National Centre for Social Research. Over the past two decades the number of people describing themselves as atheist or agnostic has risen to 37 per cent, while those identifying themselves as Christian has dropped from 66 per cent to 50 per cent.
Even among the world’s most famous atheists, the crisis of faith among Christians in Europe has been met with concern.
Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, said: “There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.”
Peter Tatchell, the human rights campaigner and one of the organisers of the Protest the Pope demonstration at Westminster Cathedral last weekend, came to the defence of a Christian street preacher who was fined £1,000 in Glasgow for saying that homosexuality was a sin.
Shawn Holes, a Baptist from America, was charged with “uttering homophobic remarks” in a breach of the peace that prosecutors said was “aggravated by religious prejudice”.
Mr Tatchell said: “The price of freedom of speech is that we sometimes have to put up with opinions that are objectionable and offensive. Just as people should have the right to criticise religion, people of faith should have the right to criticise homosexuality.”
It is a sign of how bad things have become that the faith’s enemies seem now to be defending it. "
Daniel Greenfield wrote: A series of Communist cells plotting a Communist takeover but willing to be peaceful at the moment, is neither peaceful nor law abiding. Just another Hudna.ReplyDelete
I know. But the problem is much more serious then that.
First, they do not have to plot like communist cells do. It is all planned, finalised and written up in the Koran and Hadiths. A Muslims simply have to be nice, till the day the relevant texts are read out and implemented.
The problem of an Islamic takeover is likely in the next 100 years. How do we deport or repatriate an entire group of people now, when they are totally law abiding, under the assumption (we, you and I, know this is a perfectly valid one), that at some time in the future, their descendents will impose sharia.
One is not allowed to visit the sins of the fathers on the children. In this case we are punishing a group NOW, for the possible sins of their grandchildren who are born yet, which they may commit in the future.
And yet, if we do not take care of the demographic Jihad now, it will be too late once the Muslim population is much larger, without starting a civil war.
That is the dilemma. There are solutions which avoid unpleasantness and do not compromise our values. We just need to think.
Actually they do have to plot. The Koran gives the big picture, but it takes huge amounts of money and effort on the ground to create the organizations, spread the propaganda and pave the way.ReplyDelete
Groups like CAIR or the MSU play that role. And they are direct analogues of Communist organizations which did not engage in direct terrorism, but were preparing the ground for a takeover.
We are not punishing them for what their children will do, but for what they do. Someone who supports the imposition of Sharia law, and a majority of Muslims in many European countries do, supports the overthrow and repression of the country's population. This is a crime.
Any solution will have to directly or indirectly deal with the problem of Islam. Dealing with it indirectly may be doable, but the more indirect an approach is, the more it's likely to fail and the more resources it requires.
Actually they do have to plot.ReplyDelete
I mentioned that, but they do not have to do so now.
We are not punishing them for what their children will do, but for what they do.
We have to, for if we do not do so now, it will be too late.
I cant see how we can take any other route except an indirect one, that does not harm us.
May not be able to post for the next few days as my PC is giving probems. Do think it over. We need lateral thinking here.
Lovelock is an idiot.ReplyDelete
DP111, you suppose that there are law abiding Muslims. The concept of assimilable Muslims is an illusion. As the Sultan's article shows, the majority of Muslims polled want the shariah. Ergo, they want a radical transformation of the host government and they will get it unless they are opposed by forceful measures. They will NEVER cease to agitate for the end of Austria as Austrians know it. This -- and lawfare, death threats, riot, arson, and assassination -- will be the mechanism of subversion and conquest in any country in which Muslims are the minority. You advocate the impossible, peaceful measures that are wildly inconsistent with a state of war that exists between Islam and infidel nations.ReplyDelete
Infidel nations will win by forcing Muslims to recant their allegiance to the political doctrine that Islam is and deporting those who won't. Those who won't leave must be rounded up or hunted down. Our patience should be at an end as of today.
Killing is on the way. The only question is, Will it take place later or sooner and who will be doing it?
I couldn't care less about some gentlemanly "after you, Alfonse" approach to this problem. Strong measures of self preservation are evidence of vigor and strength. We have a right to preserve our ways because we say we do and will fight to do just that. The flaccid measures and precepts you suggest are the vain hope of the feckless Western elite. It is the resistance of affidavits, motions, compacts, consent decrees, manifestos, and inter faith coffee hours.
It is our elite's delusional thinking and weakness that has caused the problem. Correcting the problem will be a vindication of the best of the western tradition -- implacable resistance to inferior and barbarous cultures.
Muslims sit there scheming to trash our wonderful civilization and turn us into a despised minority with the status of our women degraded to Taliban standards. No thanks. Muslims live for the day when they can stick it in us and break it off. I'm not the least bit inclined to be fair with them.
This is a situation unlike anything ever seen in history, with the exception of the episode of the Trojan Horse. We all need to wake up now and realize what a catastrophic mistake has been made. The paradigm of the post-WWII era is about to implode and its silly delusions with it.
Col. B. Bunny said...DP111, you suppose that there are law abiding Muslims.ReplyDelete
Sorry for not replying earlier.
I suppose no such thing. However if I go along with the Warmists and say that AGW threatens to be an extinction event for the planet, particularly higher life forms, then it allows the state to use coercive powers far more vigorous them mere marshal law. Besides, we will have the rest of humanity on our side, as we are doing it for the good of humanity. You can do virtually anything under that guise. Muslims will not be able to nay it.
You only have to look at the list of people banned from entering the U.K to notice that a large number of the people banned are Muslim, the next largest group would be supremacist White people who may bring inter-communal hatred.ReplyDelete
The Muslims and the racist Whites are banned because they are both supremacists.
But the West keeps allowing the wholesale immigration of Muslims who don't just follow and intolerant and supremacist ideology, but a 7th Century retrograde force.
It comes as no wonder that groups like the EDl and political parties are calling for a ban on all Muslim immigration.