...time to send these suggestions to every politician you can find....add the note ; "Do it now"...

you know me...I have said for a long time: Ban Muslim Immigration...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 30, 2008 12:36 PM

And there are those who continue to come to JW and claim that Robert and Hugh make no proposals on how to combat the jihad. Illiteracy, feigned or not, is a sad thing.

How much does it cost for a hot war? 1 trillion dollars so far? 1 trillion dollars being spent not on the security and safety of U.S. citizens, but of those of our "good friends and allies", the Afghans and Iraqis. Not to mention the financial aid sent to Pakistan, Egypt, and indirectly, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf sheikdoms.

Now, how much does it cost to implement the steps listed above? 1/10 of 1% of that 1 trillion? Or 1/100 of 1%? More importantly, every step listed above will directly improve the security and safety of the U.S. people.

As opposed to building new bridges in Iraq, or building a new soccer stadium in Afghanistan, or installing a democracy that votes to impose sharia on itself?

C'mon "U.S. officials", take a look at the list.

Posted by: special_guest at January 30, 2008 12:37 PM

Yesssssssssss!

Posted by: Dumpling at January 30, 2008 12:39 PM

1. Halt Muslim migration. If you seek its justification, circumspice.

????????????

This is precisely what the British National Party want! I thought you were against banning people of different races from entering the UK?
Yes Islam theoretically is "raceless" but the vast majority of Muslims in the UK are from Pakistan, India, North Africa and the Middle East. You would have to ban everyone from those countries.

This plan is virtually impossible under the current UK leadership, the socialists control everything (i've been called a paranoid delusional extremist for stating this!)

2 Deport all Muslim non-citizens. They have no divine right to remain.

Again this is straight from the BNP manifesto.

3. A loyalty oath to the nation-state should be required, one which makes express the foreswearing of all other loyalties, and that includes a phrase about perjury being grounds for the stripping of citizenship so obtained.

I agree with this! I've always said that contracts between guest and country should be written. any violation and you can be deported for felonies, and serious crimes etc.

I agree with all the rest, but in todays current western european socialist climate this is impossible. maybe for the USA this would work but to work in the US we would have to expect a civil war before we could implement this.

The nation of islam and the US branches of Islamic brotherhood would fight guerilla war on our streets to prevent mass deportations. Plus the marxists would bomb and riot.
A semi totalitarian state or military regime would have to be put in power to accomplish your goals in both Europe and the USA.

Is this really what you want?

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 12:42 PM

There are over 50 million muslims in Europe. You think they would take this lying down. I hate to play devil's advocate but I just don't see the "White" european establishment clamping down on non white muslims.
There would be civil war all across Europe.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 12:56 PM

Right on, Hugh!
There are various laws already in place that could be used effectively, if only the European countries were willing to do so. There are already laws against "hate-crimes" and "hate-literature". Well, much of Islam is an hate-crime against non-Moslems, and the Koran and the other basic Islamic works are full of hatred towards non-Moslems. Why can't they be banned? Along with the hate-filled sermons of the imams and muftis.
Germany, and I believe other countries, have laws against the dissemination of Nazi propaganda and literature. These could be expanded to include Islamic propaganda and literature, which contain more hatred and incitement to violence than "Mein Kampf" ever did. And note that "Mein Kampf" translates to "My Struggle", which as the Islamic apologists always tell us, equals "My Jihad".
Also some countries have laws against vicious cults, which have been used against Scientology. Can't these be used against Islam?
One more suggestion: re-instate the military draft in all countries, with provision that any young fellow who flees to the Old Country to live with Uncle Abdul to avoid the draft is permanently forbidden re-entry. Enlarged armed forces would also reduce the unemployment rate, and provide trained forces to supplement the police in putting down Moslem riots in Paris, Amsterdam, etc.

Posted by: ebonystone at January 30, 2008 12:56 PM

"Enlarged armed forces would also reduce the unemployment rate, and provide trained forces to supplement the police in putting down Moslem riots in Paris, "

But the muslims would be in the armed forces, with access to weapons. This plan would backfire.

Sorry but the Germans would never clamp down on Muslims, especially considering that the majority of muslims in Germany are Turks.

The clamp down on scientology was easy because
A) its an american cult - germans dislike america
B) Scientology is a majority white cult

The germans would never employ race deportations thanks to Hitler and the politics of the 20's - 40's.

You are all dreaming. sorry to be too harsh.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 1:03 PM

leonthepigfarmer said

This is precisely what the British National Party want!

Okay, but what else does the BNP want? Do they support the right of Jews and Hindus to immigrate? Do they support of the right of Christians from ethnic Arab countries to immigrate?

Is the BNP's stance against Islam based on a scholarly study of the core religious documents of Islam, or based on skin pigmentation?

I'm in the States, so I don't know.

Posted by: special_guest at January 30, 2008 1:04 PM

# 10

Aggresively monitor activity in all mosques for any illegal behavior, specifically political propoganda. On first offense of the aforementioned, the mosque should be permanently stripped of its tax-exempt status as a religious institution. Second offense, prosecute the leaders of the mosque under political treason, incarcerating all involved and then razing the structure.

Posted by: awake at January 30, 2008 1:06 PM

special_guest

The BNP want to end all immigration of non whites.

This is precisely what would happen if you employ #1 above.

Think, where are all muslims from? the middle east, North africa, Africa, swarthy borat albanian types, turkey. etc etc.
how would immigration filter these people? "so are you a muslim?" Taquiyah would be used to gain acces to Europe?

and then what? Stormtroopers scouring the streets for muslims, mass koran burnings? this is probably the most extreme thing i have read so far on jihadwatch. yet only 2 weeks ago british nationalists were treated to slander and libel , called racists, fascists and Nazis for STATING THE SAME POLICIES AS LISTED ABOVE!!!

Please, make your minds up.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 1:10 PM

leonthepigfarmer said

You are all dreaming.

First, the article is a list of things that can be done, not a list of things that anyone thinks are currently being done.

Second, I think that with the proper change in public perception, every one of the steps listed above can be implemented. It seems incredible now, but I think a change is coming; it may be a change that happens overnight, if the worst case happens.

Now is the time to think this through, not when emotions are running high and things are in a state of chaos.

Posted by: special_guest at January 30, 2008 1:13 PM

No, what's needed is the deportation of extremist immans, the closure of extremist mosques and the restriction of known fundamentalist muslims into the west. Mohammed Atta was known by security services but allowed into the USA?
The london 2005 bombers had been monitored but allowed to proceed with their bombs.
If you go down the route of a totalitarian state then you will have not only muslims blowing things up but marxists and anarchists, and possibly other anti-authoritarian groups stirring trouble.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 1:13 PM

leonthepigfarmer said

The BNP want to end all immigration of non whites. [...] yet only 2 weeks ago british nationalists were treated to slander and libel , called racists, fascists and Nazis for STATING THE SAME POLICIES AS LISTED ABOVE!!!

Ending all immigration of non-whites is not in the list above, nor is it listed as a suggested policy anywhere in JW/DW that I have ever read. They are not the same policy, they are very different policies. The difference is not trivial, it is fundamental.

Posted by: special_guest at January 30, 2008 1:17 PM

special_guest

well if you believe that then get ready for civil war cos 50 million european muslims would not take that lying down.
and the marxists will not stand by and let their allies get pushed around.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 1:17 PM

"I hate to play devil's advocate but I just don't see the "White" european establishment clamping down on non white muslims.
There would be civil war all across Europe."

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer

There already is civil war all across Europe, and the Moslems are winning. Unfortunately most Europeans don't realize this yet.

Posted by: ebonystone at January 30, 2008 1:18 PM

"Ending all immigration of non-whites is not in the list above"

so the middle east is full of white people? north africa? nigeria?

sorry to be the one that highlights the impossibility of #1 but the majority of muslims are non white european. Whether you like it or not, banning muslim immigration involves banning non white europeans and i see no difference between the BNP's policy (which is neo nazi according to this site's previous posts) and # 1 above.

islam = majority non white european

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 1:21 PM

leonthepigfarmer said

No, what's needed is the deportation of extremist immans, the closure of extremist mosques and the restriction of known fundamentalist muslims into the west. Mohammed Atta was known by security services but allowed into the USA?

I agree with you on those steps. Hugh didn't list it, but my suggestion for #10 would be to begin the legal process to investigate whether Islam meets the criteria for a religion, and therefore subject to (in the U.S.) constitutional protection under the law.

I wish Mohammed Atta had been kicked out of the country, because of what was in his head, not for what pigmentation was in his skin.

Posted by: special_guest at January 30, 2008 1:22 PM

"There are over 50 million muslims in Europe"
-- from a posting above

No. There are right now fewer than 20 million Muslims in Western Europe, possibly only 15 million, out of a total E. U. population of about 450 million. Yet that is not cause for complacency. Look at how aggressive Muslims have been in the Netherlands, in Great Britain, in France, in Denmark (Muslim leaders in Denmark not only protesting the cartoons, but actively touring the world, whipping up Muslims outside Denmark to engage in econonomic and diplomatic boycotts of Denmark, and issuing death threats against "the Dantes"), in Germany, in Italy (with Adel Smith, a convert and "leader" of Italian Muslims demanding that the crucifix be removed everywhere, a move which enraged even determined atheists and anti-clericals such as Oriana Fallaci, who understood the significance of such a demand), and indeed everywhere.

And what a nightmarish expense and difficulty it is already to guard airports, train and metro and bus stations, government buildings, churches and synagogues, even the art-work that might be vandalized in museums, and to provide protection even for members of Parliament such as Geert Wilders, or for heads of parties (as in Norway) or for apostates (Ayaan Hirsi Ali had to leave the Netherlands). "If they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when the wood is dry" it says in Luke. Well, "if they do this when they constitute a mere 3%, or possibly 5%, of the total population in the Infidel nation-states, then what will happen when they become, if they are allowed to become, 10%, or 20%? Long before Muslims are a majority they will have created the conditions that will render non-Muslims helpless to defend their own civilizational legacy.

Look at the how expensive, time-consuming, mind-consuming are all the endless legal battles waged, the time used up by lawyers, courts, to satisfy, or not, the demands of Muslims, those who claim that there has been :discrimination" at a municipal pool, where burga-wearing was banned, or at schools (the "guerre des foulards" in France), or as witnesses (protesting the insistence of a judge that niqabbed faces be revealed by those giving testimony in court), and so on -- and those cases, those attempts to change the legal and political rules, the social arrangements, the everything of Infidel lands will never, can never, stop. But they can be controlled and contained, and that requires dealing with the demographic conquest that cannot continue to be merely observed, noted, and bewailed, but observed, noted, and fought.

most likely a total of 15 million, in the member states of the E.U. And some are counted as "Muslims" who may in fact have fallen away.The nations of Western Europe in the E.U. have a combined population of 450 million. That means Muslims constitute about 3%. Let's make it 5%, just for the hell of it. But among them are many who are not yet -- and do not ever have to be made -- citizens. There are plural wives. There is fiddling of the system in every way. There is criminality. All of this could be made grounds for expulsion. Here's an idea: a law that says that anyone who is a naturalized citizen, but within a certain period (say ten years) is convicted of a crime beyond the level of a misdemeanor, "can be subject" to being stripped of citizenship and deported. There will be discretion in enforcement, and it could be selectively enforced against those who, because of what is in their mental baggage, pose a permanent threat.

Changes in immigratio policy have to be instituted quickly, all over Western Europe. The absurdly capacious definition of "refugee" must be re-dimensioned, for it is silly to describe a Muslim from a Muslim country as a "refugee." Sunnis from Iraq who have left Baghdad, for example, under Shi'a pressure, have all of the Sunni parts of Iraq to settle in. The same with the Shi'a. Or, for that matter, there are 22 Arab states, and it is absurd for Infidel lands to believe that they -- and that includes the United States -- have an "obligation" to allow in more Muslims, when we have evidence aplenty, from what is happening in Western Europe, of what that means for the peace, tranquillity, and continued stability of our own legal and political institutions, and our physical security.

It is noit beyond the wit of Western man to construct a system whereby illegal Muslim immigrants are interdicted, and quickly returned to sender, and the police in Western Europoe should be spending much more not only to interdict those boatloads, but also to locate, and seize all of the assets of the smugglers, so that the crime will not pay. And anyone found to be easing the entry of Muslim illegals, of hiding them in the Muslim communities, should be subject to similar punishments and, above all, seizure of assets (jail terms too often simply provide a "captive audience" of Infidels subject to campaigns of Da'wa).

Posted by: Hugh at January 30, 2008 1:29 PM

leonthepigfarmer said

islam = majority non white european

False.

Proof by example:

A Buddhist man from Thailand is a "non-white European." He is not a Muslim.

A Hindu woman from India is a "non-white European." She is not a Muslim.

Q.E.D.

Posted by: special_guest at January 30, 2008 1:31 PM

From the pictures I've seen, most of the Moslems of the Near East and North Africa ARE whites. Give them shaves, haircuts, and European clothes, and they are indistinguishable from many aboriginal Europeans. And Moslems from these areas make up the bulk of Moslems in Europe. There aren't many from other races, like Nigerians or Somalis or Indonesians, with one exception -- the large number from the Indian sub-continent, concentrated mostly in the U.K. So banning Moslem immigration would be mostly a matter of banning certain whites.

Posted by: ebonystone at January 30, 2008 1:39 PM

leonthepigfarmer said

well if you believe that then get ready for civil war cos 50 million european muslims would not take that lying down.

Regardless of their actual numbers, I have no doubts about the amount of violence they will be able to perpetrate. The steps listed above will not be easily carried out. It will not be a nice process, it will not be all warm fuzzies when it begins.

But there is no need to be fearful, we merely need to protect ourselves, nothing more.

Posted by: special_guest at January 30, 2008 1:41 PM

...quit allowing Muslim re-enforcements to arrive...Ban Muslim Immigration (white, yellow, brown, black, red, or other)...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 30, 2008 1:46 PM

hugh

i said Europe, not western europe.

europe on a whole encompasses iceland to albania.

The EU will soon include many eastern and southern european nations. There are well over 50 million muslims in europe. 21 million in western europe.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 1:49 PM

Hugh

How will we deport muslims from Europe if and when Turkey joins the EU with her 100 million muslims? Albania (90% muslim) is on the way to EU membership and if Miliband has his way then North Africa and some Middle Eastern nations will also be invited into the EU.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 1:54 PM

Leon--

This is not a racial issue, but an ideological one.

Race does not dictate culture or ideology; the centrality of ideology rather than color/ethnicity is one crucial point of distinction between "1." above and the BNP.

If some members of the Blue Man Group espoused an ideology committed to open-ended warfare to impose and enforce a draconian legal code that included the subjugation of women and unbelievers, I'd be concerned because of that, not because they're blue.

Posted by: MarisolJW at January 30, 2008 1:56 PM

I think Leon was stating that the majority of Muslims are non-Whites. Obviously, the converse is not true - a majority of non-Whites are not Muslims: just add the populations of China and India, and lob off 10% (allowing for their Muslim populations), and right there, you have something that drowns the population of dar-ul-Islam by 2:1.

I don't live in the UK either, but from what I understand, the Brits do a fine job distinguishing Muslims from other 'Asian' groups, be it Sikhs, Hindus, Chinese, et al. Also, Leon doesn't explain how he'd deal with white Muslim converts, such as Yvonne Ridley, Richard Reid, Abdullah(?) (I forget his full name) - white Brits who've converted to Islam and are creating enough trouble for their countries.

Ending all immigration of non-Whites is not in the JW list above. Nobody is suggesting that Brazilians or Thai people be stopped from immigrating to the US, or Sikh Indians be stopped from moving to Britain, or that Berber Christians be stopped from settling in France, or that Maronites be barred from Quebec. The only test being suggested is the religious test. Yeah, there is the possibility that an Algerian Jihadist could pretend to be a Berber Christian, but once such a taquiyya artist is found out, (s)he could be deported for not just being Muslim, but also perjury. So the Jihadi threat does not necessiate the deportation of all non Whites: what's worse - such a move does nothing to White Muslims.

Immigration to already crowded Western countries like Britain is another thing altogether, and curbs on it - irrespective of Islam - deserve to be supported. However, that too is different from a blanket deportation of all non-Whites.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 30, 2008 1:56 PM

"From the pictures I've seen, most of the Moslems of the Near East and North Africa ARE whites. "

dude, i don't need an American anthropological 3rd hand view of where i used to live for the past 30 years!!!

North Africans and Middle Easterns DO NOT LOOK LIKE INDIGENOUS EUROPEANS. Have you never been to a small English town, a north African would stand out a mile.

"There aren't many from other races, like Nigerians or Somalis "

Huh? Mate, go to london. Go to Camden town, next to the good mixer pub in camden market and watch the 50 strong somali gang that mugs and robs with impunity.
You make assumptions which have no factual basis or grounding.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 1:59 PM

10 or 11. Have an international meet of non-Islamic countries that explicitly re-classifies Islam as a geopolitical ideological cult, as opposed to as religion, and require that all those countries regulate Islam accordingly.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 30, 2008 2:06 PM

No.

Save for the remains of the Ottoman day that one finds in the Balkans, and a distinct group of Muslims in Bulgaria, there are very few Muslims in Europe-extra-E.U. -- that is, in Central and Eastern Europe. There are some in Switzerland, a country that, however, makes the acquiring of citizenship difficult. (The greed of some Swiss for Arab oil money has played a role in delaying recognition, just as the temporary need for manodopera in Germany and France thirty years ago, led to the negligent admission of Turksih and North African workers who were seen, quite incorrectly, only as gastarbeiter. The Pakistanis who came to Great Britain were allowed in mainly out of some sentimental business permitting entry to "members of the Commonwealth" and also played a role in admitting Muslims (Hindus are another matter) booted out of Uganda by Idi Amin, and made unwelcome in other black African nations. For some reason no one thought they should go to Pakistan, oh no. It was Great Britain's "responsibility" to take them in. And it did. It's always and everywhere the "responsibility" of the Westeern world to take in Muslim "refugees" from the very lords of misrule who rule unchallenged, in large part, because of the habit of submission to the ruler that Islam, locating political legitimacy not in the expressed will of the people but in the will expressed by Allah in the Qur'an (and further glossed by the Sunnah), is responsible for. But do those "refugees" from Muslim countries leave the ultimate, if not proximate, cause, of the political, economic, social, moral and intellectual failures of the places they leave behind, when they come as "refugees" to Great Britain or the United States? Do they, that is, come as refugees from the Nazis came, or refugees from the Communists came, hating Nazism, hating Communism? No, they do not. They come, for the most part, with Islam in their mental baggage, and do not have to declare it upon entry, nor any time later on. They remain true to what, if they analyzed things correctly, caused their own countries of origin to be so unpleasant, and the absence of which, as a dominant force, in the Westeern world, helps explain the difference, and Western superiority, as Gogol might put it, "in all respects."

Posted by: Hugh at January 30, 2008 2:06 PM

1. Halt Muslim migration.

Again, i repeat. The majority of MUSLIMS are non white who hail from muslim countries. is that so hard to understand?

the majority of muslims are not chinese, but they are mainly from pakistan, nigeria, eastern europe, north africa.

they are not majority white nations.

you speak about banning muslims but how can you possbily ban muslim immigration unless you stop all immigration from North africa etc and therefore ban all non muslims as well living in those countries.

The majority of Indians are not muslim so there fore you would not ban all immigration from india.
The governments would have to draw up a list of nations from where migration is banned. ie middle eastern countries and BAN EVERYONE from those nations, including coptic christians and hindus etc.

White liberals do not like white immigration authorities banning black faces.

there would be riots, mass demonstrations, bombs and the downfall of western society if these totalitarian methods were carried out unless the Army were to be deployed on every street. and then western europe would be totalitarianism

No thanks.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 2:08 PM

you speak about banning muslims but how can you possbily ban muslim immigration unless you stop all immigration from North africa etc and therefore ban all non muslims as well living in those countries. - Leon

By that reasoning, you'd have to ban immigration, period. No Americans. No Canadians. No French. Because one of them might be Muslim, too. And white.

Posted by: MarisolJW at January 30, 2008 2:12 PM

MarisolJW

exactly!

All immigrations would have to be stopped. and only then accusations of racism etc could not be used against the state.

banning ALL muslim immigration is impossible. so a blanket ban would be the only viable option.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 2:16 PM

Well, that's certainly not what #1 above is describing, and I would not condone banning all immigration (wouldn't that also leave you back in the UK?).

So it should be becoming pretty clear to you why there's a difference between your views (and the BNP's platform, which you endorse), and what is described above.

Posted by: MarisolJW at January 30, 2008 2:19 PM

12. Permit carry of concealed firearms; offer instruction in use of weapons and how to spot pre-attack recon, associated equipment and material; and how to properly and quickly report this information to the police.

Posted by: undaunted at January 30, 2008 2:19 PM

MarisolJW

so how can we ban muslim immigration?

introduce tests on muslims coming in? let them to eat pork when they apply for their visa?

ever heard of taquiyah?

you'd have thousands of muslims entering the UK eating pork and carrying the bible around. telling immigrations officers that they are practicing hare krishnas.

it's impossible unless you halt all immigration from muslim nations.

but then these policies would be seen as racist as the majority of muslims are non white.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 2:30 PM

Hugh didn't ask for arguments to the items he posted, he asked for more ideas to bring it up to 100.

Focus, people.

Visualize whirled peas.

Posted by: undaunted at January 30, 2008 2:38 PM

undaunted

this isn't the LGF forum.

One cannot make arguments such as "ban all muslim immigration" without justifying that position.

banning all muslim immigration is unworkable in socialist Europe.

how would you be able to distinguish a lebanese christian from a muslim christian if the muslim uses taquiyah techniques to circumvent immigration?

i have made my point. the only way to halt muslim immigration without appearing "racist" would be to halt ALL immigration. Only then would the far left accept this position.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 2:45 PM

Leon-- you keep mentioning "non-white," but you keep dodging the issue of whether color/ethnicity or ideology is the issue. And you were the one who brought up color in the first place in your posting in your 12:42 posting.

My position is that color has no place in the discussion. Moreover, discriminating by color/origin does not solve the problem posed by Euro/American converts who may migrate between countries for nefarious purposes. And it commits an injustice toward a large block of people we should be helping and making common cause with: non-Muslim minorities of Muslim countries who are subjected to enough abuse already. And members of non-Muslim religions do generally have a paper trail, too: baptismal certificates, marriage certifications, and so on.

It is simply my opinion that the moral and logistical problems of banning all immigration, or banning based anything other than the ideology that threatens us, outweigh the benefits, and will not solve the problem as advertised, either.

That's what I think. And now, per undaunted's suggestion, I'll yield the floor in favor of additions to the list.

Posted by: MarisolJW at January 30, 2008 2:50 PM

Marisol

Ok, i'll answer you and then add to hugh's list and let undaunted get his way.

the reason why i use race and colour is because the vast majority of muslims in europe are non white europeans.

this is not my fault! i am merely stating a fact.

now lets say the EU bans all non muslims. then the EU will be viewed as racist as the majority of muslims are not white europeans!!!

North african= non white european
african = non white
middle eastern = non white european
etc etc

so therefore, again not my fault, all immigration restrictions placed on muslims entering Europe WILL be viewed as racial profiling.

It sucks big time but the biggest barrier the anti jihadists face is the fact that muslims hail from non white european western nations. And all arguments against islam is viewed as racist.

This is why we need more Ayaan Hirsi Ali's on our side to counteract the charges of racism and bigotry which are leveled against us.

I agree that we need to halt all muslim immigration but in today's ultra far left PC west this is impossible.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 2:58 PM

deal with white Muslim converts, such as Yvonne Ridley, Richard Reid, Abdullah(?) (I forget his full name) - white Brits who've converted to Islam and are creating enough trouble for their countries.

Leon

Why not start with a blanket ban on immigration from just Muslim countries (e.g. all OIC members), and from non-Muslim countries - be they White or non-White - screen for Muslims? That seems a lot easier - how many of the Muslim 'Asians' you have in the Islamic Kingdom are from India, as opposed to Pakistan or Bangladesh? You couldn't get more Muslims from any other non-Muslim country than India.

Reason racism accusations take place is that Islamic advocacy groups have re-classified Muslims as a race, regardless of skin color. While for profiling purposes, it would be necessary to look at Arabs, South Asians, Iranians and North Africans differently from Whites, Chinese and other completely non-Islamic races, the above method is almost full-proof. Granted, it would be harsh on Christians from any of these countries, but one could at least make the argument that it's not the job of the West to house refugees from dar-ul-Islam; however, they could work to force these countries to give them special enclaves where they could live peacefully, if equality under the law was impossible with shariah.

If all that's impossible, sure, ban all immigration.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 30, 2008 2:59 PM

"Why not start with a blanket ban on immigration from just Muslim countries "

that's what i proposed. but this may also stop any coptic christians or other non muslims fleeing persecution from muslim countries to the west.

how would refugees from islamic countries be allowed into the west? and how would you know if they were really non muslim?

i guesss Hugh hasn't really explained how he would ban muslim immigration.

a clarification on this would probably solve me from spending anymore time typing when I should really be hard at work.

thanks hugh.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 3:07 PM

13. Ban indegenous converstions to Islam (after of course, Islam has been re-classified as a cult), and make that grounds for prison sentences, since deportation of indigenous people is next to impossible.

14. Ban any dual citizenship with Islamic countries.

15. Ban travel/tourism to Islamic countries. Thinking of visiting the Pyramids? Try Tenochtitlan instead.

16. Ban Islamic banking, which is simply Jiziya if any Infidels invest in such institutions.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 30, 2008 3:07 PM

just a note...maybe you could ban anyone with a muslim name?

mohammed would probably indicate that this gentleman is a muslim?

(this is a serious point I'm trying to make)

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 3:09 PM

"whirled peas..."
-- from a posting above at 2:38 p.m.

Yes, I know what you mean. A kind neighbor gave me, a few days ago, her special recipe for whirled peas. Last night I tried, for the very first time, to follow her recipe. But I had come home late, and friends were expected, and I was rushed, and I had run out of one of the spices the recipe called for, and the result was a dish of whirled peas that disappointed.

I ran into my neighbor this morning and she explained that it was very important not to leave out any of the ingredients she mentioned, but also to stir the dish, over medium heat, for as long as she had specified. Then the whirled peas, she assured me, would have come out just fine.

She's a marvellous cook and I'm sure she was right about those peas. Had I but whirled enough, and thyme.

Posted by: Hugh at January 30, 2008 3:09 PM

Every immigrant to a European country has to take an oath of allegiance to that country.
Or to be more precise, to it’s form of constitutional democracy.

Is it not about time to hold people accountable if they break this oath? Surely the answer is yes, and laws should be passed which make the attack on the constitution illegal.
Imprisoning these people is absurd. The punishment should fit the crime.
In extreme cases a there should be policy of re-settlement to a country of their choice i.e. Iran or Saudi Arabia where they can enjoy the Sharia system they so desire.

Democracies have every right to revoke citizenship if someone who was previously an immigrant can be shown t have broken a just law.

Citizenship is essentially a contract; you are allowed believe what you like provided it is constitutional. Attempting to introduce Sharia is unconstitutional, it is a breach of the contract of citizenship and should be criminalised.

There must be very strict constitutional limits concerning how elections are held.
We cannot allow Islamists to use democracy to dismantle democracy.

Any country with a democratic constitution should ban those who advocate Sharia law from taking part in elections.

Every Western country really needs a ministry of religious affairs like they have in Turkey.
The purpose is to uphold the secular republic by putting constraints on politicised Islam.

Posted by: Odyessus at January 30, 2008 3:10 PM

Leon

Read what I wrote - I conceded that it would be tough on infidels from these countries, such as Copts, Maronites, Assyrians, Paki Christians, but it's not the job of the West to take in these people any more than it's incumbent on these Islamic countries not to abuse them.

And as I said, those who lie about being non-Muslim, or convert while in the West, should be shown the door. Or imprisoned (see suggestion 13 above)

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 30, 2008 3:11 PM

Infidel Pride

agreed.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 3:13 PM

just a note...maybe you could ban anyone with a muslim name? mohammed would probably indicate that this gentleman is a muslim? (this is a serious point I'm trying to make) Posted by: leonthepigfarmer

That would be a part of what's used to identify one's religion. Any apostate from Islam would be required to change his/her name.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 30, 2008 3:14 PM

We are only up to number 16.

Surely we can do better.

Posted by: awake at January 30, 2008 3:17 PM

17. Regularly monitor, by stealth if necessary, as was done by channel 4 in the UK, what is said and taught in mosques throughout Europe. Take immediate action to expel those who preach violence and hatred.

Posted by: George Mc. at January 30, 2008 3:24 PM

Leon,

We have been getting a lot of Muslims in the US from the UK, including hard-core jihadists. Indeed, the FBI has identified Londonistan as a threat to our national security long ago. Shouldn't we ban all immigration from the UK, white or not? I am a Muslim who have been campaigning for years to ban all Muslim immigration to the US. And I have no problem with banning all immigration, from anywhere, by all countries. But how can banning only non-whites help? It will only give ammunition to those who falsely equate anti-islamism with racism. Jihadists are agressively recruiting "White al-Qaida" - Albanians, Bosnians, Chechens - because they blend-in in the West. Race-profiling will not work there.
BNP is widely viewed as a group of ill repute, and with a good reason. To gain respectability, they must repudiate racism and anti-Semitism, and declare unconditional support for Israel, and hostility toward jihad, both murderous and demographic. Declare yourselves International Resistance against the Muslim Demographic conquest, and rally against Muslim immigration to both Israel and the West. Recently, BNP's Nick Griffin blew a great opportunity to re-make his group's image, when he accepted the invitation by the obscene Oxford Union to debate there, along with the Holocaust-denier David Irving. He could have rejected it with indignation, saying: "I will not breathe the same air with this criminal, this Nazi". This would have left him on a higher moral ground, and have left the pompous Oxford degenerates shamed. But he didn't. Instead, this sorry affair brought together Muslims and liberal Jews, who protested there together.
And France's Le Pen, who is now flirting with Vlaams Belang, is even worse than BNP, far worse. He is an ultra-Catholic Nazi who sees the jihad as an ally against Ortodox Cristians, who are the main target of his Drang Nach Osten designs. He backed Croat, Bosnian and Albanian atrocities against the Serbs. Are we supposed to stand by him? Our place is with the opposite side.
Israel and Serbia are the 2 litmus tests, and Le Pen fails both.
To defend from the Islamic demographic onslaut, you don't need to join BNP. All you have to do is to follow the Tory leader David Cameron, a non-Jewish Englishman who have recently declared himself a Zionist. It takes courage for a mainstream polititian to make such declaration. The general has stepped forward, so where are the troops? Rally behind him, give all the power to him.

Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at January 30, 2008 3:40 PM

Sadly (since I'm the 900 lb. RINO in the room), I think we must discontinue returning works of art to muslim countries and countries with uncontrolled muslim minorities. There's been a spate of raids on American museums lately to return artefacts that were aquired under questionable circumstances. Post-Bamyan, we must place the future safety of any historical object above questions of whether that object was stolen from its original homeland. We owe the future at least that much.

Posted by: skevin at January 30, 2008 3:43 PM

Ruslan

If you don't mind a personal question, if that's all you believe and stand for, why are you still a Muslim?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 30, 2008 3:44 PM

For Europeans to ban Muslim immigration and not be accused of racism it is necessary to clearly declare Islam as a dangerous belief and at the same time accept immigration of non-Muslims.
This is impossible in the current political climate and can not happen.So the politicians who ask for limiting all immigration seem more realistic.
From the other side those who ask for banning all immigration will be accused of racism.
The discussion will continue without results until a big event changes all of it and enforces reality.

Posted by: athenian at January 30, 2008 3:45 PM

" But how can banning only non-whites help? It will only give ammunition to those who falsely equate anti-islamism with racism."

i never suggested banning non whites.

tell me where i said this and i will recant it.

i stated that the majority of muslims in western europe are non white and the majority of muslims entering western europe are non white and this is our dilemma.

we ban muslim immigration then we look/appear racist.

i merely pointed out this fact and i am not advocating ending non white immigration into europe.

i believe that we need more ayaan hirsi alis, non whites to be at the forefront of our cause and not leave this battle to "white" european organisations and white speakers.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 3:47 PM

I will make my suggestion based on your #3:

Make naturalization tests much stiffer, requiring knowledge of the history and culture of whatever European nation is giving the test. A loyalty oath to the nation-state should be required, one which makes express the foreswearing of all other loyalties, and that includes a phrase about perjury being grounds for the stripping of citizenship so obtained.

Those seeking naturalization should be asked, under oath, if they recognize the freedom of religion of people whose religion is different from their own as being equal to their own. If they cannot honestly answer this question in the affirmative, deport them on the spot, and bar them from ever returning.

Come to think of it, we Yanks ought to do this, too.

Posted by: Bigfoot at January 30, 2008 3:50 PM

"#3: Make naturalization tests much stiffer, requiring knowledge of the history and culture of whatever European nation is giving the test."

Here is an example from July 2006:

Going Dutch (Hugh Fitzgerald)

"The Dutch government has decided that immigrants, by which is meant mainly Muslim immigrants, should have made available to them government-sponsored courses in the Dutch language, Dutch history, Dutch culture. And with those courses on offer, there will be new requirements. Immigrants will be required, within a very generous five years, to demonstrate a minimal knowledge of that language, that history, that culture. It is an act born of hope and despair. The hope is that these Muslim immigrants will, in learning these subjects, not simply be thereby better able to manipulate Dutch infidels, to make demands and to subvert the laws, customs, understandings of local Infidels using tools provided by those same Infidels, but will, instead, come to appreciate that Dutch society, (as Ayaan Hirsi Ali so clearly did), and instead of wishing to Islamize the locals or to have Islam dominate the Dutch, will themselves be in fact so transformed by this new knowledge, having acquired a knowledge of, and therefore deep appreciation for, Dutch freedoms, Dutch individualism, Dutch laws and understandings, Dutch thought and Dutch art, that they will not only profess loyalty to the Netherlands, but when they profess it, mean it.

To date Muslims in Holland, as elsewhere in Western Europe, have not demonstrated such loyalty or a desire to integrate through the acceptance of certain basic understandings. Instead, the younger generations of Muslim immigrants seem filled with fervor that increases rather than diminishes, and have created a situation that is unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous for Infidels in all of the countries of what Muslims call Dar al-Harb (the Domain of War) or the Bilad al-kufr (the Land of Infidelity, or Lands of the Infidels). They are taught to despise Infidels, to express hostility toward them, even at times to “cut off the heads” of the Unbelievers.This kind of sentiment, repeated so often in the Qur’an and the Hadith, has its effect.

The despair of the Dutch government is shared by the governments of other Infidel countries in Western Europe. They do not know quite what to do. Like other Western governments that of the Netherlands appears to believe that it simply has no choice, but cannot expel – why not? on what peculiar theory? – those who remain adherents of a belief-system that uncompromisingly divides the world between Believers and Infidels, and tells Believers that it is their duty to strive for the day when all parts of the world have removed all obstacles to the spread and dominance of Islam, so that the entire world will become part of Dar al-Islam. And the despair is felt most by those who have taken the time to thoroughly investigate the nature of Islam, not only the contents of Qur’an and Hadith, not only the example of Muhammad and the implications for Infidels of that example, but also to study the history, over the past 1350 years, of Muslim Jihad-conquest, and Muslim subjugation of many different non-Muslim peoples, all of whom suffered under Muslim rule in ways that one would, if one did not know about Islam, and the conception of the “tolerated” non-Muslim, the dhimmi, and his legal status, would be regarded as amazingly, rather than unsurprisingly, similar.


Whether they belong to the party of those Infidels who think the truth about the belief-system of Islam should be stated, or to the party of those who think one should avoid stating the truth, for fear of making that grim truth even truer, Europeans recognize that the belief-system of the millions of Muslims permitted into their midst poses an unprecedented and unique problem. For Islam is not quite like any other undeclared mental baggage brought by any other kind of immigrant. Dimly, or brightly, Europeans are beginning to understand that this business of a strict division in the world between Believer and Unbeliever, Muslim and Infidel. Muslims are taught, is taken to heart and is not theoretical. It is vividly alive for most of the world’s Muslims, no matter where they may be. T he Qur’an instructs them “not to take Jews or Christians as friends, for they are friends only with each other” and Muslims are taught never to participate in, nor to recognizae, the religious holidays of others. They are told to obey only those Infidel laws, in the Infidel countries they happen to live in, that Muslim scholars tell them do not conflict with Islam. They are taught that, as always, their sole loyalty must be to the Umma, the Community of Believers. Islam is a collective faith; it has no time for individualism or the individual. Muslims determined to carry on campaigns of Da’wa among vulnerable and carefully targeted groups of Infidels, ordinarily the psychically or economically marginal, are not trying to save souls so much as they are attempting to gather recruits for the army of Islam. And once recruited, those new soldiers are never allowed to leave Islam – or if they try to, they will be punished as deserters.

Muslims are taught that they are the best of people; that non-Muslims ideally should be subjugated to them; that the lands of the world’s peoples belong to Allah and to the Believers, and that in the end the entire world will, in fact, belong to them. They are taught to regard with contempt non-Believers, and the legal status of “dhimmi” that is imposed on non-Muslims (should they manage to be considered as “protected peoples”—which is only guaranteed to Christians and Jews as “ahl al-kitab” or “People of the Book”) is so onerous that over time many, to escape its burden, converted to Islam.

Holland needs to toughen its test for those wishing to become citizens of Holland. It should not be some multiple-choice farce, but so constructed as to constitute a serious inquiry into the mental makeup of the takeover. . To halt the tide of Muslim immigration that is now flooding not only low-lying Holland, but all member states of the European Community, more than a finger in the crumbling polder-dike of present immigration laws will be needed. The testing of would-be immigrants for Holland should make them no longer regard the country they have landed in as just one more part of the Bilad al-kufr, the Land of Infidelity or of the Infidels, an incidental variant on the them of the Kuffar. Those in England must learn all about England, those in France all about France, and those in Holland, all about Holland.


An immigrant must want to come to the Netherlands, for more than the free medical care, free education, free or subsidized housing and generous living allowances that Muslims all over Europe have become masters at exploiting beyond anything the creators of these welfare states ever contemplated. He must not merely be seeking an initial foothold to which he can be admitted, so that subsequently all of Europe will be open to him – to find the best way to be supported, and to work to undermine the very peoples and societies whose generosity he is exploiting for aims that those peoples and societies are only now beginning to comprehend.

It is a great privilege for someone from the world of Islam, a world that denies many forms of artistic expression, that discourages at every step free and skeptical inquiry by the Believers, that limits the freedoms of women, that encourages Believers to treat non-Muslims under Muslim rule at best as “dhimmis,” that is those non-Muslims subject to carefully constructed legal system, whereby all kinds of disabilities are inflicted on those dhimmis, the sum of which is a status of humiliation, degradation, and permanent physical insecurity. Mere geographic presence in Holland does not make one Dutch, and it certainly does not allow one to both inherit the legacy of a thousand years or more of Dutch history, and then to attempt to change, to mutilate, that very legacy, as one inferior to the only legacy that counts: that of Islam. .

The government of the Netherlands might wish to consider suggestions from outside. As a well-wisher, who prefers to keep Miep Gies in mind, or the retiring Professor van der Horst, rather than Menten or the wife of Wim Duisenberg, I have prepared a test that might fit the bill.

Here it is:


1) List five achievements of the Dutch East India Company from the time of its founding in 1602.

2) In appraising Dutch rule in the East Indies during the period 1880-1940, what acts of the Dutch were most deserving of praise, and what most deserving of blame?

3) When Jews expelled from Spain came to Amsterdam after 1492, many came and settled in Amsterdam. Why were they made welcome? How did this minority, quite foreign in many ways to the Dutch in language and culture, contribute in succeeding centuries to Dutch life? If you wish, you may concentrate on the figure of Spinoza and his role in the Enlightenment.

4) Who was Anne Frank, and why is the house in which she and others hid during World War II visited by people from all over the world? What is the historical significance of Anne Frank? Who was Menten, and what is his historical significance?

5) This question counts for one-third of the total grade on the entire examination.. So think carefully about its full significance before answering. Discuss three of the ten paintings listed below. Choose the painting that you find most appealing and the one you find least appealing and discuss your reasons for those choices:

a) Jan Vermeer's Woman With a Turban
b) Rembrandt's The Jewish Bride
c) Lucas van Leyden, The Last Judgment
d) Gerrit Dou, Young Woman Dressing
e) Henrick Avercamp, Winter Scene on a Canal
f) Geertgen tot Sint jans, The Assumption of the Virgin
g) Bosch, The Garden of Earthly Delights OR The Marriage Feast at Cana
h) Frans Hals, The Merry Drinker
i) Vincent van Gogh, Self-Portrait

6) Describe the part of the terraqueous globe most closely associated with each of the following:

a) Henry Hudson
b) Abel Jansz Tasman
c) Willem Barents

7) Describe briefly the significance of any three of the buildings listed below:

a) Pieterskerk in Utrecht
b) Grote Kerk in Breda
c) Mauritshuis in The Hague
d) Rembrandtshuis in Amsterdam
e) Erasmushuis in Rotterdam
f) Portuguese Synagogue in Amsterdam
g) Beguin Convent in Amsterdam


9) Among the famous foreigners who came to Holland seeking refuge were John Locke, Descartes, and Pierre Bayle. Choose any one of the three, discuss his significance, and explain why that person sought such refuge, and whether he found in Holland what he sought?

10) What was the effect on Holland of:

a) The Treaty of Utrecht
b) The Peace of Munster
c) The Treaty of Breda
c) The Maastricht Treaty


That's ten; there are two score more. Ten of those questions will be devoted to short but representative passages from Dutch intellectual history. The original Latin of some of the writers chosen – Erasmus, Grotius, Spinoza – will have been translated into Dutch. Ten more questions will be devoted to Dutch literature, and will range chronologically from Jacob Cats to Cees Nooteboom and Harry Mulisch. And a final twenty will be devoted to the most important text in Dutch history, the one which informs so much of its artistic and philosophical legacy. That text, or those texts, consist of the Old and New Testaments. Familiarity with the Bible stories without which no one can enter, say, the Rijksmuseum, and comprehend much of its contents, or without which so much of Dutch literature and history remains a puzzlement, will be essential for all those who will wish to partake of the civilizational legacy which the Dutch are generously inviting non-Dutch to share.

Extra credit? Well, we’ll give that a little thought. Possibly a paper, written outside of the examination room, on Pieter Geyl’s essays on historiography, or a paper on Huizinga’s “Homo ludens.” Yes, an essay on the spirit of “Homo ludens” will do nicely.

It won’t be an easy examination. But it shouldn’t be. Think of all the people who labored and invented and painted and wrote political tracts or a tractatus theologicus, and established joint-stock companies, and went exploring in distant lands austral and septentrional, from Van Dieman’s Land to Hudson’s Bay, and even from time to time went to war from time to time, all of which went into making the Dutch, the Dutch.

Standards will be high. The task of reading and judging examination answers should come to be regarded as among the most solemn duties for the citizens of Holland – that is, the indigenous Infidels who wish to keep Holland Holland. That is as it should be. No one has a right to complain, least of all those who come from societies far more violent, primitive, and collectivist than that offered to them, practically on a platter, by the people of The Netherlands, whose country it is. Obtaining Dutch citizenship, after all, is a very high privilege indeed. It can, and should, be made available only to the deserving – the deserving few."

You can make up your own for this country.

Posted by: Hugh at January 30, 2008 4:05 PM

I dont know if this was mentioned but since Islam isnt a religion as we define it as a religion. Its much more than a religion. More like a political ideology that hides behind a religion.

Here is a case in point on how rescrictive Islam can be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_toilet_etiquette

I would suggest a Constitutional Amendment that would ban Islam since its incompatible with the Constitution and democracy.

Posted by: Elric66 at January 30, 2008 4:07 PM

10. Ban the niqab and the burkha. The hijab sets Muslim women apart, but if they choose to they can wear it. No one should be allowed in public who will not show his or her face. (unless he's on a ski slope)

11. A companion to #8
The teaching of Islam should be in a comparative religion class, including a side-by-side comparison of their various laws, their effects on Western society, how they work in secular societies and (most important) where they agree/disagree.

Regarding #8 and #11:
In what context will Islam and other faiths be taught: the history of the faith and its effect on the world, or will students be expected to master the tenets of the faith itself? That opens up the question of how to qualify instructors. The local imam can't be counted on to give an accurate portrayal of what Islam seeks from others. He would gloss over such inconveniences as the jizya and 9/11.

Posted by: PMK at January 30, 2008 4:18 PM

An opinion by an ex-Muslim who lays it out pretty darn tough.

http://www.islam-watch.org/AliSina/Why-Fight-Islam.htm

Posted by: Elric66 at January 30, 2008 4:22 PM

In composing your own examination to be given to those who wish to become citizens, don't be quite as difficult in your choice of questions as I was above. The Netherlands is a smaller country, and it has to be much more parsimonious in sharing the benefits of citizenship. But don't be inhibited, either, by the grim awareness of how little many Americans know about their own history (see "Jaywalking" on Jay Leno, for more). You don't have to apply the same low no-child-left-behind-least-common-denominator standards currently observed here.

Ask about the First Amendment, and what those individual guarantees mean. Ask about the Revolutionary War, and the contents of "Common Sense" and then, later, of Paine's "The Rights of Man" and, if you wish, about the Bill of Rights. But knowledge of the Suffolk Resolves and the Virginia Remonstrances would be too much to expect. The Mexican War, yes, even the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. But not details about John Fremont or Santa Ana or even Sam Houston.

Make sure there is a cultural component. Whitman, Emerson, Thoreau.

Will this make things more difficult? Yes, and they should. And will it be possible for those who Prepare us for Life -- that is Mr. Kaplan, Mr. Princeton, Mr. BAR-BRI, Mr. Becker, and others in the same business -- to have a whole new line, with tapes and review courses, in "American History and Civilizaton" for what will be called the NAT Exam ("I've got to spend the summer studying for my NATs")? Yes. But so what? The government has a right to ensure that immigrants have learned a sufficient amount of English so as to be able to answer viva-voce questions (every naturalization exam should include that, and not a simple one) and that they take seriously the need to learn something about the history and culture of the United States, the Thidwick-the-Big-Hearted-Moose of countries, that has a perfect right to establish whatever minimum requirements it wishes, for the great privilege of being allowed to be a citizen, to be allowed to board, in a world where, let's face it, there are all kinds of menaces and threats, and America looks to many to be a better, safer, bet than most of the world. And if it is, it is due to the stability and intelligence of its political and legal institutions, beginning but not ending with the Constitution, and only those who can forthrightly be loyal to the principles of that Constitution should be considered for citizenship. And adherence to an ideology that flatly contradicts the most important rights guaranteed in that Constitution should disqualify anyone from being granted citizenship. No sentimentality, please, about how "everyone wants the same thing" or "worships the same god" or suchlike.

Composing such a test should be fun. Ask people to come on over and offer the kind of provisions that they think would make sense, and then discuss them, one by one. Make it a party. Have it in classes, as a Teaching Moment about what makes America America. Be sure to focus on the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and then the rights recognized, and the rights not recognized, in the Islamic version of both, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights.

It will be a salutary lesson for many young Americans, who haven't given this any thought. Now they will.

Posted by: Hugh at January 30, 2008 4:28 PM

so therefore, again not my fault, all immigration restrictions placed on muslims entering Europe WILL be viewed as racial profiling.

Maybe Muslims will try to spin it that way but we shouldn't fall for it. Indonesia and Sudan are just two Muslim countries with persecuted non-Muslim minorities. Those minorities should be welecomed in the West while the Muslims are banned.

Granted, it will be difficult to screen out all Muslims but that can be made easier with one rule: people coming from a Muslim country should have to document that they are not Muslims. Misrepresentations will be dealt with severely. Conversion to Islam after immigration will result in deportation. Lying on your visa application will result in extended jail time away from all Muslims. The women would end up wearing shorts and short dresses since anyone who wears Muslim dress would stand out. Gone would be the hijab, for the same reason. Anyone who lies to get into a Western country might have to forever forfeit the hajj, since non-Muslims can't enter Mecca.

Posted by: PMK at January 30, 2008 4:34 PM

Leon, you're right.

I'm just a grunt in this war.

Posted by: undaunted at January 30, 2008 4:37 PM

Stopping all Muslim immigration is a starting point, but the situation is now so serious, particularly in Britain, that nothing short of serious civil strife, will prevent the complete Islamisation of Britain. Civil strife, followed by the banishment of Islam from the Britain, is the only recourse left.

Our governments cant admit that there is an Islam problem, without then having to admit their own responsibility in putting the nation at risk. So they try to manage the problem, hoping it will go away - it wont.

Posted by: DP111 at January 30, 2008 4:49 PM

DP111
the muslim population is around 1.6 million. they are no where near to taking over the country, yet. our enemy is primarily the marxists in power, the muslims are patsies, used to implement the draconian laws.
But, the way Europe is heading in 50-60 years the EU architects may accept Islam as the religion of the EU, the same way that Napoleon envisioned a United States of Europe united under the doctrine of the Koran.

Islam unites the population under one banner, Islam does not need nationalism nor borders. An Islamic Europe would be a powerful war machine.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 5:11 PM

"3. Make naturalization tests much stiffer, requiring knowledge of the history and culture of whatever European nation is giving the test. A loyalty oath to the nation-state should be required, one which makes express the foreswearing of all other loyalties, and that includes a phrase about perjury being grounds for the stripping of citizenship so obtained."

Excellent suggestions, and I would include in this specific Koranic verses that appear in any way hostile to Non-Muslims and to the ideals and principles of secular democratic government.

It would not be unreasonable to expect them to renounce those verses listed. If they feel their conciouses would be violated by renouncing these verses, they don't belong here.

I would also require that they write, or dictate, a short essay on their understanding of the principles of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, gender equality.

If their understanding is different than our own, put them on the first plne out.

Posted by: rational at January 30, 2008 5:16 PM

To add to the list:

- The news media should make a point to mention the religion of a criminal, when it is relevant to the crime. If a Muslim beats up his wife's lover, don't mention Islam; if a Muslim shouts "Allahu Akbar" while shooting an assault rifle at a Jewish temple, mention Islam.

- Similarly, when politicians make speeches about conflict around the world, they should make a point to mention the role of Islam in the conflict when appropriate. They should not use weasel words like "terrorism" or "extremists", when the specific naming of Islam would be more elucidating.

- Do not allow, in the name of "cultural sensitivity", riots to continue unchallenged. When "youths" begin to burn cars and shoot at police, send in the military to seize back control. Round up and arrest as many rioters as possible. Make rioting by non-citizens ground for immediate deportation.

- End the payment of jizya to Islamic-majority nations, and pseudo-nations like "Palestine". Instead, use the money to implement the other items on the above list.

- The news media should not allow their foreign reportage to be farmed out to Muslim reporters. We have seen many examples where these Muslim reporters distort or manufacture the news, which is duly reported and given credence by the major news organizations.

- Collaborate with North American nations to develop alternative energy sources. Stop the flow of petro-profits to the source of the jihad.

- In the case of France, stop selling nuclear technology and equipment to Islamic countries. Seems obvious, but it needs to be said.

- Disallow political contributions from foreign nations. Stop the corruption of our political system by petro-profits.

- Until they can be shut down, begin monitoring the Friday mosque services. Document any calls for violence; prosecute anyone who encourages violence.

- I already mentioned the big one: begin the process of removing Islam's protected status as a religion, as opposed to an ideology of violent conquest and supremecy.

Is this list "dreaming"? It's not up to us to decide what realistic expectations are, as regards what Europe is willing to do. If Europe wants to protect itself, do the things on this list. If Europe doesn't want to protect itself, then don't.

And of course, it's not just Europe that needs to protect itself. The same applies to Thailand, India, Ethiopia, the U.S., Australia, Canada, and the rest of Dar al-Harb.

Posted by: special_guest at January 30, 2008 5:17 PM

No, no! I didn't say, "banning"; I said, "banding". There is a difference.

Posted by: HotSpur at January 30, 2008 5:29 PM

Okay, a couple more:

- Make laws specifically against jihad violence. No more 5-year sentences for "unregistered weapon violations" when someone goes jihadi. Remember the first Bush's so-called "War on Drugs", where drug-dealers were given life sentences for possession of small amounts of drugs? Well, when someone drives an SUV through a college courtyard mowing down students, he should never be allowed into society again. Period.

- Separate Muslims from non-Muslims in our prison populations. End dawaa in our prisons.

Posted by: special_guest at January 30, 2008 5:31 PM

So much for the vaunted human rights; the epitomy of western civilization that everyone claims to support and protect. What Hugh suggests and Marisol supports are in direct violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(HR). Take care or you might end up on certain peoples unwanted list, including your own.

This is a perfect example of why I asked for (specific) goals and strategies(Both on here and Gates of Vienna). It's easy to be "high and mighty", claiming to be a valiant and staunch defender of HR and what not, when you don't have to be specific yourself.

I wonder if Robert and Charles will distance themselves from these suggested breaches of HR, but I doubt it. After all, they aren't as distasteful(some might say politically-incorrect) as other breaches of HR.

Posted by: DanishDynamite at January 30, 2008 5:42 PM

hugh:

Please list 70 things AMERICANS can do to defend America from stealth jihad. In fact combating stealth jihad may merit its own website.

Stealth jihad is reaching crisis proportions in the USA-- and if I can see it anyone can if they try to anyway.

I am fairly certain stealth jihad is going in many other parts of the world besides America as well so what the USA does to combat it successfully or not may affect the remainder of the world.

Posted by: pythagoras at January 30, 2008 6:30 PM

hugh:

Please list 100 things AMERICANS can do to defend America from stealth jihad. In fact combating stealth jihad may merit its own website.

Stealth jihad is reaching crisis proportions in the USA-- and if I can see it anyone can if they try to anyway.

I am fairly certain stealth jihad is going in many other parts of the world besides America as well so what the USA does to combat it successfully or not may affect the remainder of the world.

Posted by: pythagoras at January 30, 2008 6:31 PM

leonthepigfarmer said

i never suggested banning non whites. tell me where i said this and i will recant it.

I'm not as interested in your personal beliefs as those of the BNP, because I want to know whether to support the BNP. If you are correct when you said:

The BNP want to end all immigration of non whites.

Then, no, I would not support them.

we ban muslim immigration then we look/appear racist.

And if we don't ban Egyptian Copts, or Thai Buddhists, or Iranian Zoroastrians, or Indian Hindus, then we don't look/appear racist. Because the ban is not based on "race", but on ideology. And when we ban white European Muslim converts, it becomes even more obvious that we don't look/appear racist. And if we instead ban by country, which would unfortunately ban non-Muslims in those countries, that would be an undesireable but acceptable compromise. I just don't understand why we should compromise.

For whatever reason, you keep trying to conflate Muslims with "non-whites". Some whites are Muslims, some non-whites are Muslims, some whites are non-Muslims, some non-whites are non-Muslims. They are not the same thing. They are not interchangeable.

To reiterate: banning Muslims is not the same as banning "non-whites". We (the U.S.) have banned based on ideology in the past. For example, the Immigration Act of 1917 banned immigration of polygamists and anarchists. The Immigration Act of 1952 banned Communists. I believe the ban on Communists is still in place, I don't know about polygamists and anarchists. We probably don't dare ask anymore, out of "cultural sensitivity."

The Immigration Act of 2005 includes provisions to ban people who have already committed terrorist acts; but that's not the same as banning people who belong to a group whose core beliefs include the sanctioning of murder based on the religious affiliation of the target/victim. I would hope we would not allow the immigration of members of a Christian group (if it existed, which it doesn't) that taught that it was justified to murder Hindus. So, why allow Muslim immigration, when Islam teaches exactly that?

Qur’an 2:191“And kill them wherever you find and catch them. Drive them out from where they have turned you out; for Al-Fitnah (polytheism, disbelief, oppression) is worse than slaughter.”

Qur’an 9:5“When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

Etc.

Posted by: special_guest at January 30, 2008 6:35 PM

"So much for the vaunted human rights; the epitomy [sic] of western [sic] civilization that everyone claims to support and protect. What Hugh suggests and Marisol supports are in direct violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(HR)."
-- from a posting above by someone who apparently has posted, under another name, before

Please post right here those suggestions made by me that "are in direct violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." I just happen to have it right here, along with the very different Cairo Declaration of Human Rights. And if my suggestions and others like them not accepted, then the former will be inevitably replaced by the latter.

I'll wait. I'm patient.

Posted by: Hugh at January 30, 2008 6:47 PM

Again with the claims that putting any limits whatsoever on immigration is a "violation of human rights". If any person is forced to stay in their country of origin, this is somehow tantamount to "genocide".

It cheapens the terms, renders them non-sensible. Which may be the goal, or one of them.

Posted by: special_guest at January 30, 2008 6:58 PM

special guest

im sorry but you are not following what im saying. I never stated that we should ban all non whites. here let me say it louder

I NEVER SAID BAN ALL NON WHITES!!!!!!!!!!

I pointed out the fact that the MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS LIVE IN NON WHITE EUROPEAN NATIONS!!

I can see where this argument is heading so i'm not going to post anymore on this article because there is clearly a language difficulty.

a) i never stated that i am for banning non whites (i cannot believe that i am even trying to tell everyone this)
b) the majority of muslims in the world live in non white majority countries
c) you ban muslims then you run the risk of racial profiling - fact - see # B
e) we need more Ayaan Hirsi Alis in our cause to counteract the racist label

OK, does this settle it? or will i be branded as a follower of goebelles for mentioning this?

Islam is not a race but the majority of races that live in muslim lands are not white European!

"For whatever reason, you keep trying to conflate Muslims with "non-whites". Some whites are Muslims, some non-whites are Muslims, some whites are non-Muslims, some non-whites are non-Muslims. They are not the same thing. They are not interchangeable."

Some whites are muslim? Wrong, the majority of muslims in Europe are non white. maybe a few hundred thousand are white in the whole of Europe compared to the millions of non white muslims.

Thank you.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 7:05 PM

Leon-- this is the root of the misunderstanding, if there is one:

You have pointed out that the BNP wants to ban non-white immigration.

You've been promoting the BNP on this site for months.

You conflated (wrongly) the causes of the BNP with the issue of Muslim immigration in your posting at 12:41pm.

Posted by: MarisolJW at January 30, 2008 7:17 PM

"Yes Islam theoretically is "raceless" but the vast majority of Muslims in the UK are from Pakistan, India, North Africa and the Middle East. You would have to ban everyone from those countries."

this is what i wrote, if no one understands this then tough luck, your loss.

you clamp down on MUSLIMS from NON EUROPEAN NATIONS then the people will call you a racist.

Instead, do what the cops do in racially charged US neighbourhoods, set up a dragnet and ban all immigration from majority muslim countries, including all non muslims applying for visas or entry. race is irrelevant here only nationality. yet most of the ones stopped will be non whites.

Here are my last words. read them carefully.

It is unfortunate to our cause that the vast majority of muslims hail from the middle east, north africa etc because any clamp down ultimately results in charges of racial profiling and racial hatred laws etc.

I have nothing against non white human beings, i am not a racist i merely pointed out this fact blah blah blah

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 7:19 PM

Race has nothing to do with it. Islam is not a race. Muslims, and converts to Islam, come in all colors. This whole discussion about race is distracting, largely irrelevant (except insofar as Muslims will attempt to bring up "race" and hide behind it, but Hindus and Sikhs and Maronites and Copts can be counted on to vitiate that particular line). Still worse, all this business about "race" plays into the hands of those, Muslims and apologists for Islam, who are eager to use charges of "racism" for their own, transparent to us, goals. Skip it, for god's sake. Cut it out. Basta.

Posted by: Hugh at January 30, 2008 7:20 PM

I don't think it's realistic that all muslim immigration would ever be banned in any democratic nation.

Here are my own suggestions:

Slowly but purposefully taking control of the curriculum in/and or dismantle madressas. All students of all schools, private or no, should have to take a world religion course and study religions from a historical/cultural perspective NOT a "faith" perspective. Also strengthen science studies for all students. It will hopefully help students reject literalist religious dogma when they have a good grasp of science.

While you can't BAN muslim immigration, you can tighten up immigration restrictions on "problem" countries. No more easy marriage visas, no more bringing your whole family over. Maybe it would be possible to make it nearly IMpossible for people to immigrate without a certain level of English. You probably can't BAN it but you can make it really tough.

Make it illegal to sell or buy Halal meat products. It's cruel, and it's already illegal in Scandinavia. It's a "small" thing but I think it's a good idea.

Using existing anti-hate crime laws to crack down on inflammatory documents being sold/given away in muslim book shops and the like. Here language is really important, too. Maybe in addition to monitoring the content there COULD maybe be a ban on non-english texts & media.

We need to support women's rights as much as possible - rights for ALL women. I hate how "feminism" is a bad word these days, but if any group needs some western style feminism, it's muslims! I don't know what the best way to support gender equality in the muslim community is, but I think it's a big key. That said, I think the niqab should be banned, at the very least in public buildings - public offices/post offices/airports etc... We need to support, for example, Saudi feminists. If they've got groups sending hate literature over here, why the heck aren't we sneaking feminist literature over there?

We should support the translation of classic western literature and philosophy into arabic, urdu, etc... as much as possible. Yes, people need to learn English if they move here, but if it's our ideas we hold dear, we should share them! Heck - if planes during wartime routinely drop political propaganda - why not Enlightenment, feminist and science "propaganda" leaflets fluttering across Rural Afghanistan instead?

... I don't know. I tend to think knowledge is power. Segregation and isolation are bad news. These are just my suggestions for whatever my opinion is worth.

Posted by: Lost in the Hazel at January 30, 2008 7:20 PM

OK Hugh

but don't be surprised when you are hauled before the courts for racial hatred.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 7:22 PM

leonthepigfarmer said

will i be branded as a follower of goebelles for mentioning this?

I never said you were Goebbels. Here, let me say it louder:

I NEVER SAID YOU WERE GOEBBELS!!!!!!

If you don't claim that anti-jihadism is the same as white-supremacy, then it sounds like we are on the same side.

I SAID, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE ON THE SAME SIDE!!!!!

Some whites are muslim? Wrong, the majority of muslims in Europe are non white.

I don't know whether this is a language difficulty, or a logic difficulty.

Posted by: special_guest at January 30, 2008 7:28 PM

Immigration and world trade are tightly intertwined. No one can limit one with suffocating the other.

I sawed the seed for you, so that 1000 of you may expound and bit it to pulp.

Posted by: ssa at January 30, 2008 7:29 PM

Immigration and world trade are tightly intertwined. No one can limit one with suffocating the other.

I sawed the seed for you, so that 1000 of you may expound and bit it to pulp.

Posted by: ssa at January 30, 2008 7:30 PM

1. Halt Muslim migration. If you seek its justification, circumspice.

2. Deport all Muslim non-citizens. They have no divine right to remain.

The problem with #2 is that its effectiveness requires that #1 be done quickly, lest the number of Muslims citizens increase too much; but the West will likely not be mentally ready to do #1 for about 50 years, or unless a sufficient number of sufficiently horrific attacks by Muslims occur throughout the West before that time -- sufficient to dislodge the dominant PC MC that persistently maintains that Islam and the vast majority of Muslims are fine and dandy and that anybody who says otherwise is a racist trying to resurrect Hitler.

Posted by: cantor at January 30, 2008 7:35 PM

"Race has nothing to do with it"

Sorry Hugh but you've never experienced sitting on a train full of aggro pakistani muslims or have fake bombs left outside your place of work by muslims.

Race comes hand in hand with islam. without immigration no islam in Europe.

You talk about banning islamic immigration but fail to realise that the EU would stamp on any country which tried this racial ideology. Hitler employed it and was flattened by the free states.

You complain about the BNP but you employ their methods, straight out of their manifesto. banning non muslims. and where do those non muslims live? in non white countries.

You even fail to realize that the vast majority of muslim countries are non white european so to ban muslim immigration would result in massive backlash from non white europeans, non muslims socialists and anarchists, it's totally unworkable unless you have some secret to banning immigration from muslim countries?

need i say more?

UK = Pakistani - Middle eastern majority muslim
Germany - Turkish
France - North African

Get it? Colonialism comes back to bite Europe on its ass.

We are going to lose this battle because the majority of anti jihadists are white. and we look like a bunch frivkin racists with our ban the muslims idealology.

ok so a few whites are converts, big deal, lets not go overboard here.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 7:36 PM

"I never said you were Goebbels. Here, let me say it louder:

I NEVER SAID YOU WERE GOEBBELS!!!!!!"

LOL

I agree with everyone that we need to ban or halt muslim immigration but isn't it impossible?

so i will ask again, and maybe hugh will tell us.

hugh

please can you tell us how we can effectively ban muslim immigration without setting off a European civil war?

(maybe that was a bit dramatic but civil strife at least)

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 30, 2008 7:43 PM

leonthepigfarmer said

You talk about banning islamic immigration but fail to realise that the EU would stamp on any country which tried this racial ideology. Hitler employed it and was flattened by the free states.

This is a bizarre and insulting statement. You (and others) repeatedly claim that immigration controls against Muslims is a violation of human rights. Here, you are claiming that we are the analogue of Hitler, because we suggest implementing immigration controls on Muslims.

Is this really a language difficulty, or something else?

I have tried to extricate myself from this thread, but such outlandish claims cannot go unchallenged. Incidentally, if you look back, I have not made any personal attacks on you, or called you any names, or insulted you. But I wholeheartedly disagree with what you're saying, if you're saying what I think you're saying, while you say you are not saying it.

Posted by: special_guest at January 30, 2008 7:56 PM

You talk about banning islamic immigration but fail to realise that the EU would stamp on any country which tried this racial ideology. Hitler employed it and was flattened by the free states.

If & when you (meaning Britain, France, Germany, Spain, et al) have a government that is committed to banning Islamic immigration, why is the blessings of the EU necessary? So that they can continue to use the Euro? So that the stringent standards on toilet flushes can be relaxed? I mean, if any country was denounced by the EU, why couldn't they simply leave the union?

Real problem here isn't so much the EU, as much as it's the overwhelming population that doesn't look kindly at the type of proposals - be they a BNP like race based expulsion, or a JW Islam based explusion. Which are fundamentally different, but are nonetheless likely to be equally frowned on by the vast majority of citizens.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 30, 2008 7:58 PM

Infidel Pride said

Which are fundamentally different, but are nonetheless likely to be equally frowned on by the vast majority of citizens.

One can be justified through reasoned argument, the other cannot. One can be promulgated through increased education, while the other cannot.

Posted by: special_guest at January 30, 2008 8:07 PM

The BNP are not pariahs, but it is false (if their ideology is correctly described above) to claim that they share the same goals as JW. There is no need to insult the BNP (no-one here has), but it is no insult to make clear that we have different goals and beliefs.

The BNP may or may not believe in white supremacy. I categorically don't. The JW staff have been clear on the subject as well.