Monday, 16 December 2013

Going out on the lash with Choudhary?

 Going out on the lash with Anjem Choudhary?

"Get your 40 lashes here! 40 lashes! Get your 40 lashes ladies and gentlemen!"

Via some nationalist sites (as well as the Daily Mail), I have seen the news about (provocateur extraordinaire) Anjem Choudhary's latest publicity stunt relating to his advocation of upholding Sharia law on the sale and consumption of alcohol within the Brick Lane area of London.

Once of a day I might have got all in a lather about this kind of thing. However, I have to admit that in recent years I haven't had the inclination to really care all that much, despite the smug and mocking tones of Mr Choudhary being as irritating as ever.

Please let me explain my position, because I know I might be at risk of alienating some people with my opening preamble.

Of course, it grates on me that interlopers are demanding their own ways in our homeland. I think that tends to go without saying, for any nationalist. However, with things at the state they are currently in, particularly in London and 'Brick Lane', what, in all honesty, would the EDL or the authorities do about it if it was the entire London Muslim "community" backing this group, (which it currently is not)?

London is already lost as a 'white city' in a formerly homogeneous 'white nation'. Native whites in London are less than 45% - and falling/fleeing fast.

Who, in all honesty, believes that the EDL or the police 'service' (which is being slashed in numbers whilst the overall population is rising) can enforce what such a massive demographic get up to (and what they can demand and threaten) on the streets of London now and in the long term future?

Given that a vast majority of those who will be subject to their demands will be a mixture of other non-whites of various heritage (including their own kind who own curry restaurants and corner shops), many smug liberal whites and drunk student types who claim to like the "vibrancy" of London as it is today (and are thus part of the problem).... why should I really continue to care about what Anjem Choudhary (and his handlers) are up to there and enforcing upon them within Brick Lane?

Of course, the whole principle of this being able to happen in the future is wrong and I reject it. But as things stand, what exactly is going to be done about it by the state, the councils, the police, the government etc as they stand today?

Will the homosexuals, the 'recreational' drug users, the liberal hedonists, the occupants of the BBC dwellers in posher parts of the sprawl, the Guardian journalists, Chinese nationals, the  Jamaicans (and every combination of nationality possible) come rushing to our aid in robust defence of merry old England and the English people, in order to throw this particular demographic out of the country? I do not think so.

I tend to expect that the future governments of this country will capitulate to all this kind of thing as quickly as manure off a shovel when they are faced with the infeasibility of trying to enforce that millions of people adhere to "our rules" in swathes of land which are effectively now 'their own'.

I think that they will thus, in all likelihood, start saying that they need to police their own areas, that for public order they advise that certain behaviour is adhered to for maintaining good community relations.

I suspect that they will let property owners in those areas apply leases and such that would stipulate how the tenant must comply with the expectations of the contract and the wishes of the local population.

(There was a recent example of this where James Caan, the Muslim from the TV show 'Dragons Den', undertook a recent deal with a Dubai based investor to purchase a retail park, one which will be subject to "Islamic principles".  As usual - and as with this instance - such things will continue to get the blessing of local politicians who want to be seen to be 'securing jobs' etc by selling this country off to the highest bidders).

If people are employed by Asian owned companies, the companies will no doubt be allowed to issue a dress code for work - which means some form of head covering for women, trousers instead of skirts, and minimal to no make-up, etc. If you don't agree, you don't work there. That will be the position and the attitude. 

The government of the future will no doubt suggest that the existing Sharia courts can be expanded into other areas of law which may affect the wishes of the locality (which is how they got the ones they already have in the first place).

None of the above is 'sinister' - it will just be rolled out nonchalantly after a puff and a wheeze by people in the Daily Mail comment sections. 

But what if things do get a little more sinister in the future? Not necessarily from your everyday Muslim, but from a more fanatical section that is applying and enforcing the rules through fear?

Seeing as an area might ultimately start to get a reputation for beatings or assaults for people not wearing the right clothing or whatever, our own people will no doubt start to wear a headscarf in them voluntarily, 'just in case'; so as not to make themselves a target and perhaps even to be "polite" (if they are liberal minded enough).

I do not expect acid attacks for 'non compliance' to be prevalent for quite some time, but they have already happened here in Britain for different things, amongst their own people - as have beatings for non compliance to Islamic sensibilities, such as a teacher who was nearly beaten to death for teaching un-Islamic ways to students.

I suppose it is quite alarmist for people to suggest acid attacks and beatings will happen more often, but the point I wish to make is that the so-called "moderate" Muslims, just like everywhere else in the world, will generally be under the thumb and the fear of 'extremists' like that - whilst at the same time not being able to really argue with the basic Islamic sentiment behind it (such as the wider advocation of Sharia).

They may not agree with the methodology or the actions, but that does not mean to say they disagree with the ultimate ambition.

How can they disagree? They believe in Islam as a political and socio-religious tool. That is what it is all about. That is why they are Muslims! To expect them to support the opposite of that aim is fantasy land, like the current political leaders seem to live in with their notions of "shared values" and "muscular liberalism".

The claims made in the Daily Mail article (by the Quilliam Foundation) that the application of Sharia (and thus an overthrow of what we perceive to be democracy) is not the aim of Islam and Muslims is laughable. As is the assertion that Muslims cannot apply Sharia to non-Muslims.

Obviously, it is quite the contrary and self evident in many parts of the world that Islam is one of the only religious systems whose rules do tend to apply to everybody else when they are in a position to demand it!

Islam is different to the rest in many ways, such as how it claims the Koran to be the direct word of God via an interpretation by Mohammed. Many of us will know what the score is by now, so I need not get into all that.

However, where I differ with the general consensus and articles which I have seen on this event or stunt pulled by Choudhary, is that I noticed that the placards they were holding on the demonstration said things like "10,000 alcohol related deaths per year" and "save lives, don't drink alcohol".

He pushes it to the extreme, but I cannot really argue with some of that sentiment. On our own extreme, what am I supposed to do, praise the idiotic and moronic binge drinking culture that we see on our city streets of a weekend? Am I supposed to support that kind of society and hedonism just because the Muslims are not fond of it?

I like a drink of lager as much as anybody, but I am fortunate in that I can enjoy a moderate drink and not be part of the swill that I think is helping to drag down western society. Many other English people all over the country can socialise without getting silly. There is something sadly wrong in our culture though which encourages some of the worst behaviour. Why is there this need?

I should make it clear that I am not talking about alcoholics who are afflicted with a terrible curse, which is an illness. I am talking much more precisely about those who purposefully and wilfully indulge in the kinds of behaviour and attitudes we see on many a "fly on the wall" programme. The kinds of people who "don't care" what is going on in this country away from their social life and the 'here and now'. They are often no real friends of ours and our movement, aside from their default ethnic heritage.

In addition, look at the (albeit snide) picture that the Daily Mail have used for their fifth picture:

"I'z no idieea whash relly goi'n on, but 'Up the English!' Cheers!"

The newspaper is of course causing the usual mischief in my view, but is it all that good for our people to be seen like this? Is this a good advertisement of what we want to save and what we want to be like in the future? Are these people to be the heroes of our civilisational revival?

The man in the picture may be a great bloke, he may be on our side and much more clued up than he looks, and if so, I will stand aside him if the day ever comes. In the meantime though, generally speaking, is it good for their own well being, their health, their ability to focus on what is important (and what is being done to them)? I don't think so.

Is it giving us any moral high ground or real defence of what we are really fighting for? No, I don't really think it is.

Surely we need to do better, be seen to be doing better and making something better of ourselves?

As I have said before, that is one of the problems I have had with the EDL position, for they seem to automatically, or by default, defend aspects of our country and our culture that are in all likelihood doing us damage and a disservice, just because the Muslims are against it.

Although I can appreciate the point about deaths from alcoholism, the liver failures, the unsafe feeling at the disorderly night life of a weekend, etc, I do not share the position of the Muslims though.

Where I certainly differ from their placards is that they claim that banning alcohol is the answer - and that some hard line "Sharia" is the answer.  

They are wrong. Nationalism and a return to our own systems, cultures and expectations from society is the answer.

As ever, if we can use Choudhary to send people our way, then so be it. He is useful for that purpose. But let us not take the eye off the ball with all this "do as the Romans do" or "abide by our laws" kind of nonsense that tends to dominate the newspaper and comment section discourse, because it basically does not work that way.

This is because demographics is destiny, particularly in a democracy. There are now already enough "BME's" in this country to swing a general election away from our indigenous interests - if they wanted to do so as a bloc.

People need to start bearing this in mind, because the mainstream parties certainly are. They are working out how to appeal to this new future voter and how to be "representative" of the demographic change, in order to keep their parties afloat.  They could not care less about the indigenous British people and their survival. They are not going to back us or look out for our interests.

Nor should we take our eye off the people who let them all in at the first place and why.

It does not matter to me all that much whether we deal with the ultimate drivers or those who do their bidding, providing we shut it down one way or another. For example, there are many organisations and people getting rich off our demise and we ought to be working out how to start closing down their money chutes - whether it is immigration lawyers, charity groups, or whatever else along the route back towards the root of the problem.

(We can also choose to opt out of various systems and trappings as best we can, preferably backing our own new way ahead as an alternative instead).

The Islamists claim they have solutions for what they see as evil blights on society - and they are pushing them, as shown in the Daily Mail report. Yet what are our solutions to the collapse of our own societies and people - apart from simply being against what the likes of Choudhary are doing and having some kind of dream of shipping them all out on aircraft carriers one day?

What are we offering to the country - and what are we holding up to the nation as something worth preserving and worthy of securing a future of? 

Around us is the stench of failure, collapse, corruption, immorality, consumerism, selfishness - the noose woven by the 'liberal-left', globalists and particular vested (Jewish dominated) interest groups on both of those teams that have conspired to break down our civilisation and loot it. That is not what I want to secure and save for the future.

We often bring up past achievements, past inventiveness and past greatness when we are defending our rights to survive. But that is just that, the past. We are living on a memory and on the sweat and blood of those who have gone before us. What about now and the future?

I am as guilty as the next man for being no shining example. My zeal has fallen, without question. I have in recent years reached a point where I feel the need to just get on with my life and just bear in mind what I have learnt, in order to be prepared for events in the future.

It has become too exhausting to continue to care so much. I do still care, and I think I always will -  but in some ways I have had to moderate my care in order to start living a life of my own instead of perpetually feeling as though I am trapped into watching a nation commit suicide. It is not healthy or all that productive to live such a life. It helps nobody.

Although I consider Choudhary to be bit of a noisy publicist for a factional grouping (who could even be a subversive plant in society), in general, the Muslims are planning ahead and pushing ahead. They are looking 10, 20, 30 years down the line in many areas they live. They are setting their stall out and asserting themselves.

We, on the other hand, as a nation and a movement, seem to be eternally on the retreat and dealing with an aftermath of situations like this one shown in the Daily Mail report (that are borne from matters which have already got out of control) instead of dealing with ourselves as a society and making our own fate however best we can.

We need to be in the driving seat of where we are heading as a people, not looking onwards from the back seat of somebody else's vehicle (like Anjem Choudhary or indeed "the Zionists").

But then we get back to the same old question....what exactly do we do about it, how do we do it, and have we the will as a nation to succeed? 

That is what I think would be a better thing for us to focus on, not some mouthpiece behind a megaphone and his statements of issuing 40 lashes. Sure, it is important, but it is also important that we figure out what to do about it and how we are to present ourselves as a counter force.