Muslim radicalisation.

Much has been said in recent times about the process whereby Muslims are radicalised by people such as Osama Bin Laden or Abu Hamza Al-Masri. Throughout the infidel nations, governments have proscribed organisations they consider dangerous and have jailed, exiled or murdered individuals who oppose them. There are several important points which need to be brought out into the open in this report. It has become necessary to analyse the facts and cut through the hype associated with these government inspired campaigns of intimidation. What we shall attempt to show in this report is that the campaigns against so-called radicals are in fact an attempt by government, the press, and the population in general, to force attention away from their own crimes which include plunder, murder and neo-colonialist occupation of Muslims and Muslim countries. We will hopefully demonstrate to any fair-minded, balanced, normal individual, that the crimes being committed by the infidel nations are so horrendous that attention needs to shifted away from them, and the spotlight focused elsewhere – otherwise large and powerful anti-war movements are likely to emerge within the infidel nations, and tens of thousands of infidels could be expected to revert to Islam. Thus, the threat that infidel nations perceive: the threat to the profit margins of their arms manufacturers; the existentialist threat to the State of Israel, and the infidel nations’ need for an uninterupted supply of cheap petroleum, has to have a counterpoint, and Muslim opposition to the crimes of the infidels has characteristics built into it – including martyrdom operations – which allow the infidel nations to continue their wars against the Muslims more or less unopposed. Abandoned by the socialist and communist left who refuse to take a principled stand and support the mujahideen in Afghanistan and Iraq, Muslims are forced to defend their religion and their honour single-handedly, with the assistance of Almighty God, inshaa’allah. Isolated and often operating clandestinely they are thoroughly demonised and are easy prey for violent attacks by xenophobic elements within the infidel nation.

Being in possession of an Osama Bin Laden video or possessing a military manual is enough to get convicted and spend years and years in prison if one is born in an infidel nation. The infidel nations can, however, not only possess military manuals but command well-equipped armies to read them – and then deploy those armies to Muslim nations to invade and murder the citizens, as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. In the infidel nations the libraries are stocked with books by the military heroes of the infidels such as Moshe Dayan, Ariel Sharon and Winston Churchill. But if the Muslim is found to be in possession of an Osama Bin Laden video he or she is demonised as a radical and then comes under the scrutiny of the security services who will often frame the Muslim on trumped-up charges. What we then see is a sometimes succesful attempt by the infidels to portray a simple demand for democratic rights as a radical demand: the right of freedom of speech and the right of freedom of association. In the infidels brave new world we often see basic democratic rights criminalised and two or more people who meet to discuss the war crimes of the infidels are charged and convicted of forming a cell.

It is important to place the infidels behaviour within its historical context at this point. And because analysing social conditions and history for the entire infidel world is something which would take hundreds of hours to complete, we will now focus on the United Kingdom by way of example. The United Kingdom, infidel historians inform us, is the cradle of democracy, where all citizens enjoy fair opportunities and education and health services are provided free of charge. Because of the massive destruction of infrastructure which took place in World War 2, many employment opportunities arose in the 1950’s and 60’s and immigrant labour, primarily from the Indian sub-continent and the West Indies, was imported into Britain to provide cheap labour so the economy could grow. Economic growth in British terms doesn’t mean improved housing and developing infrastructure for the benefit of the people, it should be pointed out. It means increased corporate profits and supporting the already rich through tax incentives. Whereas the citizens of the United States and even Australia to some extent aspired to build egalitarian societies, the United Kingdom remained bitterly divided along class lines, with the wealthy infidels living in London and the Home Counties and the poor inhabiting the northern part of the country. The new immigrants found out first-hand that the dreams they held about the United Kingdom prior to their arrival were just that. Forced to live in accomodation that often had rising damp up as far as the roof, they found out the true realities of life in Britain: poor wages, a chronically underfunded health service, violent skinhead attacks upon members of the community and institutionally ingrained police racism. Although Muslims were assured they were free to practice their religion prior to their arrival in Britain, when they arrived they were often prevented from building mosques because of spurious planning application objections from racist neighbours and councils. Even when planning applications were approved by local councils, the traditional call to prayer was effectively banned on the grounds that it would annoy the neighbours, despite the fact that church bells are allowed to be rung at all times of the day and night, something the citizens of the United Kingdom no doubt think is quaint.

The United Kingdom is so racist, in fact, that even when His Royal Highness, The Duke Of Edinburgh, openly displayed racist and obnoxious behaviour towards immigrants, his personal fortune remained intact and in fact increased by millions of pounds.

The post-war boom in Britain came to an abrupt halt in the early seventies and never really recovered. The catalyist for the economic decline was the Arab oil embargo and the strike by miners which brought the economy to its knees. Muslims will be acutely aware that any economy based on usury and capitalist exploitation leads inevitably in one direction: a period of growth followed by decline which can only be halted by military confrontation and war. The United Kingdom economy underwent two of these major contractions in the twentieth century and periods of growth occurred only after the massive destruction caused by two world wars. It should also be pointed out that the cold war against the Soviet Union made British arms manufacturers billions of pounds in so-called defence contracts. When the Stalinist regime in Moscow collapsed in the early 90’s, British military expenditure declined significantly in the following period. The citizens of the United Kingdom then faced a clear choice if their economy was to survive: they could either reverse the de-industrialisation of Britain by creating jobs and products for the benefit of society as a whole or face a new period of decline which would lead inevitably to the collapse of their society.

We can now see the differences between social conditions in the 1960’s, when a war-weary British population went through a period of prosperity – when the factories were operating at close to capacity – and the conditions which exist today. In the 1980’s, the United Kingdom underwent a de-industrialisation process and the economy became a service economy. No longer were British workers producing goods for British workers; they were employed in service industries such as insurance, hospitality, and finance. A good example of this transformation was the decline of the British car industry and the rise of the speculative financial sector. In a somewhat inverse analogy of the expression to build a house on solid ground, the British did exactly the opposite and built their economy around a speculative bubble with no solid foundations. First came the Asian financial crisis of the late 80’s when British investors lost heavily in the financial markets and then British investors lost more billions when the so-called dot com boom went bust. These are the primary reasons why the United Kingdom went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We can be sure that the Blair government knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Even if it could be proven conclusively that Osama Bin Laden orchestrated 9/11, all the British and Americans had to do was to provide Mullah Omar with proof of his involvement and the issue could have been resolved without a NATO invasion of Afghanistan. Instead the British and Americans began bombing the poor, hungry people of Afghanistan, not even giving them an opportunity to defend themselves with outdated Kalasnikovs. Why did this occur? Surely the British and Americans wouldn’t invade Afghanistan on false pretenses – claiming to be stamping out terrorists while all the while keeping their eyes on the vast reserves of oil around the Caspian Sea. Surely not.

As the bombing campaign continues and the death toll reaches into the hundreds of thousands, of course British Muslims will become increasingly aggrieved. This then is the radicalisation process laid bare for all to see. British Muslims are by and large more intelligent than their infidel counterparts as they have adopted the correct religion and only worship God. They can accurately see the duplicitous lies emanating from the mouths of British parliamentarians and if the racist police failed to radicalise them prior to 2001 then the behaviour of the infidels in the post 9/11 period certainly propelled them in that direction. Being a radical in this period isn’t something to be condemned but should be praised. At least British Muslims have their heads screwed on and can see the real situation – while the gullible broader British population fell for the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction lie hook, line and sinker. Some of them even bought gas-masks.

It is therefore important to suggest to British Muslims that they purchase themselves a one way ticket to a Muslim country where hopefully they can prosper. If they have the financial means to transport the whole family, remembering that they can purchase health insurance in the United Kingdom prior to their departure, then at least consider it. With 50,000 pounds it is quite easy to establish a viable business in many Muslim countries. Social conditions in the United Kingdom will never improve and this should be of grave concern for Muslims who plan to have a family in one of the decaying cities such as Birmingham, Luton or London.

No doubt the British National Party and their allies in MI5 will be encouraged to read these words – as I have been made aware that some of them are reading this blog. Before concluding I wish to point out that the citizens of the United Kingdom have been slitting each others throats and looting their fellow countrymen’s belongings since the merry days of King Arthur. If they can’t find a scapegoat to blame for their woes in the Muslims, no doubt they’ll invade Scotland again or commit mass murder in Northumbria, as they have in the past. The British, it seems, will do anything except scrutinise their own behaviour.  Perhaps opposing them could be seen as radical because the media takes so much information from British sources, and whoever owns the media controls the use of language in a broader sense. But any realistic analysis should inevitably conclude that Britain is a society in decline, hatred, and warmongering – and if being aware of this is radical then we are proud of the title. At least Muslims generally speak the truth and are not compulsive liars.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s