Saturday, 17 March 2012

All across the civilised world, the Islamic evil is putting down roots in the form of mosques. Often conceived in jarringly outlandish architectural styles, they are apparently exempt from the requirement to blend in with the surroundings that is typically imposed on any proposed new building project as a standard part of the planning process. Indeed, not only are mosques exempt from planning laws; they are often exempt from the laws of economics. In many cases, the land for the mosque site is made available at no cost by the local government.

Almost invariably, people in the area are dismayed about the initiative. They realise that mosques are markers for Muslim colonisation and act as vectors disseminating the Islamic mind virus further through the body politic, forming a focal point for the extremism and intolerance that is intrinsic to Islam. But they face what is, in effect, an elite conspiracy against them.

According to orthodox elite opinion, Islam is a religion of peace, only a tiny minority of its adherents pose any problems and only lunatic extremists think otherwise. Many people now know better. Polls show that about half the European population now sees Islam as a threat. But, still, it is not yet permitted to voice these views within the public sphere.

When publicly objecting to the proposed construction of a mosque, therefore, people are forced to couch their argument in anodyne terms. Often they will complain about lack of parking, fear of excess traffic and so forth rather than state the simple truth, which is that they fear the spread of Islamic evil into their neighbourhood. There are recorded cases where those who decided to dispense with political correctness and state the simple truth later had their objections passed to the police for possible prosecution.

How then can we reconcile our wish to limit the further spread of Islamic institutions with the artificially exalted standard of morality that is required within the public sphere? In a word: reciprocity.

We must make the construction of mosques in civilised countries contingent on the freedom to construct Christian and other non-Muslim places of worship in predominantly Islamic countries. This is an idea that could gain traction and acquire public support even among those normally too timid to embrace anti-Islam ideas publicly.

Usually, the idea of artificially attributing the status of a collectivity to people would be questionable. For example, holding negroes responsible for atrocities committed in Africa or Catholics responsible for IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland would be ridiculous. In the case of Muslims, however, it is they themselves who demand to be recognised as a collectivity: the Umma. And this concept of the Umma has an institutional expression: the OIC.

So the demand for reciprocity has something to focus on. We simply demand that the countries of the OIC, all of them, establish freedom of worship within their own domain, including the freedom to construct places of worship without facing unduly burdensome regulation and the freedom to convert from one religion to another or to abandon religion altogether without facing prosecution or persecution from the state or non-state actors. Once these conditions have been established in all OIC countries, we will allow Muslims to construct as many mosques as they like in our countries. Until then, there will be a complete ban on any further mosque construction.

Of course, hypocritical human rights organisations and the UN will whine about the injustice of this, but the nature of the reciprocity demand is such that they cannot do it without facing up to the issue of the existing restrictions on non-Islamic worship in predominantly Islamic countries. By even talking about the issue, they will only publicise it further, exposing their own hypocrisy in having remained silent about it before.

Until the rest of the western world catches up to us in its understand of the Islamic menace - and that will happen eventually, because Islam cures everyone’s naivety in the end – we need to frame out resistance in ways that are as congenial as possible to those still partially entranced by establishment dogmas like non-discrimination and human rights. A demand for reciprocity is the perfect way to do it.

Once the campaign got going and gained significant publicity, it could only be a victory of some kind. If it succeeds, mosque construction is either stopped here or the Islamic monolith is broken down in the Muslim heartlands. If it fails, it will be an ongoing illustration of Islamic hypocrisy and the elite collaborationism. Either way, it’s good for our cause.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

I dont care of mosques. I would prefer a reciprocity of immigrants...

chris said...

@anonymous .. believe you do not .. I repeat do not want to go and live in the Middle Eastern shit-hole in exchange for them coming to your country .

About the churched being built in Middle East ... they would rather have your head rolling on the ground than allow you to put up even a cross .. thats the way they function .. with an iron fist .. but you european countries .. you just have a bunch of wussies elected to Government ..
they will never stand up for what is right and will always bow down in front of such IMMIGRANTS . to show the world :"We are a Tolerant Nation" "We are peace loving and we will give you comfort, come to us"

Anonymous said...

Great idea! You write "We simply demand...", but would you demand this? Unfortunately, we don't have enough influence yet, even though I believe a lot of people, probably the majority, would support you. And how would you organize such a campaign? And how would you force politicians to ask for reciprocity?

Anonymous said...

I agree, but I am afraid this wouldn't be possible because it would violate the European Human Rights Convention, i.e. freedom of religion. The politicians would never go for it, the cowards that they are.

Please let us know how you would try to pull this off, I'd be happy to support that cause.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

The idea needs to be promoted in the way that any idea is promoted: by talking about it and writing about it. People campaigning against mosques should invoke it. People talking about the persecution of Christians in Islam-dominated countries should mention it as a means of exerting pressure on them.

Once the idea is out there in the meme pool, others will pick up on it - politicians, churchmen, etc. Because of its moral plausibility and fairness-based approach, it could be attractive to people who would not normally say something as blunt as "Islam is evil".

For decades, the idea of human rights got nowhere. It was only really in the 70s that it took off and went mainstream.

Anonymous said...

Having lived and worked in Muslim countries for some 18 years I would ban Mosques being built in Europe and ban Islamic faith school. We must allow nothing to promote this faith and remember the real victims are the Muslins who are destined for second-rate lives, employment and a future even more so for women. Educate those here but allow no more in.

Anonymous said...

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia has made some statements that have religious freedom critics bouncing between scratching their heads and curling up in horror. Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh recently announced that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.“ The ”region” he was referring to, of course, is the Arabian Peninsula (including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman)."

Reciprocity, you say? I concur.

BayouCoyote, VIB

DP111 said...

Politicians will never go for it.

The answer to that is to elect politicians who will.

In the UK, there is the UKIP, and now, the British Freedom party.

The BFP is best, and will not just stop the Islamisation of Britain, but in time, reverse it.

We are being given the freedom and opportunity to make a choice. If we don't avail of it, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

The opportunity will not exist forever.

Cheradenine Zakalwe said...

The policy doesn't need to be put into practice for the idea to be effective. By just invoking this argument in the public sphere, attention is drawn to Islamic evil and hypocrisy, so our unenlightened fellow citizens are taken a step further down the road towards a true understanding of Islam.

DP111 said...

CZ

You are right. There has to be reciprocity. Unfortunately, Christians are being ethnically cleansed from Muslims countries so fast, that the window of opportunity for "reciprocity" to be of any use, is limited.

----------------------

KEEP THE MOSQUEBUSTERS IN MIND

CALL MOSQUEBUSTERS IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM.

When you call us you win: An article by the people at Law and Freedom
Foundation ‘Mosquebusters’

Posted on March 17, 2012 by Eeyore

http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=45809#more-45809

Anonymous said...

@Chris what a warped and untrue statement.the majority of mid-east countries have had Christian populations and churches for 100s of years and in the case of Egypt about 2000years

Diversity Macht Frei

Iostream

Share It

Search

Loading...

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews