Since the 1950s, Islam has been growing in the West,
mainly by immigration.
Most immigrants come to the West precisely because they support its freedoms
and want to escape failed states ruled by clerics and Islamic dictators.
We have a duty to let these freedom-loving Muslims in.
There is an upside to doing so:
Western Muslims are the most liberal, tolerant, pro-democracy Muslims in the world.
All the dissidents are here
- the religious dissidents,
the political dissidents,
the feminist dissidents, and
the gay dissidents.
All the dissident works
- such as criticism of Islam and
- are published in the West.
There is an argument that if there is ever to be an Islamic Reformation,
it will come from the western Muslims,
who are free to speak and question,
rather than from the Muslims living in unfree states.
But there is a substantial minority
who threaten our western freedoms.
What to do about these aggressors is one of the questions of our time.
Islam v. the West.
Photo in the English Garden,
Munich, on a hot summer's day in 2010.
Actually, it's not so much that the immigrant women dress like this.
It is that they have to dress like this,
or they will face consequences, up to and including death.
Amazing picture from Blick
Around the world,
millions of people who live in tyrannies
long for freedom and democracy.
We have a duty to give pro-democracy activists,
and western freedom-lovers a haven.
The west is the natural place for them to set up their opposition
parties, newspapers, websites
and governments-in-exile, which we should support.
We have a duty to give a haven to people
fleeing genocide and persecution.
I despise anti-immigration movements that are based on ethnic purity.
Some of the
seem to be in or near this territory.
the desire for ethnic purity
is one of the single worst ideas in human history.
My country, the Republic of Ireland, is
far too ethnically pure already,
having lost most of its ancient
Protestant and Anglo-Irish population.
In general, ethnic purity is a sign of failure.
Immigration is a sign of success.
Having said all that, there is one troubling issue:
How about letting in people who hate you
and threaten you?
To oppose immigration per se
(or be against all immigrants once they are in)
But the western left ignores the fact
that immigrants may hate western freedoms,
and want to end them,
and force their primitive, barbarous ideas on me.
Obviously, not all immigrants have been threatening like this,
so we must be careful to focus on the ones who have issued such threats.
At the moment this category consists almost entirely
of Islamists who openly want to destroy our freedom
and some day set up sharia law in Europe.
My response to the existence of such appalling people is as follows:
Let in freedom-lovers, exclude freedom-haters.
- Yes, I agree that people
who hate western freedoms should not be allowed in.
Islamist activists should not be let in, even if they are
West-haters can be hard to identify on arrival, though.
You need to be careful that your rules and checks
do not exclude democracy-loving Muslims who are fleeing
Islamist religious states.
These are exactly the people you want to let in.
Islam v. Islamism
makes the same point,
about how many Muslims and ex-Muslims in the West are our allies:
"Remember that most Muslims who emigrated to the United States did so to get
away from "cultures" and "societies" (I use the terms very loosely)
like the ones that are described below, much as Judeo-Christian immigrants came here
to get away from European monarchies, religious despotisms, and feudal lords."
- Inevitably, you will let in some freedom-haters by accident.
If they are serious, they will eventually do something,
at which point they can be identified.
Then you have the problem of: Can they be deported?
native born people are allowed hate the west.
Are we making immigrants second-class citizens,
with less freedom of speech than natives?
It's certainly a difficult issue. I think they can be deported,
on the grounds that letting them in was clearly an error at the time.
So I think, yes, an immigrant can be a second-class citizen
in this sense
for n years, until they have proved they are not an enemy
of the country.
This is not a restriction that will bother any immigrant
who does not actually hate the west.
Native born people cannot be deported,
even if they hate the west and its freedoms.
They must be first-class citizens.
In a free society,
we tolerate citizens who hate tolerance
and want to end it.
for people who want to end free speech,
such as fascists, communists and Islamists.
But the point is:
We can be relaxed about this when they are powerless cranks.
But what if there is a growing number of such people
who want to end freedom?
My response would be that
we should still have free speech,
but a free society has every right to try to survive.
It must do everything possible to
reduce the numbers of such people, and not let any more in.
Germans to put Muslims through loyalty test
- The German state of Baden-Wurttemberg
is to test whether incoming Muslims believe in western values
of religious freedom and a tolerant society.
If not, they are denied citizenship.
Even better, if you answer the test correctly, but it is found out later
that you do not really believe in western values,
you can have your citizenship removed.
Those who support 9/11 will be denied citizenship.
This is the future. This is what all of Europe should do.
If immigrants do not believe in western values of tolerance and freedom,
they should not be let in to Europe.
Fascists seek asylum in Norway, Aug 2011.
Islamic fascists attack apostates at an asylum-seekers' centre in Norway.
They don't even wait until they're in the country before revealing their true face!
Four refugees arrested in terror plot in Sweden, Sept 2011.
Sweden - out of kindness - let in these child refugees from Somalia and Iraq in 1991, 1993, 1996 and 1999.
In 2011 they are arrested for allegedly plotting an Islamic terrorism attack against Sweden.
This is the nonsense that comes from the lack of clarity in the law.
We provide asylum to fascists just as easily as
to people fleeing fascism. The law seems to make no distinction.
Don't be surprised if in the next few years
some of these "refugees" bomb a British city.
Refugees have already tried to bomb London.
Islamic Fascism in Belgium:
Abu Imran (Fouad Belkacem)
declares that he wants to basically destroy all of Belgium.
Well what a lovely immigrant to have!
He says he will demolish the
I notice that this barbarian uses infidel inventions like video, however.
And did I spot a mobile phone?
What a vile hypocrite.
In 2015, Belkacem was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment.
should then be deported from the West and never allowed to return.
Islamic Fascism in Holland: Den Haag Connection (DHC),
a Moroccan immigrant fascist rap group in Holland.
(The very idea that immigrants might be fascists never occurred to anyone promoting mass immigration in the
1960s and 1970s.)
"Fuck them Jews, those dirty Jews, the immigrants will come to kill you
... Jews must be killed.
Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas."
Den Haag Connection also threatened the
educated, intelligent, articulate
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
"Hirsi Ali Diss"
(and English lyrics):
"Fucking bitch, fucking whore ... I'll smack you in the mouth, break your neck.
Cos you make me tired, you know what I'll do? I'll slice you in two and dump you in one of the seven seas.
You dirty foul filthy fucking tiny cockroach I'll kick you to death."
Den Haag Connection should be deported to Morocco
and banned from ever entering the EU again.
Islamic Fascism in Norway:
"Peace Conference Scandinavia 2013"
in Norway, March 2013.
The audience all say they are regular Muslims, not extremists.
And then they all declare support for
segregation of men and women, sharia law (death for gays and apostates)
and stoning for adultery.
They declare that all of Islam is extremist like this, not just a fringe.
It is a thoroughly depressing video.
However, there is a counter argument.
only an extremist Muslim would go to an Islam Net conference.
It is comic really:
Sharia transforms countries into shitholes.
Muslims then leave those countries to go to countries that actually work.
Then some of them try to introduce sharia in those countries, so they can wreck them as well.
Will Muslim immigrants really threaten our liberties?
I'm fairly relaxed so far, but that situation may of course change.
have achieved little so far, though there are some worrying signs:
"British" Muslim cleric
sums up the mind of
immigrants who do not understand the West.
He and his sons were
convicted in July 2012 of assaulting and threatening his daughter for resisting a forced marriage.
The brave girl went to the police and
got her father served with a "Forced Marriage Prevention Order",
which meant her passport was confiscated to stop him taking her to Pakistan.
He was furious at this, which he saw as a
"combination of her and the UK judicial system depriving him of
his right to choose her husband within his own family".
Why would an immigrant who believes in such ideas
choose to emigrate to a country where they are illegal?
What an idiot.
Good for the girl for not taking any crap
and going to the police.
Her father and her brothers are not British, but she is.
women married to men of Muslim background
are 8 times more likely to be killed by their husbands
than other women.
Is this true?
If you have evidence to the contrary, tell me here.
The Conflict at Home
- Immigrants in the west are denied education
and forced into marriage
- and the western left doesn't care.
When Islam Breaks Down, Spring 2004
- "Here, for once,
are instances of unadulterated female victimhood, yet the silence of the
feminists is deafening. Where two pieties - feminism and
multiculturalism - come into conflict, the only way of preserving both is
Because they come from a culture in which
many forms of rape are acceptable,
there are many Muslim clerics in the West
who justify rape.
There is also some evidence that Muslim immigrants are over-represented in rape statistics.
There is some evidence in Europe of an unusually large number of
rapes by Muslim immigrants of native European women.
The cultural attitudes illustrated here
would certainly help to explain this,
as they make excuses for the
rape by frustrated males of
scantily-dressed infidel women.
"Every minute in the world a woman is raped, and she has no one to blame but herself,
for she has displayed her beauty to the whole world.
Strapless, backless, sleeveless - they are nothing but satanical.
Mini-skirts, tight jeans - all this to tease men and to appeal to (their) carnal nature."
- Feiz Muhammad.
"Jews are pigs that will be killed at the end of the world"
- Feiz Muhammad.
This enemy preacher was born in Australia
to a Lebanese immigrant family.
He moved to Lebanon in 2005,
from where he
spews his hatred on YouTube.
This ranting Islamist preacher was born in Egypt, yet shamefully he was allowed into Australia,
despite the fact that he hates western values and wants to destroy them.
Australia's most senior Muslim cleric blames women for rape
(because of their immodest dress), 2006.
"In his literature, writer al-Rafee says, if I came across a rape crime,
I would discipline the man and order that the woman be jailed for life.
Why would you do this, Rafee? He said because if she had not left the meat uncovered,
the cat wouldn't have snatched it.
If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park, or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, then whose fault will it be, the cats, or the uncovered meat's? The uncovered meat is the disaster. If the meat was covered the cats wouldn't roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won't get it.
If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she's wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don't happen."
A 23-year-old Syrian-born immigrant to New Zealand defends the cleric:
"The argument that men should control themselves is ludicrous.
It is just like saying thieves should not rob houses whose doors and windows are left wide open."
I would deport this young man without hesitation.
Such an immigrant should not be allowed into any western country.
Letting him in was clearly a mistake.
I would deport the cleric too.
Letting him in was also clearly a mistake.
If you don't believe in western values, you shouldn't be allowed in.
More quotes from this prick:
"The Jews' struggle with humanity is as old as history itself".
"September 11 is God's work against oppressors."
The Holocaust is a "Zionist lie".
Why do feminists support disgusting, rape-defending men like this,
instead of supporting their enemies?
Four Pakistani brothers, who had obviously been brought up to be rapists,
were sentenced to between 15 and 24 years
for raping unveiled girls.
Their father, Dr. "HMK"
said about the victims:
"What do they expect to happen to them? Girls from Pakistan don't go out at night."
The eldest rapist son, "MSK"
he thought he had a right to rape girls who did not wear headscarves, drank alcohol,
and went to his house unaccompanied.
Well he's got lots of time to think about it now.
He won't be eligible for parole until 2026 (when he will be 47).
He and his brother were
viciously beaten in prison in 2007.
His brother "MAK" was nearly beaten to death.
What a high price they are paying for imposing the moron ideas of their native culture onto Australia.
They could have taken some time to learn about western culture, integrated, and dated western girls,
and they could be having sex by consent now, instead of being celibate and beaten by gangs in prison.
Feiz Muhammad calls for Geert Wilders (and indeed all critics of Islam) to be killed.
He absurdly claims that Muhammad is
"the greatest man that walked this earth".
This enemy cleric is now
back in Australia.
Libyan sex attacker
could be a poster boy for the screwed up attitudes to sex in Islam.
He got a Libyan government scholarship to study in Australia.
"upset and sexually aroused at the way women in Australia dressed and behaved".
So he started sexually assaulting them.
"Atagore told police he didn't know the country's laws prevented women being assaulted."
He got 5 years in jail,
and when released will be deported.
The West Australian.
Even if freedom-hating immigrants
never succeed in actually changing our laws,
there is another threat, which is that of
sporadic violence and terrorism.
Importing Muslims means inevitably importing some jihadis.
Even if you only let in freedom-loving, democracy-loving Muslims
(as discussed above),
their children may be jihadis.
This seems to be the case with the
2005 London bombings.
The simple act of letting in Muslims at all
increases the number of jihadis who will try to kill you.
it seems that
the second London bombing attack of 2005
was by refugees, on the country that took them in.
They came to Britain as child refugees from war-torn Africa.
And they repaid British generosity by trying to slaughter its people.
As I said above, it is
true that the west is the heartland of truly moderate Islam.
Western Muslims are far more moderate than
Muslims in the Islamic world.
There are millions of Muslims and lapsed Muslims in the west
who believe in democracy and freedom,
and are in the west precisely because they do not wish to live under Islamic law.
At the same time, many Muslim leaders
promoted by the media as "moderate" Muslims
turn out to be anything but.
hate-filled extremist jihadis,
are simply described as "moderate".
More often, "moderates" turn out to be religious ultra-conservatives
who have crackpot views on Israel and America,
and who seem incapable of condemning Islamism.
Certainly, nobody who believes in Islamic law,
or subscribes in any way to Islamism,
could possibly be described as a "moderate".
Nobody who supports attacks on Israeli civilians
could possibly be described as a "moderate".
Any time I hear the left describe some Muslim,
as a "moderate",
I now assume they are lying.
And finally, it is also true that 10-20 percent of western Muslims
do support the global jihad.
is a conservative religious Muslim from Lebanon,
who moved to Australia in childhood.
She says that criticism of
the alleged prophet Muhammed is a
About her religion's alleged "prophets", she says:
"They are not just like you and me,
they have special status - you're supposed to show respect.
There have to be boundaries in how far you go in respecting other's beliefs."
If this is what she thinks, then she does not belong in the West.
She does not understand our civilization,
and maybe, rather than trying to end our ancient, hard-won freedoms,
she should instead move somewhere
for her primitive beliefs about free speech
and the place of religion in society.
It's illegal to criticise alleged prophets in much of the Middle East, for example.
Actually moderate Muslims
What I mean by actually moderate Muslims
(as opposed to the fake "moderates" so often promoted)
are Muslims who oppose Islamism.
"My modest hopes are to create the determining factors needed to create a reformation
and enlightenment for Islam. That may sound ambitious.
But the people who are needed to create the conditions needed for that are us
- the Moslems of the West.
My ambitions are - apart from making integration less painful - to show that Islam and democracy
can be made to be compatible.
If the Moslems of the West can not reform Islam, nobody can."
Since Danish imams toured the Middle East with
three fake Mohammed cartoons (see bottom of page)
to try to incite hatred and violence against Denmark,
Denmark is finally waking up:
"I believe it has become obvious that the imams are not the people we should be listening to
if we want integration in Denmark to work",
says the Danish Integration Minister. Hurray!
Poll, Aug 2011
shows that only a small minority of Muslim Americans feel that
CAIR, ISNA or MPAC represent them.
These groups are basically self-appointed.
This makes sense.
Well-integrated Muslim Americans would join mainstream American groups like the Democratic or Republican parties.
Only poorly-integrated Muslim Americans with a chip on their shoulder would join
whining sectarian grievance-mongers like CAIR and ISNA.
Islamist Lobbies' Washington War on Arab and Muslim Liberals, by Essam Abdallah (an Egyptian liberal intellectual), 16 Feb 2012,
"One of the most powerful lobbies in America under the Obama Administration is the Muslim Brotherhood greater lobby
Among leading advisors sympathetic to the Ikhwan is Daliah Mogahed (Mujahid) and her associate, Georgetown Professor John Esposito. Just as shocking, there is also a pro-Iranian lobby that has been influencing US policy towards Iran and Hezbollah".
He says the main opponents of liberal Muslims are
the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR),
the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC),
the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)
and the National Iranian American Committee (NIAC).
13 percent of US Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
5 percent of US Muslims have favourable views of Al Qaeda.
The above references a May 2006 study which found that:
Only 17 percent of British Muslims say Arabs did 9/11.
Only 16 percent of Turkish Muslims say Arabs did 9/11.
Only 15 percent of Pakistani Muslims say Arabs did 9/11.
35 percent of French Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
25 percent of Spanish Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
24 percent of British Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
69 percent of Nigerian Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
57 percent of Jordanian Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
53 percent of Egyptian Muslims say suicide bombing of civilians can be justified.
Just as the Irish in Britain were of little use against the IRA,
and just as the "good Germans" were of little use in WW2,
so western Muslims will probably be of little use in this war.
They don't like the jihad, but will make no attempt to fight it,
and have only criticism for those who do.
10 percent of western Muslims will help fight this war.
10 percent will fight for the enemy.
80 percent will sit on the fence, and then, when the war is over,
will be perfectly happy with the allied victory.
Survey of US Muslims, Oct 2012, shows large numbers of American Muslims who hate freedom and agree with sharia:
58 percent of US Muslims say criticism of Islam should be illegal in the USA.
46 percent say those who criticise Islam should face criminal charges.
43 percent disagree that Christian and other non-Muslim proselytisation should be legal.
32 percent say that sharia should be the supreme law of the land in the USA.
12 percent say those who criticise Islam should be executed.
Midwest Lutherans Largely Reject Violence, May 23, 2007 - Parody of our reaction to these polls.
We expect moderate levels of support for violence and terror from the Muslim community,
whereas this would be unthinkable in any other religious group.
"By an almost two-to-one margin, Midwest Lutherans
voiced solid opposition to decapitation, suicide bombing,
and chemical warfare in a new comprehensive survey of their social attitudes.
"If there is one headline here, it's how remarkably moderate the Lutheran community is,"
said Pew director Andrew Kohut of the survey
Kohut pointed to one of the study's key findings that
only 29% of all respondents agreed that "bloody, random violence against infidels"
was "always" or "frequently" justified,
versus 56% who said such violence was "seldom" or "never" justified.
The approval of violence rose slightly among younger Lutherans
and when the hypothetical violence was targeted against Presbyterians,
but still fell well short of a majority."
"Although a majority 87% of respondents agreed that "The world should be brought to submission under global Lutheran conquest and eternal perfect rule," there was a great deal of disagreement on the means to accomplish it.
"Taken as a whole, the results show that Midwest Lutherans
emphatically support a moderate, mainstream path to world domination," said Kohut.
"These folks are well-assimilated into the broad fabric of American society,
and unless you are Presbyterian, there is probably very little here to cause concern.""
was Managing Editor of
in July 1999
when it praised Bin Laden and jihad.
This was just two years before Bin Laden attacked New York on 9/11.
The above two extracts appear on the same page.
The front cover is below.
See full pages:
From Steven Emerson.
Edina Lekovic replies, and absurdly claims that the inclusion of her name
is "a printing mistake",
despite the fact that she contributed to "Al-Talib" many times over a long period
from 1997 to 2002.
The cover of the above 1999 issue
praises jihad, Bin Laden and Khomeini.
In 2001, just after 9/11,
an innocent, well-meaning American, Patricia Morris,
organises a vigil outside Anwar Al-Awlaki's mosque in Virginia to defend it.
She is unaware that some of the 9/11 hijackers were actually linked to the mosque,
and that Al-Awlaki himself was probably involved in 9/11.
No wonder he's smiling!
Later, Al-Awlaki was killed by a drone strike.
See full size at
I'd rather end on an optimistic note.
I don't think Islamic fundamentalism is going to triumph in the west.
I think democracy is going to triumph in the Islamic world.
I think Islamic fundamentalism is far more under threat than
western ideas are.
Which is not to say that Islamic fundamentalists won't cause
a lot more death before they exit history.
But exit they will, just as the entire, bloodthirsty
Christian medieval world
Just as the entire Soviet world is gone.
Democracy is unstoppable.
Al Qaeda understand
- article on the book,
"The Future of Iraq and The Arabian Peninsula After The Fall of Baghdad"
by Yussuf al-Ayyeri of Al Qaeda.
He writes that
their mortal enemy is not America, or the Jews.
It is secular democracy.
Secular democracy will destroy their world.
He does not pretend to love human freedom or human rights.
He says he hates them.
He writes as if he was invented by American hawks to prove their point.
But he is just being honest.
democracy comes to Iraq, the next target ..
would be the whole of the Muslim world",
Odd that the dark forces of Al Qaeda understand exactly
what their enemy is trying to do,
while their idiot sympathisers
in the west don't.
American Muslim radical
is typical of the sinister, yet also pathetic, nature of the modern Western jihadi.
Almonte was raised Catholic, converted to Islam,
and somehow got the idea that it is supposed to be violent.
This is a
genuine photo of Dec 2008
where he protests in New York
with a misspelled sign.
See original shots
He is both comical and sinister.
He said he wanted to kill non-Muslims
for not worshipping a being called "Allah", who exists only in his head:
"It's already enough that you don't worship Allah, so ... that's a reason for you to die."
In Mar 2011, he pleaded guilty to Islamic terrorism charges (not related to this protest).
He will be sentenced in June 2011, and apparently will get at least 15 years.
"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make
us safe - because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East
remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for
export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be
reckless to accept the status quo.
Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy
requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in
Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace.
The advance of freedom is the calling of our time"
This is why I support George W. Bush
- because he believes in bringing freedom to the whole world,
at a time when the left has abandoned that dream
(and even opposes it).
As Oliver Kamm
puts it, Bush is a classic 18th century liberal.
He is what modern liberals should be:
"George W. Bush .. is
.. the principal heir to a progressive tradition that regards political
liberty as universal and that considers the first task of foreign policy
to be to spread it rather than overlook its absence. He is accordingly a theorist,
spokesman and figurehead for the ideals of the
liberal Left; he merits the gratitude of those of us who would adhere to them."
by Stephen Schwartz
- "President Bush has restored to the
Republican party its rightful legacy as a party of liberation"
Just like Reagan's wonderful
"Evil Empire" speech,
Bush's words bring hope to millions in the unfree world.
An Iraqi blogger responds to the speech
- "Many people ask whether we have heard the President's speach. Yes we have.
Immediately the Chorus of
Al Arabiya, etc.
and amazingly, CNN, BBC etc,
started their spoiling,
doubt-semming, bitchy insinuations
Pretending to be objective, pretending to be "balanced", they try their best to kill
the joy that the shining reassuring words bring to our frightened hearts."
Bush describes the glorious collapse of the Soviet tyranny,
and the spread of democracy over the last 20 years:
"As the 20th century ended, there were around 120 democracies in the world".
And he blasts us with optimism:
"and I can assure you more are on the way."
Who I block:
I will debate almost anyone.
I love ideas.
I will not debate (and will block) people who do the following:
(a) Make threats.
(b) Accuse me of crimes.
(c) Comment on my appearance.
(d) Drag in stuff about me not related to the topic. (My professional career, my personal life.)
(e) Complain to my employer.
Yes, people do all these things.