Giving up (our) liberty for (Islamic) security

Posted by Rnl on August 10, 2006, 06:40 PM | #

Auster has some good comments on this:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006198.html

We should also note that Islamic terrorism indirectly generates demands for further abridgments of free-speech rights, directed not only against Muslim radicals but also against White dissenters. The latter, who insist on making the rather obvious point that Islamic terrorism can only thrive within large Muslim populations, are at least as great a threat to multiracialism as Muslim bombers and would-be bombers. Muslims are a poor advertisement for racial diversity, and opponents of racial diversity must be prevented or hindered from pointing that out. The more dangerous Muslims in the West become, the greater the need, from the perspective of multiracialism, that the dangers they pose not be publicly discussed.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on August 10, 2006, 11:28 PM | #

Rnl,for once I am in total agreement-but it goes beyond Ragheads.If a crime occurs,the paper will have detailed descriptions of the vehicle and clothing of the perps,but no mention of race,UNLESS THEY WERE WHITE! And since 70-80% of all violent crime is committed by an aggregate of27% of the populace[13l;ack,14% Hispanic] ,just what is a valid argument AGAINST racial profiling?There were no blond,blue eyed,White Americans among the 9/11dickheads.there are no Whites in the Crips,Bloods,MS-13,Latin Kings,or the Mexican Mafia.The major White group is the Aryan Brotherhood,which is mainly prison-based,primarily for self-protection,as Whites are a minority.Hell’s Angels,the Outlaws,Satans Slaves,Warlocks,etc.,were basically White biker clubs that were dispersed by the FBI/BATF in the 90’s.Just think-where would feel safer-walking into a crowd of noisy blacks with hoodies,and baggy pantaloons, a group of bandana-headed Mexicans,a gang of Urdu speaking middle easterners, or a group of whites pissing and moaning about their day at the office? Fact-Niggers are guilty of 99% of inter-racial rape;Hispanics are porportionally resposible for the major portion of child abuse/molestation/murder,and when was the last time you heard of a non-raghead[Muslim] blow himself up in order to get 72 virgins-Shit,most of us would be estatic with one or two[IN OUR LIFETIME!]

Posted by Al Ross on August 11, 2006, 12:58 AM | #

Racial profiling is essential for the simple reason that it works and any charges of ‘unfairness’ from the usual non-White quarters should be summarily dismissed.

This principle applies to both domestic crime and Islamic terrorism and, of course, will never be enacted because the tender sensibilities of non-Whites must take precedence over the safety of Whites and,as usual, the Jews will always support this natural extension of their perverted worldview.

Posted by Andrew on August 11, 2006, 03:37 AM | #

As silly as it might sound, the Authorities usually profile us, as in Corcasion, for no other purpose other than we would be less likely to complain, easy target if you like, and even if we did complain whilst six other Middle Eastern terrorists just walk on through, no one would listen; lets not to forget the agitprop and equal opportunity employment. Terrorists have high security Identities and work on the inside, and if you think that is silly, you better think again, because it is fact. And that is the legacy of all the leftist Ideological shit, our death warrant.

Posted by Alex Zeka on August 11, 2006, 06:25 AM | #

Good point on the free speech issue, Rnl.

Al, odd as it may sound to you, but, here in the UK, organised Jewry has been noticeably muted in its anti-Western sentiment of late. The Iranian President, with his Holocaust-denying comments, certainly expediated that.

Posted by Andrew on August 12, 2006, 06:22 AM | #

Read this Letter of warning; It is not as if knowbody has dold anyone else.The Muslim religion is the fastest growing religion per capita in the
United States, especially in the minority races!
Allah or Jesus? by Rick Mathes
Last month I attended my annual training session that’s required for
maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training
session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the
Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained each of
their belief systems.
I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say.
The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with
a video.
After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers.
When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked,
“Please, correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that most Imams and
clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the
infidels of the world. And, that by killing an infidel, which is a
command to all Muslims, they are assured of a place in heaven. If that’s
the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?”
There was no disagreement with my statements and without hesitation, he
replied, “Non-believers!”
I responded, “So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers
of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith
so they can go to Heaven. Is that correct?”
The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to
that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the
cookie jar.
He sheepishly replied, “Yes.”
I then stated, “Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope
John Paul commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr.
Stanley ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to Heaven!”
The Imam was speechless.
I continued,! “I also have a problem with being your friend when you and
your b brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me. Let me ask
you a question. Would you rather have your Allah who tells you to kill
me in order to go to Heaven or my Jesus who tells me to love you because
I am going to Heaven and He wants you to be with me?”
You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame.
Needless to say, the organizers and/or promoters of the
‘Diversification’ training seminar were not happy with Rick’s way of
dealing with the Islamic, Imam and exposing the truth about the Muslim’s
beliefs.
I think everyone in the US should be required to read this, but with the
liberal justice system, liberal media, and the ACLU, there is no way
this will be widely publicized.
Please pass this on to all your e-mail contacts.
This is a true story and the author, Rick Mathes, is a well-known leader
in prison ministry.

Posted by Desmond Jones on August 12, 2006, 09:56 PM | #

It appears that at least 2, Brian Young, and Don Stewart-Whyte, on the left [the press says three, however, Savant, on the right, looks decidedly Arabic] of the 24 alleged bombers were white.

Modern day John Browns perhaps.

It is interesting to ponder why whites like John Brown or Don Stewart-Whyte turn against their EGI aiding and abetting the cause of other ethnies.

Posted by Al Ross on August 13, 2006, 01:00 AM | #

If, as I suspect may be the case, the so-called ‘Whites’ on the list turn out to be pitiable products of miscegenation, we can be sure that the MSM will classify them as White.

The subcon suspects, UK travel documents notwithstanding, are about as British as burqas.

Posted by Desmond Jones on August 13, 2006, 01:54 AM | #

Two down, one to go Al.

ONE was the white, middle-class son of Tory activists. The other had Caribbean roots and a traditional Christian upbringing

Brian Young, [Carribean roots] like Richard Reid is ‘white’. LOL

Don Stewart-Whyte is the son of Dorothea Stewart-Whyte, apparently “a Canadian garage manager and a PE teacher. His half-sister, from his father’s first marriage, is the model Heather Stewart-Whyte, the former wife of Yannick Noah, the French tennis player.”

Is Dorothea black or a ‘metis’ like Noah. Is Heather [above]  mixed?

Posted by Desmond Jones on August 13, 2006, 02:08 AM | #

Heather Stewart-Whyte’s mother is apparently Spanish.

Posted by Alex Zeka on August 13, 2006, 04:08 AM | #

Even if two out of twenty four of the terrorists turn out to be white, that would still leave an enormously disproportionate number of Arabs/Pakis. Targeted policing would still be enormously effective. Besides, I dare say that the whites will not turn out to be the ringleaders, meaning that no essential danger attaches to leaving them unmonitored, provided the others are.

Finally, it is extremely likely that the whites in question are converts to Islam. Such people are obvious security risks aswell.

Posted by Getafix on August 13, 2006, 10:23 AM | #

Ibrahim Savant (born Oliver Savant) is apparently the child of an ,a href=“http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2308722,00.html”>Iranian father and English mother, although he reportedly is a convert to Islam, so either his father is a non-Muslim Iranian (not impossible, for instance Andre Agassi’s father is an Armenian from Iran) or he had a Muslim father who raised him without a religion.

Stewart-Whyte is definitely white. Brian Young is presumably black (although I’ve heard no reference to his ethnicity, beyond the fact that his parents are from St. Lucia).

Posted by Al Ross on August 13, 2006, 11:10 AM | #

Thanks to Desmond and Getafix for the further and better particulars.

The conversion to Islam entails the adoption of a new ‘Islamic’ name but in truth these names are simply Arab ones, as Christians of that ethnic group utilise them also.
Anyway the British government should compulsorily require all Muslim converts to alter all their personal documents (passport, driving licence, etc) to the adopted foreign name, thus flagging their preferred status as members of an anti-British group.

This exercise will assist in profiling at the point of airline ticket purchase or registration for flying lessons,for example, and should prove valuable in monitoring ‘the enemy within’.

Posted by Rnl on August 13, 2006, 06:56 PM | #

If we look at this story as a source of political propaganda against Third World immigration, it is a minor piece of bad luck that several of the terrorists are White. We would prefer that the color-coding be uniform, since we want to transmit the message that importing non-White Muslims into the West endangers the lives of the White majority, as it clearly does. The whiteness of some of the Muslim terrorists complicates our preferred structure. It would be better if all of them were non-White British citizens of Pakistani origin. That would make everything nice and neat.

But if we think of the story more dispassionately, Islam’s ability to attract White recruits provides a powerful argument against multiracialism, though unfortunately an argument that lacks bumper-sticker simplicity.

Multiracialists claim that if you import many diverse peoples into your nation, the weirder and the more unassimilable the better, and encourage these diverse peoples to retain their cultural differences (“multiculturalism”), at the end of the process everyone will gain. The various diverse peoples, by retaining their cultural identities, will acquire a sense of cultural confidence and personal entitlement in their new homes, and non-diverse Whites will acquire the opportunity of expanding their cultural horizons, which are no longer limited by the oppressive cultural homogeneity of the old nation-state. 

If you wanted to learn about Islam in the bad old days, you had to crack open an encyclopedia and read its Islam article. If you wanted to learn about Islam first-hand, you had to head off to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. But in the good new days of multiracial diversity, you can visit a mosque down the street or converse with your Muslim neighbors, and if you have the misfortune to live in an unenriched section of town, you can take a bus. Throughout much of the West you can now acquire knowledge of Islam—or Voodoo, if that’s your preference—by personal contact with vibrant difference in your own country. Cultural enrichment is much easier. Our nations have become large supermarkets wherein cultural enrichment is easily available and openly displayed.

But what if the easy cultural enrichment that multiculturalism promises is really cultural contamination? These White terrorists were not, we can be certain, converted to Islam after reading an encyclopedia article. They were converted to Islam by personal contact with British Muslims. Their contact with British Muslims didn’t, as multiculturalism predicts, expand their mental and cultural horizons, filling them with a tolerance for otherness and a cosmopolitan taste for exotic foods. Quite the contrary. It turned them into narrow-minded moral monsters, eager to kill thousands in the name of Allah. The loss of their old sense of membership in a group—the British people or, speaking more broadly, Western civilization—was replaced not by cosmopolitan tolerance but by a willingness to kill members of the group which, through their conversion, they had abandoned.

If a Baptist converts to Catholicism, that’s bad news for Baptists, good news for Catholics, and a matter of complete indifference for everyone else. My life isn’t threatened by the fact that Catholicism has gained a new adherent. But if a Baptist converts to Islam, that’s bad news for everyone. Each additional Muslim in the West, whether imported through an immigration policy or gained by Islam through conversion, is an additional physical threat to the lives of non-Muslims. Becoming a Muslim means becoming a potential Muslim terrorist, and the greater one’s contact with Muslims, the greater one’s chances of being infected with the radical alienation from the nation that acts of terrorism require.

Not only does a non-discriminatory immigration policy import Muslims, all of them potential terrorists and many of them sympathetic to terrorism, but the Muslims the policy imports may in turn contaminate non-Muslims, transforming them from run-of-the-mill citizens of the West into suicide bombers engaged in a holy war against the West.

Posted by Lurker on August 13, 2006, 08:46 PM | #

Rnl - “The loss of their old sense of membership in a group—the British people or, speaking more broadly, Western civilization”

They will likely have spent most of their lives being told that there is no such thing as the British people or Western civilization -and even if there were it would be something to be ashamed of, or at least embarrased about.

Posted by Rnl on August 14, 2006, 01:00 AM | #

Lurker wrote:

They will likely have spent most of their lives being told that there is no such thing as the British people or Western civilization -and even if there were it would be something to be ashamed of, or at least embarrased about.

And for deracinated Whites who feel little or no race-cultural allegiance to the civilization of which they are nominally a part, Islam can offer an identity with real meaning and strong convictions, both of which are in short supply in the West. If you define yourself almost entirely by your tolerance, as the multiculturalized West has done, you really have nothing substantial that you can call your own. Islam, despite its many appalling deficiencies, is at least a culture with a shape and a purpose. That may account for its attractiveness to some raceless Whites.

Posted by james cruze on February 21, 2012, 06:47 AM | #

This principle applies to both domestic crime and Islamic terrorism and, of course, will never be enacted because the tender sensibilities of non-Whites must take precedence over the safety of Whites and,as usual, the Jews will always support this natural extension of their perverted worldview.Read articles http://www.urdumania.com