Around 1997, a new word entered the English language; Islamophobia can be defined loosely as an irrational fear or hatred of Islam or of all things Islamic, real and imagined. Its creation was probably a belated response to the much over-used anti-Semitism, which although having a bona fide meaning has long become an epithet used to stifle all legitimate discussion of Jewish and more especially Zionist mendacity, especially in the Western world.
The suggestion that Moslems suffer from discrimination, stereotyping or overt hostility probably came as a bit of a surprise to the natives of Britain in particular when they have seen large unassimilable and at times hostile minorities imposed on their country without any sort of mandate, an unremitting campaign of hatred against their indigenous culture, and Draconian race relations laws like something out of Orwell’s 1984, but as always, one must see the bigger picture to truly appreciate what is going on behind the scenes. Here, one must distinguish between race and religion, and more generally the at times nebulous concept of culture.
While the extreme left may carp on with their vacuous claims of the establishment and “the bosses” fermenting racism to “divide workers” the very concept of Englishness, and more generally of whiteness, is being gradually negated. Or some would say not so gradually. The most cursory examination of British and world demographics demonstrates clearly that the white race is being physically exterminated, what white racists allude to as the bloodless genocide. Understand that whitey? Our masters want you gone. Dead. Wiped off the face of this planet.
But does that mean they love everybody else? Not one bit. The final aim of the global é;lite is the eradication of all national barriers, the destruction of all races, and the watering down of all cultures, including, some would say especially, Islam.
Although this is a global issue, I want to consider it here from a largely parochial perspective. Let us imagine for one moment that there really is an Islamic conspiracy to subjugate Britain, who would be the winners and more especially who would be the losers?
Leaving aside the minutiae such as praying five times a day and fasting during Ramadan, how would life in the Islamic Republic of Britain differ from life in the decadent Britain of 2010? There are three facets of the British lifestyle that would be altered radically: alcohol – the binge drinking culture; homosexuality including more generally sexual decadence; and usury.
These sins are by no means unique to Britain of course, but are sadly deeply ingrained throughout Western culture and much of the rest of the world. Does anyone with half a brain believe that a nation or a world free of binge drinking and alcoholism, of extreme sexual perversion, AIDS and assorted filth, and most of all, of usury, does anyone believe such a nation or such a world would be less desirable than the one in which we live now?
If the objection regarding alcohol sounds trivial or even frivolous, ask any police officer, any magistrate, any hospital employee who has worked the night shift on A&E. Alcohol dominates Western social culture, and its abuse is a major factor in every social malaise from dangerous driving to rape, murder and spur of the moment violence. It is also big business. In the Islamic Republic of Britain, tens or hundreds of thousands of publicans, distillers and hop growers would be headed straight for the Job Centre.
When we consider usury and all the related practices that go hand-in-hand with it, the reason the established financial order fears Islam is not far to seek, but don’t take my word for it. The following quotes are from BANKING WITHOUT INTEREST, by Muhammad Nejatullah Siddiqi, (1983), 2nd English Edition, published by The Islamic Foundation, Leicester.
Page 11, under Preface to the Urdu Edition: “The whole banking system rests on interest. It is, therefore, imperative that for the reconstruction of the economic system on the Islamic pattern, an interest-free banking system should be established and run successfully.”
Page 13: “While studying interest-free banking, it should be kept in mind that its successful operation can be ensured only in a country where interest is legally prohibited and any transaction based upon interest is declared a punishable offence. Moreover, where this law is not enforced strictly, the possibility that some capitalists would jeopardise the larger interest of the people for their private benefit will exist. In such a country the transaction of interest would enter the black market and disrupt the entire interest-free system.”
And from page 74: “As far as control of the monetary system in an Islamic economy is concerned in modern times, there cannot be two opinions about its continuing in the hands of the State. The State alone must issue coins and currency and may establish a special institution for this purpose – no other individual or institution may share this prerogative.”
That is clear, isn’t it? In an Islamic state – a truly Islamic state – there can be no place for usury; the role of private banks will be limited to security, book-keeping (ie transferring money from one client’s account to another), and bona fide financial services such as insurance and currency exchange. If a bank wants to lend money, it will have to lend real money, not create credit. It can do this by taking a stake in any businesses to which it lends, not as is currently done by creating credit ex nihilo and selling it at interest to a business or householder, and holding onto the client’s title deeds as security.
Around 1980/81 shortly after I became politically active in verboten extremist politics, I picked up a copy of the first edition of this book in a Leeds junk shop. And I was immediately struck by the similarity of these simple principles to those I was reading at the time. The following was written originally in German, so translations will vary:
“Creation of a national bank of business development (currency reform) for granting non-interest bearing loans. Fundamental remodeling of the system of taxation on social-economic principles. Relief of the consumer from the burden of indirect taxation, and of the producer from crippling taxation (fiscal reform and relief from taxation).
Wanton printing of bank notes, without creating new values, means inflation. We all lived through it. But the correct conclusion is that an issue of non-interest-bearing bonds by the state cannot produce inflation if new values are at the same time created.
The fact that today great economic enterprises cannot be set on foot without recourse to loans is sheer lunacy. Here is where reasonable use of the state’s right to produce money which might produce most beneficial results.”
This is from the programme of the Nazi Party, yes, that Hitler bloke. Unfortunately, the Nazis dressed up their economic reforms in the garb of anti-Semitism, and the associated rhetoric – attacks on “international Jewish finance”, et al – has been conveniently off-putting ever since, but the truth is that neither Hitler nor Gottfried Feder (who wrote the Party’s programme) were actually saying anything new.
All the world’s great religions – including Judaism – have condemned usury from the year dot, and truly great statesmen such as the Founding Fathers of America condemned and at times fought running battles with the bankers.
The most astounding thing about the plundering of the world’s great economies by the bankers is not the fact that they were able to do it but the ease with which they have done it and continue to. As the man said, this ain’t rocket science. It does not require either an MA in economics or a PhD in formal logic to realise the absurdity of government’s borrowing at interest in perpetuity that which they can and should create themselves debt-free and spend into circulation on public works. Nor to see the absurdity of the wheels of industry grinding to a halt because of the shortage of credit – something which has no tangible existence, which as far as it exists at all does so only as figures in a book or as blips in cyber-space.
If the economic policies advocated by the Nazis can be kept off the agenda by smearing them with guilt by association, the wisdom of the Qur’ an requires a more subtle treatment. Although Islam has many white converts, and the first mosque was established in Britain as long ago as 1889, the original Moslems were Arabs, and it is still the Arab countries along with Indonesia that make up the bulk of the world’s Moslems. A full frontal assault on Islamic values is likely to be denounced as racism, a crime second only to anti-Semitism in the minds of the politically correct, so if Islam is to be brought within the fold, it must be subverted, both from without and within. How is this to be done? By portraying it as chauvinistic, atavistic, even as barbaric, and using the smokescreen of women’s rights and even gay rights in order to attempt to erode its core values.
The following is an attempt to subvert Islam from within. This is the spiel of Muslims Against Sharia – no, that is not a typographical error, this organisation really is called Muslims Against Sharia.
“OUR GOALS
to educate Muslims about dangers presented by Islamic religious texts and why Islam must be reformed”
And
“Sharia
Sharia Law must be abolished, because it is incompatible with norms of modern society.”
The only problem with this is everything. Unlike the Christian Gospels, which need not be taken literally, the Qur’an is revealed truth. The core belief at the centre of Christianity is the physical Resurrection of Jesus Christ. There can be no euhemerism attached to this, no belief in a conjuring trick with bones, as one leading British churchman once put it. To be a true Christian, one must accept the Resurrection, ie the conquest of death. Provided one accepts this one tenet, all will be well in the house of Jesus. But the entire Qur’an is revealed truth, the lot. In order to be a true Moslem, one must accept not only that Muhammad gave the world the Qur’an but that the angel Jibril gave it to him. Because the entire Qur’an is considered to be divine, there can be no half measures, no cherry picking, no accommodation with gay rights, no purging or rewriting of this passage or that, it just cannot be done.
In a compromise between good and evil, evil always wins. This is not to say that anyone and everyone who wants to “reform” the Qur’an is inherently evil, but they are at best misguided. On the subject of homosexuality, it is not possible both to bow down to Allah and bend over for Peter Tatchell.
With regard to passages that “promote divisiveness and religious hatred, bigotry and discrimination” in the words of Muslims Against Sharia, this is a no-brainer.
This is not to say that certain passages may not be interpreted in different ways, but this is a matter for Islamic scholars, not for the censor. At the time of writing, probably the biggest manufactured controversy is that of the punishment of stoning for adultery. What could be more barbaric than this, especially as this treatment is meted out to women. Or is it?
Earlier this year, a humorous educational video produced by the Islamic publisher Muhaddith was uploaded to the YouTube website which explains the reality of stoning for adultery, ie as a mechanism of social control rather than the Islamic equivalent of the stocks, thumbscrews or iron maiden. Islam For DUMMIEZ is also available from the Muhaddith website. Now let us return to the race issue.
After years, decades, of anti-immigration campaigners having to run the gauntlet, being smeared as anti-Semites (curiously), outright Nazis or even worse, suddenly we are being told there is to be a new realism with regard to race. Hey, maybe the Islington set and the Home Counties liberals were a bit too hard on the lumpen proletariat and the white underclass from the sink estates of Birmingham and Sunderland. Maybe positive discrimination – sic – or even political correctness itself has gone too far. Or maybe the anti-racist, non-“sexist”, gay Kosher chickens have come home to roost in Wootton Bassett.
There has been similar angst and wringing of hands in the United States where Zionist Jews have been peddling the line that uncontrolled non-white immigration may not lead to quite the happy multi-racial melting pot we had all yearned for, and why? Because of those wicked A-rabs, that’s why. And of course, that is the reason we must all of us get behind the War On Terror, and Israel, of course – an island of democracy in a sea of tyranny, and our greatest ally against the global jihad that is now being waged against Western Christian (read white) civilisation by Osama Bin Laden and his other hate-filled radicals from their rat-infested caves somewhere on the Afghan-Pakistan border.
In Britain, we have even seen a Jewish Division formed inside the newly arrived English Defence League, an organisation which has pledged to save us from these infidels and their inhuman sharia law. This would be laughable if it were not so pathetic. Since when have Zionist Jews cared a tinker’s cuss about England and English values? Or indeed about anyone except other Zionist Jews? It was Zionist Jews more than any other pressure group who lobbied for – and got – the most Draconian so-called race relations legislation known to man foisted onto the statute book. It was Zionist Jews who financed the “anti-racist” movement, it was even Zionist Jews – Lord Lester among others – who drafted the actual legislation.
After years, decades, of at times virtually open warfare against and indoctrination and brainwashing of the white, working class majority, these same people have suddenly realised they have made a big mistake. They have imposed on Britain a large, unassimilable minority, one that does not share their so liberal values, and one which has absolutely no sympathy at all with the murderous policies of their brethren in the Middle East towards the Palestinians, the Arabs or Moslems generally.
The good news is that it is their mistake, not ours. Britain, America, the West, the world, has nothing to fear from Islam, not from Islamic morality, and certainly not from Islamic finance and economics. Indeed, if I may mix my metaphors, the greatest irony of all may be that Islam is the Good Samaritan that came to our door in wolf’s clothing to throw the money changers out of the temple.
October 11, 2010
Click Here To Download This Article in PORTABLE DOCUMENT FORMAT
Back To Articles Index
Back To Site Index