Third-worlders come to live within European civilisation in effect as refugees from their own failed countries. The third-world, by definition, has failed. Failed to achieve societies that offer prosperity and freedom to those who live in them. Why this is so, why some countries succeeded and others didn’t, is perhaps the most important question in the secular realm. Marxists tell us the third-world failed because evil whitey came and enslaved it. Europe-hating sophisticates like Jared Diamond tell us it was all a matter of luck. A dice roll. But the simple truth is that the third world failed because it didn’t respect freedom. The freedoms Europeans fought to achieve against the wishes of their rulers gradually led to greater opportunities for talent, the dissemination of knowledge, and the spread of prosperity. The third world became the third world because the people who lived there did not value freedom enough.

And when those same people come to live in our countries they don’t jettison their cultural baggage. They bring no sense of having come from a failed culture into a successful one. Instead, they lap up the Marxist-tinged self-hatred of European elites, blame whitey for their own historic failings and not only maintain their own decrepit cultures but hyper-emphasise them. They continue making the same failed choices that their ancestors made, based on the same failed values, enshrined in the same failed cultures. But this time they’re doing it here. In our countries. Through the ballot box. And this puts a constant pressure on our weak-kneed politicians to conform to their freedom-hating agenda. The tangible result is the continuous restriction of European freedom since third-worlders began to colonise our lands. As well as voter pressure, their own barbaric behaviour serves as the pretext for further restrictions on freedom. The result of the third-world presence is a constant corrosive effect on liberty.



That’s why I won’t be joining in the celebrations about the new initiatives announced by the British government in response to the Woolwich jihad attacks: shutting down websites, spying on communications, etc. These will restrict the freedoms of everyone who lives in Britain, including the soon-to-be minority who actually are British. And the nature of our Equality Cult-driven politics being what it is, we can be sure that these measures, originally introduced to combat jihad, will be later extended to the “far-right”, in other words the people who saw what the effect of large numbers of Muslims living in our countries would be long before the politicians did.

This is exactly what happened to the insane Prevent scheme, which was brought in to target Islamic radicals and ended up subsidising them while targeting “Islamophobes” instead. Equating the jihad and the Counterjihad – those who carry out murderous attacks and those who merely chronicle their barbarity and warn about its future consequences – has long been one of the favourite rhetorical gambits of the western multicult. See Nick Cohen’s piece in the Observer for a despicable recent example of it in response to the Woolwich attack.

Cohen says the EDL and the jihadists need each other. What a laughable claim. As if anyone in the EDL, or the Counterjihad movement more broadly, wants to do this with their lives. Who in their right mind would want to expose themselves to physical threat, arrest, social ostracism, the risk of being deprived of their livelihood, and all the other life-crushing sanctions that the multicult totalitarians have brought into play to defend their corrupt system? We are doing this in response to problems that a government immigration policy has created. We didn’t need these problems in our lives. We didn’t need these problems in our country. Defence is not the moral equivalent of attack. Drawing attention to the threat posed by murderous barbarians is not the same thing as being a murderous barbarian.
The token gestures proposed by the government do nothing to address the underlying problem. The single most important metric describing the magnitude of the jihad threat Britain faces is, very simply, the number of Muslims who live here. An immigration policy that is allowing the Muslims to double their number every decade makes any tinkering with security policy largely irrelevant to containment of that threat.

The correct policy response to the jihad threat is not to restrict the freedoms of all UK citizens. So what is it? First, a distinction should be made between those with historical roots in the country and more recent arrivals. For a hundred years after their arrival in the country, immigrants and their descendants should be subject to a positive duty of integration. Those who fail to meet this duty should be removed from the country. This duty should be applied retrospectively to everyone who had an immigrant ancestor within the last hundred years. These probationary citizens will have a special status in law that could render them subject to specially intrusive measures, such as surveillance. This legal distinction would allow governments to tackle the jihad threat without abridging the freedoms of genuinely British people.
Second, all Muslims should be required to register as such with the government. Being an unregistered Muslim should be a criminal offence. This will the government to take such special security measures as it deems necessary to contain the threat of jihad, against the specific group that poses that threat, without abridging the freedoms of others. If jihad militants are intent on carrying out an attack, it is, of course, unlikely that they would register as Muslims with the government. That in itself, however, is a useful warning sign that could flag up a future threat. If someone participating in Islamic activities is found to be an unregistered Muslim, the intelligence services should thereafter pay special attention to them. In addition, the offence of being an unregistered Muslim will offer an easy conviction, establish a criminal record and allow the opportunity to deport if the offender is an immigrant.

Third, Participation in Jihad should be made a capital offence and participation should be defined very broadly to include even expressing support for the idea of jihad. The Woolwich attackers flaunted their own support for jihad for years before carrying out their attacks. All such people, such as Anjem Choudhary and his mob, all of those who promote jihad ideas or march under jihad flags, should be charged with Participation in Jihad and put to death. If there are 1000 jihadists in Britain, execute 1000 people. If there are 10,000, execute 10,000. If there are 100,000, execute 100,000. Kill them all. There is no advantage to Britain or the world in keeping these people alive.