Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Is the United Kingdom (UK) Sliding into Islamization Without a Whimper?

Fjordman says

Tensions have been building slowly beneath the surface for many years and sooner or later these forces will be released in the form of a series of devastating earthquakes, followed by some secondary political and economic tsunamis. Some of the structures that currently appear to be rock solid will collapse like a house of cards during this period and the political landscape will change considerably. What appears unthinkable today will appear natural or inevitable twenty years from now. This is the discontinuity that El Inglés talks about. I would rank Britain as the Western European country most likely to first get a civil war caused by mass immigration and Multiculturalism.

There is no such thing as a universal nation. People want to live with their own kind. The only ones who are not allowed to do so are whites, and they are starting to get tired of this double standard. People of European origins are among the least ethnocentric people on the planet and are currently being penalized heavily for this. Self-preservation is a natural instinct for all living things down to plants and bacteria. It’s about time that whites reclaim the same right without apology. I am increasingly convinced that the developments we are witnessing are deliberate.

at Are We Heading for a Crash? Here's Someone Who Thinks We Are

EDL demonstrators in Birmingham in September
Copyright © CasualsUnited2009


Copyright © CasualsUnited2009

UK Casuals United

Whose streets? Our streets.........


"Mail on Sunday publicity our response"

The newspaper, ostensibly the Sunday Mail apparently had an article about the Brits who resist the Islamization of their Isle that starts off with,

On Platform One at Bolton station a mob of around 100 men punch the air in unison. The chant goes up: 'Muslim bombers, off our streets, Muslim bombers off our streets...'

To read more, go to

CASUALS UNITED: Why do we say "No more Mosques"? Read this

Revealed: Muslim bomb plot gang's links to 'mega-mosque' in east London

Last updated at 4:20 PM on 09th September 2008

Ministers should review plans to build a "mega-mosque" in the East End in the wake of the airline bomb plot trial, the Tories urged today.

Shadow security minister Dame Pauline Neville-Jones said the case had shown that the group behind the mosque may have given cover to extremist activity.

Tablighi Jamaat, which describes itself an Islamic missionary organisation, is pushing for the mosque to be built next to the 2012 Olympics site in Stratford.

But the group was revealed in court as having links to some of the terror suspects, with several having passed through other mosques run by the group. . . .

British Defence Leagues against Islamic Takeover of the UK

English Defence League

Members of the Mercian Regiment pose for pictures with EDL members

Copyright © CasualsUnited2009

Welsh Defence League

Copyright © CasualsUnited2009

Scottish Defence League

Despite the lies of some members of the Scottish media we would like to confirm that the SDL is not a sectarian organisation and all members of Scottish society are welcome to join our protest against Islamic militant activity within our nation.

Copyright © CasualsUnited2009

Ulster Defence League

The UDL is a division of the EDL and supports their campaign against Islamic extremists abusing our troops returning from battlefields abroad and any further attempts to Islamify Britain.

Copyright © CasualsUnited2009

Headline: English Defence League supporters and Moslems clash

Birmingham Moslems told to confront peaceful protest against extremists

Times Online: Moslems urged to confront protest

December 2009
EDL: Notts speech - Church leaders acknowledge

NOTE: The red cross on the masks of the EDL defenders is that of St. George. It is the flag of England.

"This flag was in use during the crusades and it was one of the national emblems of England as early as 1277. In 1497, this flag was flown by John and Sebastian Cabot on their voyages from England to Newfoundland and the North American continent, as well as by other English explorers. including Francis Drake, Sir Humphrey Gilbert and Sir Walter Raleigh. Even after the adoption of the British Union, which combined both the St. George's cross and the St. Andrew's cross, the St. George's cross still was flown from the foremast of English ships. Thus, we see this flag above the Mayflower when it landed at Plymouth in 1620."

EDL - English Defence League Xenophobia in Nottingham, England

Monday, December 28, 2009

The Case for Airline Profiling

We have this "sacred" revulsion to profiling airline passengers before boarding. Not "racial" profiling--not all "Asians" nor "Africans" nor "Middle-Eastern-appearing" passengers, but depending on immediately prior flights, point of origin, layovers, etc.

The point is that full-body scans, said to be too expensive, full-body searches, said to be too intrusive, etc., need not be done to all passengers--so as to appear "even-handed"-- but confined to people whose body language, demeanor, behavior, etc. arouses the suspicions of trained security observers.

Say, for example, a person flies from Germany to France with a U.S. destination. The person originated his flights in Pakistan. A full-body scan might not be out of order.

A gang of Arabs males heading to Florida, their flight plan originating in Yemen might (should) arouse more suspicions than the elderly American couple who might have been the model for a Norman Rockwell illustration from the old Saturday Evening Post.

The American Norman Rockwell couple do not merit the same scrutiny as the group from the Arabian peninsula boarding a plane in London having flown there from Hamburg, Germany.

By now, you should get the idea. Nothing "racial," only prudent.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Why There Cannot Ever Be Any Peace With Islam

Islam in its formative historical stage surfaced as a conquering and colonizing religious movement that arrogated public space and political power for itself alone. This serves as a model for reproduction in any future era thereafter, subject to the exigencies of power opportunities that are available to the Muslims. There are no fixed frontiers to delimit the scope of the future expansive drive, nor are there any moral or juridical restrictions in pursuing the war. Rather, the exaltation of battle by whatever means is designed to vindicate Islam’s global primacy. The horrors of victory, perhaps for the victors and the vanquished alike, are tangential to the satisfaction of exacting tribute and earning respect from the cringing adversaries of Islam. In this scenario, the minorities in the Middle East are fated, as capitalists for Marx, to disappear in the dustbin of history.

originally published at

P.S. - This [excerpt is from an] article . . . taken from the Book, David Bukay (Editor), Muhammad’s Monsters: A Comprehensive Guide to RADICAL ISLAM for Western Audiences, 2004.


Saturday, December 5, 2009


Fitna and the Kafir, Part Two

for Part One, see KNOW YOUR ENEMY - PART ONE

By Kenneth Roberts

December 4, 2009

Both Sunnis and Shi'ites believe in the use of sacred violence. The right to coerce the infidels and subdue them was given by Allah to Mohammed as owner of the earth.

Theologically, mocking Mohammed's method of controlling the infidels is blasphemy, for the violent method of Mohammed comes directly from Allah. Allah's method trumps human logic, even the Western ideal of free speech that is based on mere human philosophy and mere human reasoning, rather than Allah's Divine Command. In mere human philosophy, Mohammed's fitna-prevention method is built on a fallacy of logic called the Appeal to Force in place of logical argument. But this fallacious argument is the main argument of the Koran. Muslims know that the Koranic argument for violence against the infidels takes up 2/3 of the Koran and they further know that the Koranic argument cannot be wrong, for it comes directly from Allah and Allah is not a liar.

Mohammed's method for eliminating fitna is jihad and all Muslims should freely use Mohammed's method, since Mohammed is their role model. This is what Muslims did in the Danish cartoon riots. It is also what motivated Dr. Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009.

Normally, Muslims will not kill infidels for merely thinking non-Islamic thoughts. After all, who knows what another person is thinking, even one's own spouse? Sacred violence is authorized when open disagreement with Mohammed is expressed in the public domain, as with a cartoon or an anti-Islamic book. It need not be the guilty person who is punished, so we can never be sure of the physical safety of any infidels, since throughout history, jihads have often included mass slaughters and genocides of men, women and children.

Mohammed approved of such indiscriminate killing of unbelievers on occasion, if it was convenient for him. During a night-time sneak attack on a town, Mohammed was asked about his customary method of sparing women and children (so that they could be sources of revenue as slaves). According to the Hadith by Abu Muslim 19:4322 , Mohammed responded, "They are of them." In other words, the women and children are accomplices in the fitna of the defending males. And besides, it was inconvenient to attack and carry lanterns to check everything that moves in the dark.

Here Mohammed authorized wholesale slaughter of an entire community. The justification for this was the political charge of fitna. So no infidel is ever innocent of fitna, a capital crime.

Such logic was used by Major Nidal Hasan when he committed a wholesale slaughter of 13 unarmed American soldiers: …the American army opposes Mohammed's method…it is guilty of fitna…and the 13 slaughtered soldiers 'are of them.' This made Dr. Hasan a hero to the former mullah of his mosque, because he executed the enemies of Mohammed using deceit and surprise, just like Mohammed did. Mohammed frequently executed unarmed prisoners of war. Dr. Hasan is a rational, pious Muslim. His ideas agree with the official scholarly concensus of normative Islam.

Mohammed's brilliant method of ruthless assassination silences fitna by paralyzing the brain with fear. Mohammed's method may not be judged by any external standard, because his method is itself the standard. Forget the obvious ethical flexibility or opportunism. Mohammed's method takes a position above human logic, ethical analysis and philosophical discourse. To analyze Mohammed's ethical inconsistencies is fitna.

Today, Islamic governments are seeking new ways to control fitna beyond their borders. Kafir fitna is temptation or luring that tempts Muslims to question or lose their faith. Kafirs commit fitna every time they disagree with Sharia law in the public domain, when they mock Mohammed's violent method in cartoons or use reason or logic on the Internet to show Mohammed is wrong.

Such politically incorrect utterance keeps the Islamic state from insuring all information supports the unity and power of that State and its jihadist army.

Information control is normative Islam and is fully acceptable to all pious Muslims, since it prevents fitna, the ultimate crime. Modern Muslims agree that fitna should be removed from human society through censorship of discourse that disagrees with Islam, even in the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. By removing the right to disagree with Islam at the UN, Muslim governments hope to implement global information control.

Politically, this will allow Islamic governments to totally ignore all human rights complaints by claiming Muslims have a unique human right: the right of not hearing any criticism.

When governments of the Islamic Conference say they wish to remove utterances that criticizes Islam, they actually mean 'fitna'…public disagreement with Mohammed.

Islamic governments know fitna control is needed before discriminatory Sharia law can be fully implemented and jihad can go ahead. They seek to shut down the freedom of UN diplomats to discuss any human rights aspect of Islam. They cast a veil over Islamic discrimination against women and minorities in view of the radical claim that Muslims have a superior, unique human right which infidels do not possess.

The Islamic right to censor fitna trumps gender equality, freedom of expression, freedom to change one's religion and other freedoms. In law, this specious argument is called 'special pleading'. It is pure dualism and supremacism. In essence, this makes Shariah law superior to the UDHR and enshrines Islamic discrimination in the name of human rights.

Inter-Islamic fitna, i.e. dissension or discord between Muslims, is the second class of fitna. Theological disagreements between Shi'ite Muslims and Sunnite Muslims are also called fitna. Both sides believe the other worthy of death for disagreeing with Mohammed. Unfortunately, both sides do not see that their own opinion of Mohammed's method may also be in error. Only the other fellow is in error and he is obviously a heretic. 'And Allah knows best.'

Consequently, there is no Sunnite mosque permitted in Teheran and no Shi'ite mosque permitted in Saudi Arabia's holy cities. Fitna/discord between Muslims themselves and between Muslims and infidels is primarily a political question about who possesses the political upper hand. This right of supremacy cannot be discussed, since it comes from Allah and is defended by sacred violence. What you believe about Mohammed determines your human rights status in an Islamic state.

Moreover, the concept of fitna makes pluralism practically impossible, since only one political party can be in perfect agreement with Mohammed. Having an opposition party in an Islamic country would be the evil of fitna...another opinion would obviously disagree with Mohammed and be condemned. Fitna paints Islamic countries into a philosophical corner where dictatorship is the only government system possible.

The ultimate use of fitna is a military one. Fitna is any utterance that demoralizes or confuses Muslim troops so they become weak as a military force, unconvinced of their political mission of world dominance and hesitant to commit jihad. Fitna undercuts the Islamic chain of command. Fitna destroys the cohesiveness and certainty of jihadists…that unquestioning certainty that makes them ready to kill the critics of Mohammed.

Faint-hearted, non-fanatical Muslims will not defend Mohammed's method or expand their Allah-given supremacy over the infidels. If Muslims are in doubt about the rightness of Mohammed's method, they will peter out, while the infidels win the earth for Satan. This must not be. Fitna must be stopped and reversed, since it impedes the Islamic state without borders. Fitna thus becomes a political charge of treason against the Allah-established Ummah (nation) of Islam. Fitna deserves the death penalty because Allah said it is worse than murder (Koran 2:191). It is every Muslim's duty to use sacred violence to stamp out fitna and create the utopian Islamic world where disagreement can no longer exist.

"And fight them (all infidels) until there is no more fitnah (disagreeing with Allah/Mohammed) and the religion (all-pervasive lifestyle and system of Sharia law) will all be for Allah alone (in the whole world). But if they cease (to disagree with Allah/Mohammed) then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do." (Koran 8.39)

"(Allah) sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the kafirs may be averse." (Koran 9.33)
Kenneth Roberts is interested in global affairs, military history and the music of Mozart.

copyright (c) CBSX, LLC

Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009


by Melanie Phillips

Citing a recent article by Andrew Neather, "speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett," Melanie Phillips concludes that the extreme increase in Muslim population in Britain didn't just happen. "It was a deliberate policy of mass immigration ... to change the very makeup of this country without telling the electorate." Immigration controls were loosened, effectively reversing a stated policy limiting the entry of foreign workers, so that "some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since 2001." The Labour government continue to see it as a praiseworthy method to create a mullticultural England. Many a voter sees it as destructive of English culture. Moreover, if allowed to continue, it will introduce a huge number of immigrants — many of whom are iliterate and without skills — into an already overcrowded country. No wonder that the white working class is voting for the Britisn National Party, that strongly objects to unrestricted immigration. The article mirrors what is happening in much of Europe.