Friday, August 05, 2016

The D word, cont. 
Winchester Guildhall 

Paul Weston, chairman of the LibertyGB party in England, is a solid member of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, having gained his 15 minutes of fame back in April of 2014, when he was arrested for speaking the words of Winston Churchill in England -- more specifically, with a megaphone on the steps in front of Winchester Guildhall in Winchester, a borough a little less than 70 miles southwest of London.  Initially, his thought crime (amplified by megaphone) was "racially aggravated crime under section 4 of the Public Order act" (the charge was later dropped and by bail he was set free; see this informative report).

More recently, just last month in July, Paul Weston published a piece on the Gates of Vienna blog entitled:  France has two options: Civil war or surrender.

Does the reader notice the conspicuous absence of a third option (let alone a fourth)...?  Yes, we speak of Deportation.

Later on in his essay, Weston finally breezes past the D word -- parenthetically -- as he writes the following:

Can France be saved? It can, but it would mean removing Islam from public life. It would mean closing down the mosques. It would mean deportation. French Muslims in their millions wouldn’t like this, so it would also mean civil war. Real civil war à la 1990s Yugoslavia. Hollande and Valls are not prepared to take the steps necessary to ensure France’s survival. Even Marine Le Pen might baulk [sic] at instigating civil war, but France’s survival has moved beyond peaceful measures now, through the sheer weight of Muslim numbers combined with a fanatical belief system.

So many subtle things wrong with this.  First off, if French Muslims "wouldn't like this" (i.e., being rounded up and deported), that would not trigger a "civil war" -- it would trigger sporadic, mass bouts of violence from the Muslims who happen to be in France (one hopes Weston meant this when he wrote "French Muslims").  These flare-ups of violence that Muslims would engage in would not be a "civil war" since a civil war, properly speaking, is a breakdown into violence reflecting a grave sociopolitical division among the population of a nation who belong there -- and since Muslims don't belong in France and the Muslim citizens among them never really were citizens in the true sense, this would be the eruption of an internal jihad against France by an alien demographic who, through a series of disastrous policies based upon the mass neurosis of politically correct multi-culturalism, were allowed over the decades to immigrate, infiltrate, and insinuate their alien fanaticism deep into the social fabric of France.  One hopes that when and if any Western polity decides to round up and deport its Muslims, it will have prepared itself for the dangers attendant upon this delicate operation, more fraught with lethal consequences than when one is trying to figure out which wire -- the red or the blue -- should be cut to defuse a bomb. 

The process of deportation, then, should be framed as a process with a high potential for spontaneously networked jihad among the Muslim demographic being deported.  It should not be framed as a potential "civil war".

Thus Weston should have titled his piece -- France has two options: Surrender or Deportation of Muslims. Immediately thereafter, in his first paragraph, he should have spelled out why this is the dilemma facing France -- and eventually facing the rest of the West. Then in the piece he could have explained, as I did, how the latter would be a complex, delicate, and dagerous operation. As it is, Weston's piece buries the D word and conveys the impression that "civil war" is somehow distinct from deportation, and is the "only" choice other than surrender.

This reflects, I think, the prevailing diffidence if not timidity throughout the Counter-Jihad Mainstream about the idea, and the topic, of total deportation.  If it won't be thought and then hashed out in discussions in the Counter-Jihad, how will it ever percolate into the wider Western mainstream...?

Further Reading: 

The D word


Anonymous said...

I'm surprised you don't see that the civil war in France wouldn't be between moslems and the French, but between Left and the Conservative segments of the society. It goes without saying the moslem would join the Left.

Thomas Doubting said...


Egghead said...

France truly has a better shot than the USA at deporting Muslims because France has limited the role of Muslim leadership in key positions in its government - which is a matter of escalating contention seeking resolution in favor of both Muslims and blacks.

The French government can plan deportation without tipping off its Muslim communities.

Henry said...


Can you clarify, if you want to, your view on total deportation? Is it:

a) "Static" total deportation, meaning one time effort, or one time effort with the intention to be repeated when needed


b) "Constant" total deportation, meaning deportation of as much Muslims as possible and then, ad infinitum, as soon as new or hidden Muslim is detected, he or she gets deported immediately

I'm asking because the term "Total deportation" sounds like one time effort, while islam is in permanent offensive state, so there's core mismatch between the problem and the solution. That is, if total deportation means one time effort.

Egghead said...

As our European ancestors rightly realized, implemented, and enforced, the West must PROHIBIT Islam in both animate and inanimate forms.

Egghead said...

Those who can 'relocate' are those who can deport.

'In September, EU leaders said that they would relocate 160,000 people from Italy and Greece by September 2017. To date, just 3,056 people have been relocated.'

Hesperado said...


"I'm surprised you don't see that the civil war in France wouldn't be between moslems and the French, but between Left and the Conservative segments of the society. It goes without saying the moslem would join the Left."

I see no signs anywhere in the West of any mobilization of forces that would be anti-Islam in any civil insurrection sense (not even in a lynch mob sense). The utter absence of any "backlash" all these years indicates that most of The People are not sufficiently woken up. Secondly, I don't advocate "backlash" or lynch mobs or civil insurrection myself, for two reasons: 1) there isn't anywhere near the critical mass of numbers nor of coherent platform to mobilize; 2) I don't demonize the "Elites" as so many in the Counter-Jihad do -- I perceive the Problem of the Problem to be one of starry-eyed ideals that for complex cultural & psychological reasons have the persistent effect of those in the mainstream defending Muslims, rather than condemning them. I thus hope and expect the mainstream to wake up so that it will do its job of informing and protecting the public. If I thought The People could successfully (without making matters worse -- even more chaotic & horrendous) have some kind of a Revolution in this sense, I would be more favorably predisposed to it. But I think this persistently feverish view of so many in the Counter-Jihad, of a Manichean Division between Us (Those Who Have Woken UP and Who Don't Like Leftists) and Them (the Dastardly Leftist Elites) is silly and will only make matters worse (if that's possible). Furthermore, too often I detect "Real Problemers" among those kinds of Counter-Jihadists, and that to me is grievously wrong.

Further Reading: On the "Problem of the Problem" --

On the "Real Problemers" --

Hesperado said...


To answer your question, I go back to common sense and pragmatics. Whatever will get the job done best to protect our societies. A total deportation that is protracted & piecemeal will probably endanger our societies more, given that the Muslims who remain during this long process will become more "restive". On the other hand, a complete operation of total deportation in one short time period is probably practically impossible. To get back to my first sentence, one should just try to do one's best -- in the context of an operation of deportation -- to rid the West of Muslims as completely and as soon as possible, with minimum of cost, labor and bloodshed. And if Muslims continue to remain in the cracks, so to speak, you ferret them out and deport them too, whenever and wherever feasible. Etc.

But you could have figured this out for yourself; so why did you ask?

I'm always fascinated, and irked, by how often my proposal of total deportation elicits questions which the questioner (unless they were brain-damaged) could have answered himself (my favorite -- meaning the one that makes me want to strangle the questioner with a piano wire the most fervently -- is "Where are you going to deport them TO...?").

Henry said...


Thanks for your answer. I asked you to clarify your views, so I can understand your writing better, I didn't ask you to clarify my views. I also asked because there is core distinction between deporting and being in permanent state of keeping society void of islam and Muslims.

Deportation, in and of itself, is one-off action. And any one-off action can't be the solution, heart of the solution or bearer of the solution against permanent ever-expanding destruction-seeking entity. It's a tool to use within the solution.

Egghead said...

Hi Hesp,

Often, I feel that you are nearly completely out of touch with the current reality of non-white attitudes and actions that would flow from those actions in the USA.

1. This year's non-Muslim Indian (from India) valedictorian at a local high school led his speech by saying, 'I was born in America, but I am NOT going to show Donald Trump my birth certificate.' Non-white immigrants (other than Muslims) ALREADY feel very threatened by the idea of deportation and are NOT going to help (and probably will hinder) any efforts to deport Muslims - giving the increased appearance and then causing the deportation to be even more 'whites deporting non-whites.'

2. Additionally, many African Americans view Muslim African Americans as being very good people with very good behavior compared to non-Muslim African American groups. If anyone thinks that African Americans are shooting white police officers now, wait until white people start deporting personal 'upstanding' Muslim African American family members.

3. Finally, like it or not, the vast majority of Western Jewish groups and individuals are ALREADY fighting tooth and nail against the idea of Western deportation efforts. I have been reading recent articles that Jewish Westerners have been writing and publishing in mainstream news sites (which are all owned by a very few related groups). Have you?

Far from supporting Muslim deportation from the West, Jewish groups and individuals have been, are, and will be intentionally 'relocating' Muslims OUT of the Middle East and Africa to make it 'safer' for Jews in the Jewish homeland and to make it 'easier' for the Jewish-owned Democrat Party to hold a permanent majority in the USA and institute a one world government in the West - planning to use the power of the USA military and media against white Western Christians who would dissent and/or revolt in the USA and Europe (as Serbians can attest).

Jewish groups and individuals (George Soros, et al.) ARE deporting Muslims - from Muslim homelands and into the white Christian West.

Egghead said...

Easy to read graphic of media consolidation:

Egghead said...

Before and after articles on Serbia:

Hesperado said...


It makes sense that a one-off deportation endeavor would not work in the long term -- unless, of course, it was amazingly efficient & complete. The effort itself would be monumentally significant: a massively physical expression of what would become our Great (Re)Awakening, and of our resolve to do something about this problem, pertinent to the actual nature of the problem (as opposed to milder forms we might imagine it to have). As such, as this monumentally significant event, it would of itself dispose us, mobilize us, ready us, for ongoing and future exigencies consequent upon that first, boldly epic move.

All this, that is, given that we actually get around to doing it in time to save our civilization (which I doubt).

Egghead said...

Ah, Hesp, but who is this 'we' and 'us' and 'our' to whom you refer? Is this the same 'we' and 'us' and 'our' who created and maintained the white Christian West for centuries, or is this a new 'we' and 'us' and 'our' that only historically recently - and arbitrarily - freely assigns white Christian Western attributes to non-white non-Christian non-Westerners who themselves only recently reside in the West?

For the white Christian West to deport Muslims, 'we' would have to be as motivated to vacate Muslims from the white Christian West as Jews have been, are, and will be to vacate Muslims from the Middle East.

Do you think that maybe Jews arrived at the total deportation point ahead of 'us' in this process after dealing with Muslims in the Middle East for many more centuries than 'us' in the white Christian West - whoever this mysterious 'us' is?

After all, deporting Muslims from the Middle East (and Africa) to the West is 'different' than genociding Muslims; it is only genociding the white Christian West, and who of 'us' and 'we' and 'our' knows or cares about past genocided white Western Christian Armenians, Ukrainians, or Serbs?

At least God is watching....

Egghead said...

Indeed, who of 'us' and 'we' and 'our' knows or cares about past white Western Christian German, French, Brit, American, Russian, etc. MEN who were quite purposely pitted against each other and genocided on both sides of two world wars?

Citing the (false as it turns out) example that a 'modern' country like Israel drafts women and allows women in combat roles, the next world war is already planned to genocide young white Western Christian WOMEN in mass as soldiers (or victims of Muslim invaders being placed in Europe and the USA now).

As we already saw with Obamacare slavery and gay 'marriage', it only takes one relatively quick court ruling to fundamentally change USA policy regarding who registers for the draft - no pesky citizen votes needed or wanted.

The only comment that has disappeared lately while I was writing it was the comment that 'our' second female president Jarrett (after Eleanor Roosevelt) may have convinced her (Muslim puppet) co-president Obama to hire Iran to assassinate both presidential candidates, their families, and political party apparatus at an upcoming debate and thus declare martial law.

Even when the comment was published, the comment 'removed' the name Jarrett.

If the incident can be arranged in NYC, all the better because (conveniently out-of-town and safe) Obama can declare himself head of the (Muslim controlled) United Nations which has always been his dream job!

My advice is that candidates keep their families away from the debates and away from whatever town the debates are located.

My advice is that candidates arrange their debates far away from NYC and DC.

My advice is that the candidates realize that Muslims are willing and able and incentivized to murder them both as infidels if they are in the same place at the same time.

Egghead said...

Just curious: Would you call this non-Muslim immigrant Chinese spy - and all of the other immigrant Chinese spies that he referenced - new Westerners or old Easterners?

Egghead said...

Someone on the SBPDL website brilliantly calls it the 'magic dirt' theory that makes other races magically 1) act 'different' in the white Christian West than in their own non-white non-Christian homelands, and 2) change their own racial and religious loyalties in the white Christian West to be 'different' than in their own homelands (with 'different' implying non-white immigrants 'shall' prefer and defend whites over their own races).