What More Reason Do We Need to Stop the Muslim Invasion?Enza Ferreri
In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo tragedy, more than ever politicians, media and elites reiterate that only a small (indeed, tiny) minority of Muslims commit acts like the recent Paris attacks.
First of all, we must observe that this is not a statement of fact, but rather an expression of hope.
For we don’t know the number or percentage of would-be terrorists that the Muslim population in each Western country harbors.
Because to know how many they are would also mean knowing who they are — all of them — in which case we would have solved the terrorist problem with closer surveillance or, much better, expulsion.
So, almost by definition, we haven’t got the faintest idea of their number.
We can’t even rely on the figure of aggressions actually carried out as a good indicator, because this is only a fraction of the total of terror attacks planned, most of which have been foiled by police and secret services: many of these we haven’t even heard about. And the total number of planned offensives, prevented or executed, doesn’t offer predictions about future ones in such uncertain circumstances.
What we do know is that in several countries Muslim immigrant populations tend to get more radicalized with each successive generation, so the threat is going to increase. This can explain the by-now thousands of jihadists travelling from Europe to fight in Syria and Iraq and often returning to Europe with terrorist training and intentions.
If what happens in the rest of the world, where Islamism and its violence are on the rise, is an indication for the West, the prospects are not happy.
But, even if the number of terrorists were indeed a tiny minority of the West’s Muslims, this wouldn’t alter the fact that there is a question to be answered: why? Why take the risk? Why deliberately expose innocent Westerners to the threat of being massacred?
We know — nobody disputes it — that Muslims periodically take up guns, explosives, airplanes, or what have you to terrorize and slaughter people in buildings, cafes, trains, buses, and stores in various Western countries.
We also know that no other group approaches the same level of public, direct physical menace.
Why shouldn’t Western nations remove this unnecessary peril?
We can’t even say that Muslims belong in Europe, that they have a traditional or cultural foothold on European soil. In fact, they have been our enemy throughout their history. Even Spain and Sicily were invaded and conquered by Muslims, but didn’t welcome them.
I know I’m stating the obvious here, but, from the way the talking heads and pundits speak and write, it appears that it needs to be stated.
Something else that public figures are pleased to repeat is that most Muslims condemn this act. In reality, there is no evidence for that either. I haven’t heard of any Muslim demonstration against it. 82% of French people think that Muslims are showing no condemnation of terrorism in France.
One fact of life we’ve learned by induction is that shouting “Allahu Akbar” is a sure sign that every deed accompanying or following this utterance is of non-Islamic nature, as every time this sequence occurs we are guaranteed that the action is not just non-Islamic but — more strongly — un-Islamic. Such an episode occurred just before Christmas, also in France, when a man plowed his white van into a Christmas market crowd in Nantes screaming “Allahu Akbar,” injuring dozens of people — the third incident of its kind in the country in a few days. The man was correctly not described in the newspaper report as Muslim. He might have been anything.
So, is there a benefit — it must be very, very secret as nobody has ever heard of it — that Muslims bring to our lands that compensates for and outweighs the recurring nightmares that they produce and could be even more tragic and numerous if it were not for the enormous expenditure on police and intelligence resources deployed to keep their threat at bay, public-purse money that our over-indebted countries cannot afford?
Not only there is no such benefit. There are indeed additional burdens. Mostly these are not typical of Muslims only, but of general Third-World and mass immigrants. Indeed the problem of the former and the latter are related and difficult to separate. But, since Muslims represent a more specific threat to life and limb than other immigrant groups and there is widespread acceptance of Islam specifically as a negative presence in Europe, this could be a good starting point to tackle the seemingly-intractable immigration question.
A UK 2012 poll found that Britons are far more strongly opposed to immigration, particularly from Muslim countries, than they have been at any time in recent memory. An October 2014 survey showed that three out of four Londoners (74%) think that Britons who have traveled to Syria or Iraq to fight with extremist groups should be banned from returning to the UK.
Here are some issues:
- Economic. In Britain and other countries it has been calculated that Muslims and other immigrants from the Third World, who are disproportionately unemployed in comparison to the rest of the population and have much larger families, cost far more revenue in public services and social welfare than they put in.
- What is preached by UK-based Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary is that benefits from the infidel state are a form of jizya, the tax that only non-Muslims have to pay as dhimmis, the condition of submission they are forced to live in under Islamic rule.
- In Denmark, “Muslims make up 5% of the population but receive 40% of social-welfare outlays.”
- In Germany, foreign nationals are consistently overrepresented in unemployment figures, with Turks being in the worst situation, with an unemployment rate of 23% and comprising one third of all unemployed foreigners.
- German Journalist Dr. Udo Ulfkotte has a good argument showing that expelling Muslims will even help Europe fight its financial crisis:
Muslim immigrants in Germany up until 2007, Dr. Ulfkotte explains, “have taken 1 billion euros more out of our social welfare system than they have paid into our system.” To give a better idea of the magnitude of this figure and put it into perspective, he adds that the total debt of the German government is 1.7 billion euros. Expelling Muslims, therefore, will help Europe fight its financial crisis.
- In Sweden, a 15.1% immigrant population burden 60.5% of the entire nations welfare costs.
- Despite all attempts to make immigration look good, in the UK we see that, while European immigrants bring a net economic benefit to the country, non-Europeans take in benefits and services £100 billion (or 14%) more than they put back. In 17 years they cost the public purse nearly £120 billion.
- This differential, indeed opposite, effect of European versus non-European immigration on British economy makes Nigel Farage, leader of the fast-rising populist, anti-EU and anti-immigration party UKIP, sound absurd when he concentrates his efforts on stopping Bulgarian and Romanian immigration instead of the much more ruinous Asian and African invasion. But obviously he doesn’t want to be called racist..
- Muslims, like other immigrants, make the competition for limited resources — hospitals, doctor surgeries, school places, housing, jobs — much harder for the local Whites.
- Law and order. Muslims, as well as other Third-World immigrants, are also overrepresented in other-than-terror crime statistics, from those particularly peculiar to them, like honor killings, sex-slavery pedophile rings, and female genital mutilation, to more general ones including rioting, looting, wife beating and rape.
Yet for our leaders and commentators the possibility of a Muslim-free Europe is not even a remotely conceivable possibility. Listening to them is a surreal experience: they talk as if Muslim presence in our countries were an ineluctable fact of life, like death and taxes, and not a deliberate choice of corrupt politicians and self-serving elites.
They make you feel as if Muslims had profound roots on our soil and were part and parcel of Western civilization, both of which are as far from the truth as they can be.
Maintaining the Islamic presence here is for them the Kantian categorical imperative, nay it’s more than that: it’s a religious commandment. “Thou shalt welcome, feed, house and accept to be killed by Muslims, and never reject or deport them en masse.”
Whereas the sensible solution would be to stop Muslims from taking up residence here and expel those who have already done so.
In fact, credit should be given to ‘Amru Adib, a very popular Egyptian TV show host, for this remark he made after the Charlie Hebdo attack:
I have no doubt that 3/4 of those hearing me are cursing me now — saying “he’s an infidel, an apostate! . . .
You make excellent points in your article. I see intelligence, insight and reason in every sentence; however, those types of qualities which constitute excellent personal character are an anathema to the “leaders” of formerly White countries.
The fact that they continue to dribble out such ludicrous, pro-immigrant bile in the face of all facts, logic and reason can only prove that whatever these Muslim and other third world aliens are doing in Europe is for a truly specialized purpose in the elite schema.
It may be solely for White Genocide or total world domination of all markets, reducing the masses to a mixed slave race to the corporate/government elite or just because that’s what Saturday people do. Who knows what lurks in their twisted, vile, neurotic neurons, but what is obvious is that until they are done with whatever they have in mind for White nations, we are stuck with the third world cesspool invasions.
Unless we get off our knees. I think that we know what the problems are and where the “root” of these problems stems, but what we don’t have is a counter plan. How do we mobilize? How do we opt out of the system and stop supporting these genocidal maniacs? How do we resist their attempts to flood us out of our homelands with this alien detritus and move to regain our identity, blood and soil? When we know these answers, I believe we will change the tide of these circumstances.
How do we mobilize?
There is tons of information on this. See any of the works by revolutionary leaders from the last three centuries: Mao. Marighella. Alinsky. Makhno. D’Annunzio. Bakunin. Fichte. Tom Paine. Sam Adams. They or their followers took on much stronger foes, mobilized their followers, took it to the streets, seized power (and yes, some went down in flames, but still are worth considering).
There are plenty of manuals on agitprop, psychological warfare, propaganda, information operations, and cyberwar all over the Internet. Read up and apply the lessons.
Look at the examples European nationalist movements today. Again, lots of lessons to be learned.
I think a flaw in the American right is a general lack of discussion of organizational and technical factors of political mobilization, i.e., the nuts and bolts of how to set up a front organization, how to conduct propaganda, how to subvert the opposition, how to conduct street theater and civil disobedience, etc. There’s one wing which spends waaaaaay too much time on what amounts to conspiracy theories that end up spiraling the debate downwards. And another wing which deals with philosophical issues which, while critical, need to make that quantum leap into practical tactics.
Recent articles here about Catholics reclaiming visual space in France are a step in the right direct. Hopefully, we will see more of them!
Why don’t you mention John McCain and Israel supporting these Jihadist fanatics in Syria?
Without American guns, logistics, and intervention, these people would not get anywhere. All of the nationalist bulwarks against Islamic fundamentalism like Saddam Hussein, Qaddaffi and almost Assad were taken out directly or indirectly by the USA and Israel. Jewish neo-cons opened up Pandora’s box, and no mention of that, just lots of “clash of civilizations” stuff.
The only way to deal with the Muslim issue is to oppose them on RACIAL grounds. A Somalian who eats pork will still gang rape and murder you, just like his Methodist and Anglican brothers in Britain and America. Attacking their traditions is the opposite of what we should be doing. I respect Islam as long as it stays in their own world. Without Jewish globalists, pretty much all of the issues with Muslims wouldn’t even exist (immigration, terrorist groups that American/Israel use against their enemies, support for Israel, and our exporting of cultural Marxism to the rest of the world).
Islam is a problem because of the words and deeds of the prophet, who commanded his followers to wage war on the rest of humanity. It is not merely problem because of the Jews and the US government. The Jews are the main enemy, but not the only enemy, and those who try to minimize the Muslim problem at the expense of truth are no friends of ours.
Please define the “Muslim” problem? What are Muslims doing that is getting between us and expelling them from Europe, especially since the majority of Europeans do not want non-white immigration.
How is a ghetto in Antwerp full of Muslims any more special or different than the parts of the United States run by Mexican gangs that look exactly like Mexico? Do you believe there is a Muslim conspiracy to conquer Europe, and if so, who is fomenting it?
Of course there is a Muslim conspiracy to conquer the world. It is called “Islam,” and it was “fomented” by the prophet Mohammed. That religion imparts an sense of unity and destiny to the Muslim ghettos in Europe that are not possessed by Mexican locusts, although the idea of Aztlan and reconquista are faint analogies. I have no doubt that the primary cause of white weakness in the face of Islam are the Jews and the mind-viruses they spread. But that does not entitle us to ignore that Islam is an independent variable.
There is a lot to be said here:
Terrorism is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The current level of Islamic terrorism in Europe is still only a fraction of the overall crime rate. What makes this or that terrorist attack more visible is how it is exploited by the agitprop apparatus, or the mainstream media.
Other threats from Islam include the high violent crime rates, gang formation, sex-trafficking rings (ala Rotherham), the creation of No-Go zones, and the more generalized rioting, car burnings and pillage of ancient European cities. We can also add in the recruiting of Muslim men and women — sometimes native Europeans who converted! — into radical Islamist movements such as ISIS. It just may be that all this would burn out were Muslims to assimilate into that enriched multicult utopia to which white liberals genuflect. Or it could all be a low level insurgency preparing for a major jihad down the line in Europe itself.
What happens when European nations are faced with a Battle of Algiers style insurgency, where Islamist terrorist occur every day? Do Europeans finally wake up to the threat? Or just capitulate all the more?
So, is there a benefit — it must be very, very secret as nobody has ever heard of it — that Muslims bring to our lands that compensates for and outweighs the recurring nightmares that they produce …
I’m sure there are all sorts of answers to this one: like Muslims are needed as workers because of low European birthrates; or there is a humanitarian imperative to bring in refugees; or the immigrants enrich us with their diversity (just think how dull Paris or Malmo or Rotherham were before Muslims moved in, en masse!). It’s mostly ideological doubletalk, though there is a point to be made about white peoples not producing enough children. Clearly, the ideologies which have arisen since World War II–the mass consumerism, the feminism, the aimless hedonism–are not healthy insofar as they undermine high birthrates. And post-modern liberalism, pace Burnham, provides the ideological justification for the suicide of the West.
Yet for our leaders and commentators the possibility of a Muslim-free Europe is not even a remotely conceivable possibility.
As has been noted elsewhere on Counter Currents, Muslims have (mostly) voluntarily moved into Europe; they can voluntarily move out. Or be moved out not voluntarily. Consider the following:
* The expulsion of white people from former colonies in Algeria, the Belgian Congo, Angola, and Rhodesia. Or the displacement of white people from South Africa by the ANC since majority rule went into effect. Or the white flight which occurs when “peoples of color” have become too high a percentage in cities in America and Europe. Non-whites have little problem with the concept of establishing control of territories at the expense of whites–and using violence to displace white people.
* After both World War I and World War II, the victorious Allied powers had no hesitation in redrawing the maps of Europe and the Middle East to accommodate power realities. Look at all the Germans and Poles who were displaced in 1945, or the handing over anti-communist refugees from the Red Army (such as the Cossacks) to the NKVD. All this in the name of making the world safe for democracy and four freedoms!
The dilemma gets back to Western elites. Their hostility to their own peoples is well documented, at least on this and similar websites. The issue then becomes one of creating a white nationalist movement which can fight for white interests–and gain power in white countries.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment