We are at war

We should not sit back and think that the Ariana Grande concert virtue signalling kumbaya was enough, job done.

Coz it’s never going to end:

The ‘job’ is not done. Most pundits have been writing on it:

DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Forget the meaningless platitudes. There IS a way to beat this evil – before yet more blood is spilled

Let’s go to Richard Littlejohn:

I’m sick of politicians pussyfooting around. As they won’t say it, I will – we ARE at war, writes RICHARD LITTLEJOHN

At this point, I’d bring in Distant Relative, researcher and commenter, who wrote, obliquely, about Jewish ethnicity/nationhood:

I came across this and downloaded it a few days ago and am currently working my way through it. If you want to know who Shlomo Sand is there’s a Counterpunch link under “Jews 1” giving details. It might throw some light on the subject under discussion. “The Invention of the Jewish People” by Shlomo Sand:


Worth wading through, not just for its interesting points but also because of its illogical Marxist leaps such as the left have made, leading them to support ‘open borders’.

I added, as a comment:

I’ve read, not skimmed, up to p 40 where he’s about to launch into The Nation.

While what he says has relevance to the Jewish group of peoples, when he tries to extend that to all peoples in a rash generalization, I jump ship. Even at this early stage, it is shaping up that this author is going to push the ‘no common ethnicity’ line which is what open borders people do and therefore, I’m opposed.

There’s a case for a diaspora having varied origins, as they’re originally from different tribes anyway and there was a hell of a lot of intermarrying.

There’s far less of a case in our island nation – we are Briton, Anglo-Saxon, Norman, Danish. We’re from basically within a certain geographical range.

While there’s a case that there was no ‘Celt’ as such pre-1792, the term being an English invention at the time [post passim], there were certainly peoples who were of a certain type and language and they were not Anglo-Saxon but nor were they so totally alien – there are many redheaded Scots, many redheaded English.

I’d argue that historical roots are a rabbit warren – they take one down corridors which are often sketchy and inconsequential, whilst the person in question is clearly, to an observer, of certain roots. My own roots are Yorkshire and Irish, whilst Wallace, of Wallace and Gromit, is of a distinctive type not quite mine but with many similarities, not unlike the Russian and Ukrainian.

However, anyone looking at me and listening can see my ‘type’ quickly and it is part of the murky national mix we are. I’d argue that Wallace and I both have our cuppa in the morning, both look on life in a similar way, have the same sense of humour but also have the same propensity to skin burning in the sun and so on.

Also, we are as outsiders perceive us. In Russia, I was often taken as Yugoslav but that was how I spoke Russian. Most took me as English, unaware of internal variants, e.g. Brummies, Geordies etc.

In the light of recent events, i.e. the murderous Islamists, it’s a stretch to call them and their nations of origin anything whatever to do with our roots and culture – they’re clearly alien to what we are and were. This is heightened by their actions.

When friendly relations exist, e.g. with my European nation friends – Dutch, Danish, French, Russian, the emphasis is commonality, as essentially European but also with our cherished national differences, not as something discordant but as a dish of variety. In a fruit salad, a strawberry is not an apple and yet it’s a fruit salad, not a curry. We can be and have, in history, been allies.

Coming back to Shlomo, he has clear reasons to want to push the ‘no nation’ angle but as his first rash generalization has shown, he’s prone to illogical leaps in the dark, as he has been the first to concede in the Intro.

That’s a longwinded way of getting to the point and looking back on the above, it’s included to add some colour, some variation, to the question.

Bottom line is that when a group from another ethnicity comes in, provided total numbers do not exceed around 5% and provided they become more like us than we do, then any national differences are skipped over and even embraced – for example, most of us like Indian cooking.

We don’t have great issue with these people, we like the diversity, it’s interesting, they’re nice people and hard workers. We cannot possibly be termed ‘racist’ when dealing with such people.

The obvious fly in the ointment is when another group does not come in benignly, with no intention of joining us and integrating. The problem is an agenda they follow which is, frankly, evil. The best which can be said is that they are cuckoos landing in someone else’s nest and pushing out the ‘native’ chicks.

Final solution?

Graham Woods’s comment at OoL:

The time for relative inaction against Islam in the UK must now surely be over.

Unless and until there is a radical change of government policy from containing Jihadism in the UK to positively removing its ideological sources, then inevitably and obviously the attacks upon innocent people will continue.

Firstly, as Bob Smith explains in his incisive article ‘Islam’s Fatal Flaw’ two essential elements of Islam need to be understood:

1. The potential killers are trained everywhere within Islam and evenly distributed throughout the greater Islamic population (ummah), and:

2 Because they cannot be easily identified, it means any devout believer anywhere could be the next killer. Every Muslim is aware of this potential threat (fear) from these most devout believers. As a result all Muslims suffer from the same fear that drives the system.

We should demand that those who settle in our countries cast aside values incompatible with ours, because the lives of ordinary people living in the UK are far more important than the sensitivities of Islam appeasers and more important than the freedom of Islamic killers to wreak murder and mayhem.

What then are the practical steps to be taken? The following suggestions may appear for some to be drastic or ‘extreme’ but I suggest they will be effective in significantly reducing, or removing the jihadist threat permanently.

1. Government must require all Muslim Imams in UK mosques and other Islamic institutions not only to personally renounce entirely all injunctions in the Koran to exercise Jihad in any shape or form, also in addition to forbid teaching others the same who come under their care and influence. Failure to comply should mean immediate deportation back to their country of origin.

2. Every single act of Islamic terrorism, of violence or death on our streets should carry a penalty for the whole Islamic community which must take ownership or responsibility for the men of murder and violence within their midst whose existence and often known jihadist sympathies are tolerated.

Each act therefore should automatically result in government closing down a number of mosques in the UK with immediate effect.

This would result in the so called “moderate” Moslems who either condone or support jihadists in their communities to expose them and weed them out on pain of potentially losing their mosque. (we should understand that mosques are much more than places of worship, but centres of indoctrination of young people, children, and especially many unemployed Muslim young men.) Thus “These mosques become dangerous intellectual cesspools of Islam think. Only the most devout believers work their way into leadership positions, and these people are the most likely to believe Islamic calls to violence. The inability to rationalise anything about Islam is at its height inside the mosques” (Islam’s Fatal Flaw).

3. No new mosque buildings to be permitted in the UK.

In my view these three specific steps are essential prerequisites in testing to destruction the reality of moderate moslems and their leader’s constant but hypocritical claim that Islam is a religion of “love and peace”.

Actions speak louder than words

All right, let me take one part of that:

We should demand that those who settle in our countries cast aside values incompatible with ours.

We should demand. Hmmmmmmmmm.


The essential flaw in the reasoning of many is the assumption that ideologues can be reasoned with in the first place. All very well ‘demanding’ something, which is what the hawks in govt have been doing.

It’s pointless.

There’s a thing called ‘possession’.

Every ideologue is possessed by an idea, even an ideal and is impervious to attempts to sidetrack that. That can be commendable in saving a drowning person at sea but where it falls down is in ‘converting’ people to their way – this is dogmatism and fanaticism and no good has ever come of that.

Having said that, the Russian insistence that all conquered peoples should primarily speak Russian has certainly been effective, long after the demise of the USSR – people keep speaking it and it does convey values.

With the Muslims, interestingly, it is not speaking Arabic which is the issue for them, it is just to be possessed by the idea. But whereas Marxism is a Venus flytrap which needs no coercion but sucks people in by its sickly attraction, based on twisted feelgood notions and unclear thinking, Islam knows it must conquer, kill and rape to survive.

So there is this mix of those converted by fear, those who have been born into its horror and those, the jihadis, who have been so brainwashed that they turn killer and rapist, which is also strongly influenced by national customs.

And the instant that happens, as we’ve all seen, the Donald’s warning becomes quite relevant:

And of course – did Tommy not warn us, just as Enoch did before him?

What far too many do not concede with him is that he saw his home base, Luton, transformed within two decades – he was on the ground, on the street, he saw it all happening. I knew some people in Luton and used to visit in the 80s but from the images now, it’s completely changed. Pockets of London and Bradford have also gone over to the invader.

The word ‘invader’ is highly coloured, yes, but apt. The N1 issue now for Brits is to recognize what the hell is actually going on and the quotes above cover this well.

The N1 argument is that, like cancer, there is no knowing at which point a young man or woman will become ‘possessed’ in the religious sense. That then very much becomes a national issue. It’s a not dissimilar analogy to say that certain foods are carcinogenic, better to stay away from them, some are unproven and some are fine.

When a young man is ‘possessed’ by Christianity, he can become a zealot, don a suit and knock on people’s doors with a Bible under the arm but largely, in terms of the wellbeing of society – he is harmless.

When someone goes Bahai, goes Confucian, goes Sikh, it is not highly dangerous for British society, for your way of life, where you live.

When someone goes Muslim though, it is highly dangerous because one never, ever knows when they will suddenly develop malignancy. The cancer having been largely benign, suddenly it turns malignant and a society like Britain simply cannot tolerate that.

Satanic possession

I’ve left this part near the end because no one who denies a spirit world would buy it but the notion is that this is not just possession by an idea, as with Marxism, but an actual taking over the person inside, that is – true demonic possession

And my reason for thinking that is that they suddenly go destructive and self-destructive on that scale. We know of so-called Christians who went ‘sackclothy’ and flagellated themselves, some of the cults are best avoided or suppressed and it’s a similar thing.

It is possession, satanic possession. When that happens, one needs an exorcist, not being reasoned with.

Either way

It matters not whether you buy that short, three-paragraph suggestion or not. Excise it from the post and the same thrust still applies, namely that Islam in this country requires a ‘final solution’ for the people of this land to deal with … finally.

Graham above provides a good plan, a humane way of doing it. Someone on Twitter asked was it ‘fair’ to take this view? No, he concluded for himself – not fair, but necessary in the light of circumstances.

Do you think I like being accused of ‘racism’? Of course not – we all like to be thought of as good people.

But there comes a point where it is necessary to pick on one particular social system, one particular ‘faith’, because not to eliminate it is to accept the overrunning of all we had and have. Just look at the Spanish regions during the Muslim occupation.

So yes, if this post has invoked the spectre of ‘final solution’, then it’s now going to invoke another – ‘reconquista’.

It’s time right now. We really are at war for our survival and about half our people are still sleepwalking, as Orwell might say.

One final spinoff

Jihadi actions have caused the schism in our society which the PTB so dearly wanted – they’re chuckling over their luncheons at the club.

We see the hand of the PTB in this but do have life and limb now, let alone female honour, to protect.

Therefore we must take the above stance.

Therefore, that religio-ethnic group is going to feel more and more isolated and ghetto-ized. That’s unfortunate but we can no longer take the chance.

Therefore, they themselves see their only survival as outgrowing us, numbers-wise, while the Imams poison them against us, their hosts.

They don’t see us as hosts, they see us as another region to conquer.

The disloyal left, possessed people in themselves, possessed by insane PCism, aid and abet the invader.

Therefore, all three must be dealt with – the invader, the left and the PTB themselves.

Tall order.

11 comments for “We are at war

  1. Henry Kaye
    June 5, 2017 at 8:20 am

    So many thoughts and words saying much the same and, if I am any judge, shared by probably a majority of our true citizens. The big question is: HOW DO WE GET OUR POLITICAL LEADERS TO DO OUR BIDDING?

    • mona
      June 5, 2017 at 5:04 pm

      You can do nothing until you defeat our most basic enemy the BBC round up break up the BBC destroy it. I heard again that BBC “Sacred COW” , Laura kuenssberg, she would rather eat her own shit than say Islamic Terrorism

  2. Graham Wood
    June 5, 2017 at 10:08 am

    James. Further to my previous post, may I urge you an OOL readers to look at ‘Archbishop Cranmer’s blog today and a superb overview and analysis of the current Islamist problem.
    It is an article by guest contributor Dr. Gavin Ashenden entitled “We need to talk more about Jesus and Mohammed ……….”

    IMO a sound and positive comment which incidentally exposes the lie being peddled by various politicians, including Mrs May herself, that the “terrorist” attacks have nothing to do with the Moslem faith. But there is much more by way of soundly reasoned and logical comment which our political class appear to be entirely ignorant about.
    Like it or not Dr. G is right – there are significant theological and philosophical incompatible views here in a struggle for ascendency.

  3. John in cheshire
    June 5, 2017 at 10:20 am

    James, one quick thought: I think the killings in London on Saturday were for real which isn’t something I believe with regards to other atrocities. In which case a couple of questions come to mind, is this what TPTB have been working towards and does this real atrocity by muslim killers signal a turning point in our dealings with islam and muslims?

  4. June 5, 2017 at 10:45 am

    Graham – you have the link?

    John – may well be.

  5. Errol
    June 5, 2017 at 8:08 pm

    “…Every single act of Islamic terrorism, of violence or death on our streets should carry a penalty for the whole Islamic community…”

    Does that include my 4 year old little chum who I walked to school today while his Dad took his other son to the doctors? A fellow who, aside form having dark skin and being called Imran is as British as you and I? A gentle, kind, decent family man who’s real interest is in paying off his mortgage.

    His other half is an intelligent, capable woman who teaches some gym class. Is it that little boys fault as well? With his tiny little satchel and absurdly wide grin?

    I am conflicted. There’s terrible pain here and yes, the murderers were terrorists, but let’s change this: a Christian ‘patriot’ was screaming about how killing Muslims was acceptable. Are *we* responsible for his actions? Am I responsible for Jeremy Corbyn simply because we’re both white men who look stupid in a hat?

    • Henry Kaye
      June 5, 2017 at 9:17 pm

      Errol, It is quite certain that the British Muslim community contains many innocent children and highly respectable adults. The fact remains, however, that Islam has been involved in countless violent confrontations over the last century or more. The religion, lifestyle, culture – call it what you will – is incompatible with what is commonly accepted as the British version. Despite the “exceptions” as noted by you, Islam will always be a breeding ground for a lot, if not a majority, those wishing to see their religion, culture etc. dominant in the land in which they live, and some of them will be inclined to seek changes to the national cultural heritage – by force if necessary. It seems to me inevitable that when the Muslim population reaches sufficient numbers a political force will arise that will seek to replace the existing laws, customs and moral standards that have been accepted for centuries by the British people. It is these thoughts, I think, that shape the wishes of so many native Britons.

    • John in cheshire
      June 7, 2017 at 8:00 am

      That’s what happens to Christians in muslim countries under the Pact of Omar; if one Christian steps out of line, the whole Christian community is punished. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  6. Junican
    June 6, 2017 at 2:15 am

    I got to page 91 in the Shlomo paper. It is very hard going. The detail of what some academic said in the 1800s has little to do with the present day. We do not even know if the meaning of the word ‘nation’ in the mid-1800s is the same as today. It is all so complex. But it seems to me that a ‘Nation’ must have a place. Is there the possibility that a ‘nation’ could exist in the middle of the Atlantic ocean? I think not. But that is not to be confused with the idea of ‘Nationality’. I am English, even though my maternal grandparents were Irish, and my paternal grandfather was Scottish and his wife (my grandmother on that side) was English. I am a mongrel. But we are all mongrels if you go back a few centuries.
    My nationality is English/British and I am a citizen of the UK. That does not change wherever in the world I go to. If I was in Spain, and there was a massive earthquake, and the UK disappeared beneath the waves, I would still be English/British.
    In such a catastrophic situation, I might possibly be allowed to become a ‘naturalised’ Spaniard, but it would not matter. What would matter is that any children that I had, after the disappearance of the UK beneath the waves, would be Spanish.
    The idea that all Jews, wherever they were born and no matter that their ancestors have never been remotely near the Middle East for countless generations, form a “Nation” is too silly to contemplate. I am a Catholic (non-practising). I do not therefore claim to be a Roman/Italian.

    I must insist. It is of the greatest importance that we differentiate between Islamists and Muslimists. I’m sorry, but I really have to create the word ‘Muslimist’ as a category. The simple word ‘Muslim’ will not do. The best that I can do is describe ‘Muslimists’ as teachers and preachers who try to instil Muslim ideals (peaceful) into their audience. ‘Islamists’ are TOTALLY different. That is why the distinction needs to be made. ‘Islamists’ are conquerors.

    It is ‘Islamists’ who need to be identified and removed from the population. They can be identified and sent back to where they came from, or …. Erm, suppose that they are British born?
    It isn’t that difficult. Any plotters can be identified and imprisoned in prisons on the Outer Hebrides, where the temp is nice and cool – for thirty years.

    There are all sorts of measures, such as armed police patrolling Islamist ghettos, like Tower Hamlets in London. In fact, measures could be taken to open up Tower Hamlets to cockneys. Break up the ghettos.

    Get serious!

  7. Distant Relative
    June 6, 2017 at 10:30 am

    Just to clarify I actually posted the Shlomo Sand link at N.O. in response to JH’s post “The Jewish Question” http://www.nourishingobscurity.com/2017/06/the-jewish-question/

Comments are closed.