conflict – Page 71

Should The West Convert to Islam?

Islam may be horrifically illiberal and oppressive, but, as this essay will argue, it may be the only thing strong enough to save the West from its own degeneracy

Westerners are not stirred to rage by many things – not by mass homelessness, not by declining wages, not even by the British Government covering up serial child sex abuse by Jimmy Saville and by various Asian rape gangs. Our spirits have been broken, and this had led us into a state of decline. This essay argues that the Western World could solve many of its current problems with a wholesale conversion of every country to Islam.

People can criticise what they like on social media, and people can defend what they like. Some criticisms meet with more defence that others. Nothing inspires an impassioned defence more than criticism of Islam. If a person criticises Islam on social media, hundreds of people will line up to scream all kinds of abuse at them, but they won’t do the same for any other ideology. This suggests that Islam has a special place in the heart of Westerners; it’s already holy, in a way.

If one considers that almost all of the Western World was Christian before World War One, it seems that the widespread loss of faith that resulted from that conflict could be resolved with a switch to a similar religion. Islam is also an Abrahamic cult, so it contains much of the same message as Christianity; the idea that God is male and that the feminine is inferior is an Abrahamic idea, as is the idea that homosexuals should be killed and the genitals of infant boys mutilated.

So Westerners have long been conditioned to accept the ideas of Islam, by way of accepting these same ideas in the guise of Christianity. Islam, like Christianity, considers itself a branch of the tree of revelation that began with Adam and continued through Moses and Abraham. In a sense, then, switching to it would represent a natural progression.

Already in Britain, there are more weekly mosque visits than church ones. This fact alone suggests that Islam might already be stronger than Christianity in Britain. The same is likely to also be true of other countries with large Muslim populations, such as France and The Netherlands. So Islam is arguably already stronger than Christianity, and one reason to adopt it would be to recognise this fact.

The most pressing reason for a widespread conversion to Islam would be to arrest the decline of the West.

Western birthrates have fallen to the point where we are no longer replacing our own people. The fertility rates in major Western countries like Italy, Poland and Spain is less than 1.5 children per woman. This is going to cause our populations to shrink ever-further until we are no longer capable of resisting foreign domination. Birthrates in Muslim countries, by contrast, remain high: Afghanistan 4.6, Iraq 4.4, the West Bank 4.0, Pakistan 3.5, Egypt 3.3, Algeria 2.8.

For whatever reason – perhaps the admonition to wage war against the infidel with the wombs of Muslim women – Islamic countries have maintained a much higher birthrate. A switch to Islam might rid us of the meek self-hatred of Christianity that has caused us to believe that we were no longer worthy of continued existence, and inspire our people to ensure a physical future for themselves.

Adolf Hitler once declared that:

“It’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”

and that logic still holds. The meekness of Christianity has caused the West to lie down and die out of guilt and the resentment of strength; the vigour of Islam might be what is required to revitalise our people.

Some might object that Muslim culture has a number of obscene and immoral practices that ought to be resisted on account of the immense human suffering they cause. Not so.

Many of the most obscene practices of Muslims are already accepted by Westerners. Muslim cultures also practice widespread male infant genital mutilation, much like America. Although this practice results in horrific psychological damage to the victim, it’s not considered too barbaric for America (or many European countries). Moreover, like the Europeans, Muslims despise Jews and can’t wait to exterminate them for good.

Of course, a mass conversion of all Western nations to Islam would be terrible for the homosexual community. Homosexuality is illegal in the vast majority of Muslim countries, and punishable by death in South Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Mauritania, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Qatar, the UAE, parts of Nigeria, parts of Somalia, parts of Syria and parts of Iraq. The Koran repeats the Biblical story of Sodom, and implies at several points that homosexuality ought to be punished severely.

Should the West convert to Islam, a wholesale persecution, if not outright massacre, of the homosexual community would have to be expected. However, against that, it has to be pointed out that the homosexual community is one of the strongest proponents of mass Muslim immigration. Homosexuals are on the front lines of the war against the people who oppose mass Muslim immigration, frequently attacking people for mentioning the deleterious effects of it elsewhere.

A wholesale Western conversion to Islam would also be terrible for women, whose rights are severely restricted in Islam. Women would likely have to face the daily reality of sexual assault and the impossibility of getting Police help for domestic violence or sex crimes against them. Again, however, like the homosexuals, women have been eager proponents of mass Muslim immigration and arguably would be getting what they deserve.

So maybe we should just surrender. Is it time to admit that we don’t have the willpower to resist the Islamic conquest of the West? That Muslims will keep stealing from us and raping our women as long as they see us as infidels and so we ought to join them? The conclusion of this essay is that we should jump on board while we can still get favourable terms.

If you enjoyed reading this essay, you can get a compilation of the Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017 from Amazon for Kindle or Amazon for CreateSpace (for international readers), or TradeMe (for Kiwis).

The Murderers of Free Speech in New Zealand

Phil Goff’s Denial of Council Venues to Canadian Speakers Violated the Human Rights Act

People in New Zealand have a set of human rights, enshrined in law. These include the right not to be discriminated against for unjust reasons. As this essay will show, Phil Goff violated the human rights of New Zealanders and of Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux when he decreed that the Canadian duo were banned from all Auckland council venues because of their political opinions.

Section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993 lays out the prohibited grounds for discrimination in New Zealand. These are the usual reasons, considered necessary to the functioning of a modern society: race, marital status, gender, age, disability etc. The logic is that we cannot have a functioning society if people are allowed to deny goods and services to others because of spurious and unfair reasons, therefore to do so is criminal.

So you can’t refuse to serve a person at a bar, for example, simply because they are Maori. Neither can you refuse to give a job to a person for the reason that they are homosexual. These are considered acts of discrimination, and are unlawful.

One of these prohibited grounds for discrimination is “political opinion, which includes the lack of a particular political opinion or any political opinion”. This is a verbatim quote of Section 21(j).

So it’s prohibited to refuse a service to someone on the grounds of their political attitudes. Not even if they are Communists or Nazis may one do so. It doesn’t matter, for example, if the proprietor of a hotel thinks that open borders will lead to the ethnic cleansing of his people through the irreversible dilution of his culture – he is still not allowed to refuse service to other people simply because they believe in open borders.

Section 44 of the Human Rights Act states the following:

It shall be unlawful for any person who supplies goods, facilities, or services to the public or to any section of the public—

(a) to refuse or fail on demand to provide any other person with those goods, facilities, or services; or
(b) to treat any other person less favourably in connection with the provision of those goods, facilities, or services than would otherwise be the case,—

by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.

So it is not lawful to deny the provision of a facility, such as a council venue, to a speaker based on the political opinions of that speaker. If a speaker wishes to hire a venue – even if it’s a private one – the owner may not refuse service to them simply because of their political opinions.

Phil Goff refused to provide use of council venues to Southern and Molyneux on account of their political opinions. He said that the two have views that “divide rather than unite”, and claimed that this was justification enough. This is unlawful in New Zealand. You cannot deny the provision of a venue to another person merely because you have declared their political opinions “repugnant”.

Phil Goff is a criminal and a human rights violator. If there was justice in New Zealand, he would stand trial.

When You’re Not Allowed to Talk, It’s Time to Pick Up a Rifle

American President John F Kennedy once said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” Peaceful revolution is dependent on free speech, because we have to be able to talk about what’s going wrong in our society before we can change anything. Absent that free speech, as this essay will examine, we might as well pick up rifles and get ready to fight.

When things are going wrong in your society, you have to talk about the problems if you’re going to fix them. This is why the principle of free speech was enshrined as the first amendment to the American Constitution. In order for people to be aware that there is a problem, it needs to be discussed reasonably, so that people can change their opinions when presented with new information, and thereby arrive at more accurate perceptions.

Once you’re no longer able to talk about your society’s problems openly, people will still talk about them (of course) only privately. Instead of being hopeful and confident, they will become bitter and suspicious. Resentment at not being able to speak openly will creep in, and this will turn to anger directed at those considered responsible. Eventually this anger turns to hate, which can only find expression in violence.

The West has made a massive strategic error over the past 40 years, in opening themselves up to mass Muslim and African immigration. The logic appears to have been that, because employers don’t want to pay fair wages for work in the West, we can simply open the borders to the poor countries of the world, whose members will be so grateful for the opportunity to come here that they won’t ask for the same wages that a Westerner would.

However, the example of real life showed that this logic doesn’t hold. Gratitude is not a universal human value. Muslims didn’t come to integrate and to contribute; they came to conquer, as directed by their holy scripture. Africans mostly came for the welfare – the unemployment rate among Africans in the West is well over 50%. The total cost to Western societies for letting these people in has been tremendous, in both financial and social terms.

Far from leading to a successful multicultural paradise, this mass immigration has caused the social fabric of Europe to disintegrate. Paris, which was once known as the City of Lights and Love, is now so shockingly decrepit that it’s responsible for a new mental disorder, called Paris Syndrome. This refers to the sense of derealisation that tourists feel when they come to Paris and, instead of finding what they expected, discover an almost Third-World environment with soldiers on the streets.

New Zealand has recently discovered that you’re not allowed to talk about such things. Auckland Mayor Phil Goff recently banned speakers Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux from giving a talk at the Auckland Town Hall, and the corporate media supported him by calling the duo “far-right”, “white supremacists” and “extremists”.

Southern and Molyneux wanted to talk about such taboo subjects as the consequences of mass Muslim and African immigration to the West on social cohesion and trust, and the correlations between race and IQ. Goff calculated that, as a globalist, such discussion didn’t serve his political agenda so he shut the talk down. This has had the effect of sending the entire discussion underground – where it is discussed, as mentioned above, with resentment and hate.

Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to the problem of a tyrannical government that is cracking down on freedom of expression. The historical record tells us what will happen: we will get pushed further and further into a state of subjugation as the Government takes ever more aggressive steps to repress discussion of its failures, until the resentment and anger reaches a critical mass. Beyond this point, people will look for revenge first and foremost, and potential future harm to themselves will not weigh as heavily.

In such a case, the only reasonable action is to pick up a rifle. Once you’re not allowed to talk, you’re a slave. You’re a slave to those who set the agenda and the talking points (in this case, the globalist corporatist media). With a rifle, however, you can still assert the right to speak and to be heard. If the government and media are colluding to take your right to speak away, then it’s the only way to assert a right to be heard.