Islam is simply incompatible with Western society

Robert Henderson

Seventeen people have  been murdered in the two terrorist attacks in Paris (between  7-9th January 2015). Ten were journalists, including some of France’s leading cartoonists,   working for the  French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. To them can be added two policemen, one policewomen and four  members of the general  public who happened to be unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  The attacks were made on the Charlie Hebdo offices and  the  Jewish supermarket Hyper Cacher. The policewoman was shot in a separate incident.

The terrorist acts  were coordinated to produce maximum effect. That on  Charlie Hebdo was by the  brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi , who were of Algerian ancestry.  A third  brother Mourad Hamyd aged 18  was at school at the time of the Charlie Hebdo attack and has spoken to but not been detained by the police. The attack on a Jewish supermarket  was undertaken by a Mailian  Amedy Coulibaly.  He also killed a policewoman before his attack on the Jewish supermarket.  Coulibaly’s wife, Hayat Boumeddiene, who is of Algerian ancestry,  is thought to be another Muslim fanatic with homicidal tendencies. She is believed to have fled to Syria after  the shooting of the policewoman.

Those who died  at the Charlie Hebdo office were slaughtered  by men  shouting Allahu Akbar (God is great), “We have avenged the prophet!”  [for cartoons of making fun of Mohammed published by Charlie Hebdo) and just to make sure the message got across “Tell the media that this is al-Qaeda in Yemen” .   Cherif Koachi also said in a telephone  interview with a magazine  after the killings that the plot was financed by  al Q aeda The Jewish supermarket killer  introduced himself to frightened hostages  with the words ‘I am Amedy Coulibaly, Malian and Muslim. I belong to the Islamic State’.  All three killers  either expressed a wish for martyrdom or  behaved in a way in which was guaranteed to get  them killed.   All three were shot and killed by French security forces.

Unless  you are a particularly stupid and self-deluding  liberal  and have either persuaded yourself  that  this was a black op and the killers were agents of the wicked old West or have fallen back on that old liberal favourite  that the killers  are not true  Muslims  – congratulations to the Telegraph’s Tim Stanley for being so quick off the mark with that piece of shrieking inanity   –  you will think these are Muslim terrorists.  (The next time you encounter someone spinning the “not true Muslims” line ask them whether  the Crusaders of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were Christians).

Sadly there are many liberals who have not learnt the lesson dealt out by these atrocities. It is true that there has been almost complete condemnation of the killings by the liberal elites around the Western world, but one wonders how unqualified and sincere their regret and anger is.  Apart from the  liberal apologist  mantras  “not true Muslims”, “Just a tiny minority of Muslims” and “Islam is the religion of peace”   being  much in evidence, there has  been a disagreeable media eagerness to portray the killers as sophisticated military beasts. Here is a prime  example from the Telegraph:

“They wear army-style boots and have a military appearance and manner. One of the men wears a sand-coloured ammunition vest apparently stuffed with spare magazines. Some reports suggest that an attacker was also carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

“The men attacked the magazine’s headquarters with clinical precision, killing their victims and then shooting two police officers in the street outside.

“Amateur footage shows them using classic infantry tactics. They move along the street outside the office working as a pair: one advances while the other gives cover.

“Instead of spraying automatic gunfire, they fire two aimed shots at each target – a pattern known as “double-tap” firing – thereby conserving their ammunition.”

Shades of white liberals in the 1960s drooling over the Black Panthers in the USA  .

The truth is that the attackers did not behave like highly trained soldiers, and some of the reporting was simply wrong, for example, after the slaughter the killers,  as was widely reported , did not walk calmly back to the stolen  car  they were using but ran.  When they abandoned the car one of the killers left his identity card behind. After the murders at Charlie Hebdo the  two killers drove around  like headless chickens hijacking cars and holding up petrol stations to obtain food and water.  If they had really been cold, calculating beasts they would either have stayed where they were after the Charlie Hebdo killings and died in a firefight with the French police or arranged matters so that they had a hiding  place  to go to and  would  carried things like a little  food and water with them.  The widespread media  depiction of them as quasi-military figures glamourized and sanitised what they were.

The British political mainstream response

But it would be wrong to say nothing changed in Britain after the attacks. The Ukip leader Nigel Farage broke new ground for a mainstream British politician in modern Britain  by speaking of  a fifth column of people who hate us within Britain.

“There is a very strong argument that says that what happened in Paris is a result – and we’ve seen it in London too – is a result I’m afraid of now having a fifth column living within these countries.

“We’ve got people living in these countries, holding our passports, who hate us.

“Luckily their numbers are very, very small but it does make one question the whole really gross attempt at encouraged division within society that we have had in the past few decades in the name of multiculturalism.”

This was predictably  condemned by David Cameron, a  man who incredibly  still believes Turkey within the EU would be of great benefit to all concerned,  despite the anger and dismay in Britain about mass immigration generally making the prospect  of 70 million Turkish Muslims having a right to move freely within the EU certain to be  utterly dismaying to most native Britons. Interestingly, a would-be successor to Cameron as Tory leader, Liam Fox,  edged a long way towards reality in an article for the  Sunday Telegraph:

“All those who do not share their fundamentalist views are sworn enemies, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, Arab or non-Arab. It is the first lesson that we must understand – they hate us all because of who we are, our views, our values and our history. Western liberal apologists who tell us that the violence being directed at us is all of our own making not only fail to understand reality, but put us at increased risk.

“We must understand that there are fanatics who cannot be reconciled to our values and who will attempt to destroy us by any means possible. They are at war with us. They do not lack the intent to kill us, merely the means to do so, and our first response must be to deny them that capability. Sometimes that will require lethal force.”

The fact that Farage also condemned multiculturalism in no uncertain terms  provoked an automated politically correct response from the leader of the Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg:

“The Deputy Prime Minister hit out after Mr Farage suggested the attack on the offices of a satirical magazine should lead to questions about the UK’s “gross policy of multiculturalism”.

“I am dismayed that Nigel Farage immediately thinks, on the back of the bloody murders that we saw on the streets of Paris yesterday, his first reflex is to make political points,” Mr Clegg said during his weekly phone-in on LBC radio.

“If this does come down, as it appears to be the case, to two individuals who perverted the cause of Islam to their own bloody ends, let’s remember that the greatest antidote to the perversion of that great world religion are law-abiding British Muslims themselves.

“And to immediately … imply that many, many British Muslims who I know feel fervently British but also are very proud of their Muslim faith are somehow part of the problem rather than part of the solution is firmly grabbing the wrong end of the stick.”

Such  condemnations are of little account because Farage has spoken an obvious truth and the general public will understand that.  The promotion of multiculturalism has been generally pernicious because it wilfully creates serious divisions within a society,  but is unreservedly toxic in the case of Islam because Muslims,  violent and non-violent, believe in the supremacy of their religion.

The change of language by public figures particularly politicians is of the first importance because the general  public need a lead to be given where a matter is contentious. In these politically correct times it is particularly necessary  because the native population of Britain have been thoroughly intimidated by the totalitarian application of political correctness which has resulted in people saying non-pc things  losing their jobs, being arrested and,  in a growing number of cases , being brought before a criminal court to face charges.

Once things  forbidden by political correctness are  said by public figures change could be very fast. More and more people will embrace the forbidden words and ideas and, like a dam bursting, the  flood  of non-pc  voices will  overwhelm the politically correct restraints on speech and writing.

A tiny proportion of  Muslims

The  claim is routinely made by the  politically correct Western elites and “moderate” Muslims  that those committing terrorist atrocities are a tiny proportion of Muslims.  That is pedantically true but unimportant,  because it is to misunderstand the dynamic of terrorism which rests on a pyramid of commitment and support for the cause. At the top are  the leaders. Below them are those willing to carry out terrorist acts.  Supporting them will be those who make the bombs, acquire guns and so on. Below them will come those who are willing to raise funds through criminal behaviour such as extortion and drug dealing and administer  punishment – anything from death to beatings –  to those within the ambit of the group who are deemed to have failed to do what they were told or worse betrayed  the group.  Next will come those willing to provide safe houses for people and weaponry.  Then there are  those willing to provide information and come out on the streets to demonstrate at the drop of a hat.  At the bottom of conscious supporters will come the  “I disagree with  their methods but…”  people.   They say they support the ends of the terrorists but do not support terrorist  acts. This presses the terrorist demands forward because the public will remember their support for the ends and forget the means because it is the ends which engage the emotions . Those who are familiar with the Provisional IRA during the troubles in Northern Ireland will recognise this  character list  with ease. Moreover, even those from a community from which  terrorists  hail who refuse to offer conscious support  will   aid the terrorists’  cause by providing in Mao’s words “the ocean in which terrorists swim”.

There are differences in the detail of how terrorist organisations act, for example,  PIRA operated in a quasi-military structure  with a central command while Muslim terrorism is increasingly subcontracted  to individuals who act on their own. But however a terrorist movement is organised  the  general sociological structure of support described above is the same  whenever there is a terrorist group which is ostensibly promoting the interests of a sizeable minority and that minority has, justified or not, a sense of victimhood which can be nourished by the terrorists . Where the terrorists can offer a cause which promises not merely  the gaining of advantages by the group but of  the completion of some greater plan its potency is greatly enhanced.  Marxism had the communist Utopia and the sense of working towards final end of history; the great religions offer, through the attainment of some beatific afterlife, the favour of God’s will for their society and the completion of God’s plan.  Islam has those qualities in spades.

All this means that  though the active terrorists may be few , the effectiveness of the terrorist machine relies on large numbers who will offer some degree of support.   Consequently, the fact that the number of Muslims committing terrorist acts may be a tiny proportion of the total Muslim population is irrelevant. What matters is the pyramid of support which at its broadest will  include all Muslims because it is the total population which provides “the ocean in which the terrorist  may swim”.

There is also good evidence that large minority of Muslims in Britain support the methods of  Islamic terrorists, for example an NOP Poll in 2006 found that around a quarter of  British Muslims  said the  7/7 bombings in London in July 2005 were justified because of Britain’s involvement in the “War on Terror”.  There is also plenty of British Muslim support for the imposition of Sharia Law on Britain and some  Muslim children are confused as to whether it is Sharia Law or British Law  which is the law of the land. There are also growing numbers of Sharia Courts in Britain which allow disputes between Muslims to be decided outside of the British legal system.

Importantly,   it is not a case of just  the poor and the ignorant only holding  such views. Young educated Muslims are  if anything more enthusiastic than the average British Muslim to have Sharia Law with 40%  in favour and no less than 32% favouring killing  for Islam if the religion is deemed to have been slighted in some way. All of this points to a considerable reservoir of support for the ends of Muslim terrorists if not always the means.  Many Muslims in the West  would not be prepared to engage in violent acts themselves ,  but they would quite happily accept privileges for their religion and themselves won by the sword.

How should the West react to Muslim terrorism?

How should the West react?  In principle it should be simple. There is no need for gratuitous abuse, no need for laboured reasons why Islam is this or that. All that needs to be recognised  is that Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy because in its moral choices it is a belief system  which runs directly counter to liberal democracy and has as  its end game the subjugation  of the entire world.

What effective  action can Western governments do to prevent the gradual  erosion of  the values upon which their societies are built? ? There are three general  possibilities. These are:

  1. Logically, the ideal for any Western government committed to their country’s national interest would  be to expel all Muslims from their territory as a matter of policy with no legal process allowed.   That is because  (1) there is no way of knowing who will become a terrorist;  (2) a large population of Muslims provides the “ocean in which the terrorist swims “ and (3)  any action disadvantaging Muslims short of expulsion will breed terrorists.
  2. A less comprehensive programme would be to block all further Muslim immigration, ban all Muslim religious schools,  cease funding any Muslim organisations, deport any Muslim without British citizenship, remove the British citizenship of any Muslim with dual nationality and deport them back to the country  for which they hold citizenship.  The question of legal aid would not arise because  their would be no appeal allowed as the policy deals in absolutes: you are a Muslim either without British citizenship or with dual nationality and you qualify for deportation . The difficulty with that set of policies is it would  allow a large population to remain within the West and would create resentment amongst that population which could lead to terrorism.
  3. The least dynamic government action would be to implement programme 2 but allow any Muslim with British citizenship or long term residency to appeal expulsion through the courts. That would have the disadvantages of programme 2 plus the added opportunity for endless delay as appeals are heard and re-heard. Such a system would also require legal aid to be given if the judicial process was to be sound.

Will anything like this happen? Most improbable at least in the short term.  The West is ruled by elites who worship at the altar of  political correctness.  Theirs in a fantasy world in which human beings are interchangeable and institutions such as the nation state  are seen as  outmoded relics as homo sapiens marches steadily towards the sunlit uplands of a world moulded and controlled  by  the rigid totalitarian dicta of  political correctness .

For such people the mindset of anyone willing to die for an idea is simply alien to them.  Even more remote to these elites  is the belief that there is an afterlife which is much to be preferred to life on Earth. Most damaging of all they cannot conceive of people who have no interest in compromise and consequently will be remorseless in their pursuit of their goal. The liberal  mistakenly believes that simply by contact with the West will  the values the liberal espouses be transferred to the rest of the world. This incredibly arrogant fantasy can be seen at its most potent in their attitude to  China, which is  quietly but efficiently creating a world empire by buying influence, and in the Middle East and North Africa where the attempt to transfer liberal  values by a mixture of force and material aid has been a shrieking failure which mocks the liberal every second of every day.

Because of such ideas Western elites are only too likely to keep fudging the issue and conceding, not necessarily right away, more and more privileges to Muslins within their societies. They will also probably greatly increase funding for “moderate” Muslims to enter Schools and Mosques to teach Western values. This will drive many young Muslims towards extremism not away from it because however the teaching of British or Western values is conducted it will inevitably be seen as a criticism of Islam.  Older Muslims will also be angered at such  teaching of their children.  Anything the liberal is likely  to do will simply be throwing  petrol on the fire.

What is required is the replacement of the present elites either by removing them from power or by them changing their tune utterly.  The first is improbable in Britain because of the structure of the voting system  which hugely protects the status quo and a complicit mainstream media which shares the devotion to political correctness and manipulates access to favour parties and politicians which play the politically correct game.

But the changing of political tune is a real possibility because liberals are starting to get truly frightened as they realise things could get seriously out of control if Muslim terrorism continues to occur. There is also the fact that white liberals  recognise in some part of their minds that what they ostensibly espouse – the joy of diversity – is bogus.  This can be seen by how they so often arrange  their own lives  to ensure that they live in very  white and in England very English circumstances. The  massive white flight away from places such as  inner London and Birmingham bears stark witness to this.  Being capable of the greatest self-delusion they explain their hypocrisy by telling themselves that this is only because the great project of producing a country, nay a world, fit for the politically correct to love in, has tragically not been fully realised yet because  the outmoded non-pc  ideas and emotions still exists  as people have not yet been educated to see the error of their primitive ways such as believing in the nation state and a homogenous society. But in their heart of hearts they know they would dread to live in the conditions to which they have sanguinely consigned the white working class.

Liberals  may also have the beginnings of a terror that their permitting of mass immigration, the promotion of multiculturalism and the suppression of dissent from their own native populations will soon come to be called by its true name, treason. All these fears will act as a motor to drive the liberal elites to become more and more realistic about what  needs to be done.

The question every non-Muslim  in the West needs to answer is this, do you really believe that if Muslims become the majority in a Western country they will not do what Islam has done everywhere else in the world where they are  in the majority and at best place Islam within a greatly privileged position within the state or at worst create a Muslim theocracy?  Even Turkey, the liberals’ favourite example of a Muslim majority secular democracy, is rapidly moving towards a position when it cannot meaningfully be called a democracy or secular as Islamic parties gain more and more leverage and the Prime Minister Erdogan becomes ever more autocratic.

If a person’s answer to the question I posed is no, then they need to answer another question, do I want to live in such a society? If  their answer is no then they must  be willing to fight for their way of life or the “religion of peace” will change their society beyond recognition.

When I hear someone describing Islam as the “religion of peace”  I am irresistibly reminded of the aliens in the film Independence Day emerging from their spaceship yelling “We come in peace” before blasting every human in sight.  The white liberals who peddle into the “religion of peace” propaganda should be constantly called upon to explain why it is that a “religion of peace” can be so unfailingly successful in attracting people who say they subscribe to it yet are unremittingly cruel and violent.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Immigration, Nationhood, Politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Islam is simply incompatible with Western society

  1. Sue Green says:

    Would someone please comment on the direct correlation between the erosion of our tolerant Christian values and the increase of intolerant radical Islam in Britain

  2. Colin Ray says:

    To put in place any of your suggestions it would first be necessary to rid ourselves of the current ruling classes. That would also have to include all those far left tutors and teachers who have been successfully indoctrinating our young within our schools, colleges and universities. Then would have to go would be the people who really run the country, those in the civil service at top levels and who may well be Common Purpose graduates. The same would then include judges and senior police officers, who are so steeped in Cultural Marxism they have failed utterly to enforce our laws, including those in our written constitutions of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. Indeed, in some cases they have totally ignored those freedoms and rights in order to advance their political agenda.

    Once the current establishment has been removed and our ancient rights and laws within our constitution have been restored, then and only then can we turn our attention to those who wish to destroy us from within. Using existing laws which are still on the statute.

    In short, to be able to restore our nation to its rightful place and rid ourselves of our enemies within, a full scale revolution, perhaps on the scale of the English Civil War, would have to take place. And that would need leaders with the skills and attributes of Oliver Cromwell.

    Frankly, I cannot see that happening in the near future.

    • William Gruff says:

      I agree with you. History shows, time and time and time again, that nothing is changed without violence, which is why Mohammedans constantly threaten violence if their unreasonable and wholly unacceptable demands are not met. The rapidly accelerating decline of our society and culture cannot be stopped until the somnolent English voter realises that submission to Islam cannot save him from butchery and decides to unite and fight, politically if possible, physically if necessary.

      There is real trouble not too far ahead and the British establishment has shown that it is not on the side of the English when the chips are down. Once the English realise that they may begin to stir themselves. Voting for candidates other than the carefully filtered dross of the main parties would make an excellent start.

  3. For what it is worth, my judgement of the Muslim threat is that Western elites are essentially powerless because they can neither carry on with their multicultural fantasy nor prevent public discussion of what the presence of large Muslim populations means becoming ever nearer to reality, with the consequence that the elites will have to continually adjust their positions. The more frequent Muslim outrages, something over which the elites have no meaningful control, the faster will be the change. In the past few years the elite rhetoric has already moved tremendously on race and immigration generally as well as on Islam. Things are being written and said now by the mainstream politicos and media that would have been unthinkable five years ago.

  4. David Brown says:

    As recently as 1985 the UK Muslim population was about half a million. Its now close on five million. There is another good reason to stop islamic immigration see the facts here at http://www.snouts-in-the-trough.com./archives/11884

    ps i now live in Croatia kind regards David Brown

  5. Ed Bowden says:

    Ban Islam in the UK. It is not compatible with our values as you so eloquently explain.

    Close all the Mosques. If Muslims want to practice their religion they can do it in another country.

  6. David Reeves says:

    The Truth about Islam
    The existing terrorist threat in the UK and a warning of the conflcit to come:-
    Muslim leaders and preachers proclaim the evil and fanatical ideology of Islam which forms the core belief of muslim identity. They revile and preach hatred of Christians, Jews and non believers who are called Kuffar. Islam is an extremely dangerous, extremely violent, mysogynist ideology. The Koran states: “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” (2:191) ;” terrorise and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an” (8:12) Muslims reject and disdain western values of freedom and democracy, but cunningly use all the powers of democratic legitimacy and the benefits conferred on them in western secular society to demand the construction of more mosques, the subjugation and veiling of women (Life for most muslim women is a dystopian nightmare from which they cannot escape), the cruel and bestial practice of female genital mutilation, (punishable by up to 14 years in prison under English Law, but few cases are brought before the courts), polygamy, forced marriages, often of children and minors, the prohibition of alcohol, the cruel and barbaric halal slaughter of farm animals. Muslims hold beliefs advocating criminal justice that sanctions punishments perpetrating medieval savagery, including public beheading, hanging, amputation,stoning to death, flogging, muslims who convert to Christianity are sentenced to death. The Archbishop of Canterbury has warned that Christians are being deliberately attacked because of their faith in parts of the muslim world and even martyred for their faith in large numbers. Millions of muslims live in Britain and many of them neither condone nor condemn bloody mass murder and atrocities committed by their activists who call themselves ‘soldiers of allah’. Let nobody be under any illusion spread by their preachers and propagandists that islam is a religion of peace, because anyone who dares to speak out against muslims risks being killed and butchered by their activists, “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticise Islam” Koran- (5:33) British Soldiers are frequently subjected to death threats. On Wednesday 22 May 2013, a day of infamy, the full force of islamic malice and savagery found its target and willing perpetrators, two ‘soldiers of allah’ committed the brutal bloody murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby.There are currently an estimated 12,000 muslim fanatics in UK prisons at an annual cost of over £500 million, most if not all of them will eventually be released, 100 of them are classified extremely dangerous. Due to the lax and lenient Criminal Justice System driven by the need to reduce costs, many of them could be released early, free to carry out terrorist attacks to murder and maim potentially thousands of people. The British Government will have failed in its primary duty to maintain the security of its citizens. Islamic idealogy is fundamentally opposed to the collective conscience of the majority of British people and sets muslims in direct conflict with the values of Western Civilization. Higher muslim birth rates will produce a majority muslim population in large parts of Britain by the year 2035. England is on course to become a muslim country before the end of the century. The supreme symbol of muslim dominance will be the conversion of Canterbury Cathedral into a mosque destroying over one thousand four hundred years of Christian Civilization and History. Muslim leaders will be exultant to repeat the precedent of 1453, when the leader of the Ottoman Turks, Sultan Memhed II ordered the Hagia Sophia, the main church of Orthodox Christianity to be converted into a mosque, symbolizing his conquest of Constantinople. Christian worshippers inside the church were slaughtered without mercy and the building was desecrated and looted. In future years internecine warfare will break out as increasing acts of muslim terrorism spread throughout the land. Their avowed objective of imposing a muslim caliphate in Britain by terrorising the non muslim population into submission to this vicious evil creed will cause civil strife on an unprecedented scale. The battle for the defence of Judeo-Christian Civilization against muslim barbarism will continue a conflict which has lasted for centuries, except the battles to come will be fought on mainland Britain and France. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” Edmund Burke, 18th Century statesman, author and philosopher.

  7. Excellent post, and fully compatible in its analysis and suggested actions to mine, in How to Defeat the islamic State

    From <a 12-step plan to defeat Islam

    3. Political: Traitors: Apostates from civilisation

    As steps 1 and 2, publicity and countersharia achieve sufficient momentum and success, the counterjihad must accelerate and expand to deal with the enemies within Western nations – as defined in chapters 36, The enemy, and 37, Between a rock and a hard place. The mass eradication of these enemies is only possible through the robust success of steps 1 and/or 2.
    The politically correct traitors in our midst perform the same function as ‘moderate’ Muslims; they support those who would kill us; they lie and deceive; their axis of evil divides us and destroys our values; they suffocate us, while Islam waits with a machete.

    Just as US prosecutors finally nailed mafia don Al Capone for tax fraud, legal liberphiles must work in steps 1 and 2 to expose the reality of Muslim Gulf Arab money, Terrorist Muslim Brotherhood infiltration, taqiyya and Muslim voting power having criminally and traitorously corrupted our ruling elites. Liberphiles must leverage this information through media and legal channels in order for heads to roll, ASAP.

    Our immediate geographical targets are Western countries, expanding around the cradle of modern civilisation, the Mediterranean region. We must follow the example of Egypt’s courageous President el-Sisi in in purging all traitors – Muslims and their Marxist multiculturalist supporters – from every influential position, particularly government, military, policing, legal, finance, education, churches and mainstream media. Then, and only then, we will be able to properly fight back and beat the beast of Islam.

    Gaining governmental power is the key to this step. Egypt’s massive mass fight back against the Muslim Brotherhood only came about after nine months of brutal Islamic rule, and was a notable exception in the Arab world. The closer we allow things to get to this stage in the West, the more bloody will be the struggle to regain power.

    Liberphiles true to our values must organise, both within explicitly counterjihad structures, and mainstream organisations, particularly political, media, legal and military. Leaders must continue to arise from the counterjihad movement, to demand change and be ready to direct power. Patriots of civilisation must be ready and organised to step in and replace traitors. The crime of treason, and the death penalty must be restored.

    Traitors must be eliminated by whatever means possible; the earlier this is achieved, the fewer lives will eventually be lost.

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00WXIOS64

  8. investinprevention says:

    Pity that this mouth-foaming ignorance disguised as considered thought is associated with the word “England”.

    • The classic ploy of the politically correct, when faced with a contradiction of their totalitarian ideology offer abuse… RH

    • William Gruff says:

      What is it you wish to prevent, investinprevention? At a guess, I’d offer freedom of speech and opinions not sanctioned by an ideologically driven state machine.

  9. gaylord says:

    Repatriation is a pipe dream, but I have to say this was delightfully written. Both convincing and dripping in conviction.
    I think that deep down white middle class Britain would probably agree with the sentiment of your writing, but thanks to the naivety and stupidity of our forefathers, we have no way to rid ourselves of this semi-existential threat.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s