Posted on May 2, 2011

Why Does Britain Have an Islamist Problem While America Doesn’t? Answer: The Welfare State

Ed West, Telegraph (London), April 26, 2011

London was the global headquarters of Islamic terrorism in the years before and after 9/11. This fact wasn’t exactly a closely guarded secret, but the WikiLeaks Guantánamo Bay files shed interesting new light on the American perspective. (I especially like the detail that the US government suspected the BBC of being a “possible propaganda media network” for al-Qaeda after a BBC phone number was found on a terrorist. What do they mean “possible”? Have they not listened to Radio 4?)

London became the world terrorist hub partly because the country had a long tradition of shielding dissenters of all stripes; because it had a very unintrusive state compared to its European neighbours (no ID cards); and because of Britain’s historic links with many Arab countries. But there was another reason, and this is central to the reason why Europe has an Islamist problem and the United States doesn’t–the welfare state. Welfare is intimately linked to the failure of western European countries to integrate their Muslim populations, and explains why Britain has such a problem with Islamism.

Look at the two figures named by US intelligence as responsible for recruiting dozens of terrorists, Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza. Qatada, a Jordanian preacher and advisor to shoe bomber Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, the 9/11 plotter, was expelled from Kuwait for supporting the Iraqi invasion, then claimed asylum in Britain on the grounds of religious persecution. We granted it, naturally. Come in!

While spending his time raising money for the destruction of the West (he was once caught with £170,000 in cash, including £850 on an envelope with the less-than-enigmatic words “For the Mujahedin in Chechnya” on the front), he was happy to receive £400 a week in government benefits–£322 for housing and £70 for disability.

Abu Hamza, the hook-handed Yemeni, was a phenomenal sponger. His London house cost taxpayers £2400 a month, and at one point he was receiving over £500 a month for incapacity benefits while his wife received an additional £1300 a month. Abu Hamza even sued the government for extra benefits.

Always taking the Euro-moral high ground, the British had refused to extradite Hamza to his native Yemen in 1999 because it had the death penalty; he then went on to radicalise the 7/7 bombers, so that 52 innocent people died in the place of one guilty man.

In fact the one thing religious extremists in Britain and Europe almost all have in common is their willingness to take money from the kuffir. Another tabloid regular, “Tottenham Ayatolla” Omar Bakri, sponged £275,000 in welfare, including a £31,000 Ford Galaxy people carrier to ferry around his seven children. And between them the July 21 bombers, who were admitted into Britain as refugees from war-torn east Africa, received £500,000 in welfare payments before repaying the British people by trying (and failing) to murder lots of innocents (who were only saved because the mastermind of the plots had been through the British state education system and so was incapable of doings the sums necessary to make a bomb).

Then there is Anjem Choudary, co-founder of the outlawed Al- Muhajiroun movement, and a qualified solicitor although he has never worked as one, who receives £25,000 a year in benefits. As Douglas Murray once pointed out, this is £10,000 more than a soldier in Afghanistan is paid: “It’s probably not the first time in history where one side has paid its enemies and its own men, but it’s probably the first war in history where somebody has paid its enemies better than its own men.”

Everywhere in Britain Islamism is taxpayer-funded, the welfare system helping to fill idle young minds with poison, and fuelling a sense of resentment amongst (often emotionally fragile) second-generation immigrants.

One only has to look at America’s experience with Islam to see how welfare and diversity do not mix. EU Muslims are over six and a half times more likely, proportionately, to be arrested for terrorist offences than American Muslims. In surveys well over two thirds of American Muslims said they believed they can make it in America with hard work, a higher proportion than Americans generally, reflecting their belief in the American Dream.

Fewer than half think themselves Muslims first and Americans second, compared to 81 per cent in Britain. Yet America is, by any measurable standards, far more “Islamophobic” than Britain, with far more public criticism and mockery of that religion. In place of the American Dream, Britain has the European Nightmare, a welfare system that disincentives assimilation and breeds resentment.

Welfare states were designed for fairy ancient, largely homogenous European countries in the retirement stage of civilisation; but combined with open borders, as Milton Friedman predicted, welfare is unsustainable, socially divisive and potentially dangerous. The Americans have every right to despair at the strange, self-destructive behaviour of their ally.

16 responses to “Why Does Britain Have an Islamist Problem While America Doesn’t? Answer: The Welfare State”

  1. Question Diversity says:

    Mr. West acts like the United States doesn’t have a welfare state. The main reason why Britain’s Muslims are far more odious is because they’ve taken in many more of the odious types. It’s not like our Muslim population can’t be odious, but it tends to be the supposedly more legitimate “refugee” type, though I really don’t want my country going majority non-white and Muslim at the hands of “persecuted refugees” than I would at the hands of hard core Islamists.

    As much red ink as our Federal government is running up, the budget problem in Britain is even worse, in terms of annual deficits as a percentage of its revenue, as a percentage of its total expenditures. The only thing that’s not as bad there as here (yet) is the total national debt as a percentage of GDP, ours just passed 100%, and in the UK it’s not far above 60%.

  2. BannerRWB says:

    “The Americans have every right to despair at the strange, self-destructive behaviour of their ally.”: We just don’t have the Islam problem -yet-. It is coming and it will be just as bad as in Europe. We will have to deal with the Mexican nationalists first, and follow that immediately by dealing with the Islamists. Rest assured, that if we don’t deal with them, they will surely deal with us when they have the power to do so.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Please! We have an illegal invading Mexican crisis which is being assisted through generous welfare benefits, as well as American citizenship granted to their anchor spawn. The Mexicans are just as militant and ruthless in their demands for services as any Muslim.

    We have our share of Muslims as well, which is only going to get worse I suspect.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Get your facts straight Mr. West.

    We are angry about welfare abuse, but whereas your problem is Islamic from Middle East, ours is Mestizo from States South and a government which won’t build a fence.

    Along with blacks who are taught from infancy to believe every white is responsible for Slavery when in fact, we just don’t like them.

    We -despair- at massively unequal birthrates and continued immigration which seems to make this a slippery slope situation with only two solutions: massive race war or extinction of whites.

    We (Americans) despise Islam because it is a religion based on banditry and extreme barbarism, created by a psychotic pedophile and sadistic serial killer.

    NONE of whose ‘views’ are now known to the world because he was also illiterate and what was written down of his philosophies (as opposed to his crimes) are all 2+ centuries post-mortem.

    We don’t want Muslims on our shores, regardless of their welfare status because we prefer the company and beauty and elegance of white culture and, oh yes, they crashed four airliners into three buildings, killing 3,000 civilians and crippling or killing 48,000 American servicemen and women in the wars we have fought against this crazed religion, since.

    Americans don’t have philosophically complex reasons for why we prefer being Americans. They are however valid, just the same.

  5. Anonymous says:

    One thing that was totally left out is the relatively small size of the U.S. Muslim population, only about 1%. The number of Muslim immigrants we let in is also quite small; fewer than 100,000 per year. Of course, we need to keep this number as low as possible.

  6. Tim in Indiana says:

    What does he mean America doesn’t have a welfare state? We have a welfare state to end all welfare states. It’s just funneled to a problem group or groups other than Muslims, that’s all.

    Fewer than half think themselves Muslims first and Americans second, compared to 81 per cent in Britain. Yet America is, by any measurable standards, far more “Islamophobic” than Britain, with far more public criticism and mockery of that religion.

    Uh, do you think there could be a cause and effect here? Perhaps a reasonable “Islamophobia” is the only thing that has kept these other problems in check in the US…at least for now.

  7. Anonymous says:

    This article is purposefully covering up the truth. And the truth is painfully evident to any Brit who dares to say, call the police and report a muslim for a hate crime. At minimum, the result will be intimidation, threats of prosecution for racism and not so subtle punishment (arrest, jail….worse).

    My point is this is not an accidental collision of incompatible cultures. It’s obviously purposeful. Britain’s government and all its institutions, especially the police, are throwing in their full effort in support of islamofascism. All european countries are. Some to a far worse extent. For example, Sarkozy has basically threatened to force (his words) french people to interbreed with black muslims. The context of that speech, on the surface, implies, or be cut off from all prospects of employment, government services and all resources (which would be bad enough) but carried quite a bit of an undercurrent of physical intimidation (ie do it or we’ll send the jackboots after you).

    Why all of europe hasn’t broken out in the bloodiest revolution in human history, is quite beyond me (and more than a little disturbing). Britain allows children to be handcuffed and dragged to jail for asking that their class be taught in english, for example. And that doesn’t result in that police station being firebombed, police assassinated and the school officials who called the cops being beaten by enraged parents.

    That’s a problem. The type that leads to genocide. Better wake up. It’s one thing to put up with being a slave. It’s quite another to hang your head on the way to the gas chamber.

  8. SKIP says:

    I must respectfully disagree with the author relative to his statements of America lacking a tempting welfare program! I must also disagree, reswpectfully of course, with the statement of our muslims being mostly Americans first and then muslims!! THis is simply not true. American muslims are simply a little less violent and demanding at the moment because they lack the numbers to be that way,,RIGHT NOW! England has been infiltrated and inundated for so long that the muslims pretty much have the clout, manpower and voting power to put their own in office. In America, we have only a couple of worthless muslims in public office thought the numbers will begin to grow up in Michiganistan, Ohiostan, New Jerseystan and of course, NewYorkistan and when the muslims have enough numbers to challenge authority and law enforcement, THEY WILL DO JUST THAT. One muslim is usually peaceful, 2 muslims want to pray, 3 muslims want a mosque, 4 muslims want US to build their mosque, 5 muslims DEMAND we build their mosque and more than 5 muslims, they start blowing stuff up and murdering non muslims!

  9. Anonymous says:

    “Welfare states were designed for fairy ancient, largely homogenous European countries in the retirement stage of civilisation; but combined with open borders, as Milton Friedman predicted, welfare is unsustainable, socially divisive and potentially dangerous.”


    You mean welfare is unsustainable in European countries and the USA when those nations allow NONwhite foreigners into their lands. Any fool can see this. If we were a homogenous nation we wouldn’t have a problem with welfare since most Whites in their homogenous nations will and do work unless they are truly disabled or too old to work.

  10. Great Gran says:

    Next the the UK government, the US government actually looks smart!

  11. Madison Grant says:

    America doesn’t have a Muslim Problem? Glad to hear it.

    I guess I just imagined 9/11, the DC Snipers, the Zebra Killings, the Fort Hood Massacre etc. etc.

  12. Anonymous says:

    It’s a lot clearer now why Islamists choose Britain when seeking asylum. It’s hard to imagine a more ideal asylum than contemporary Britain.

  13. Laslavic says:

    Really? So then why do we have 15-40 million charming guests from south of the border? fortunatly our open borders nuts can’t afford to fly them here so we typically get the more educated and affluent muslims and Africans in general.l bet the Mexicans that move to Europe are more educated and affluent than what wades accross the Rio Grande also……logistics. Not that the left or our self proclaimed elites give us a say…forced to choose, I’ll take educated African Africans over muslim N Africans or Mexicans any day.

  14. Ziwtra says:

    The only positive effect that the absence of a welfare system equivalent to England’s has on muslims is that they are forced to work more and have thus less time left to commit crime on an excessive scale like their brethren do in England, France or Sweden. However, their commitment to wage Jihad against the Western World and to establish sharia in the United States remains undiminished with or without welfare. Obviously, the most generous welfare system is preferred, which at this point is in England.

    Contemporarely, it saddens me to see the ignorance of so many young Americans cheering the death of Osama Bin Laden (which he certainly deserved), who seem to be blind and quiet to the far greater danger America is facing from within, namely muslim (and Mexican) immigration. Did I see protesters demanding the liquidation of the Fort Hood killer Nihal Hassan? Who needs Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan or Afghanistan as long as the United States allow arabs to serve the US army and to build mosques on our soil where hatred against Americans is preached?

  15. Anonymous says:

    The US has had an arab problem since Sirhan Sirhan.

    Why do I say arab instead of muslim? Because the powers that be chose the term muslim. Choose to use a non-racial term, a religious term, to cover up the fact that this is about race. Arabs and blacks, no matter their religion (Sirhan Sirhan was in fact a Christian and a devout one). You can change your religion. You can’t change your race. The powers that be want to trick us into thinking the problem is something changeable, when it’s not.

    And they certainly don’t want us extrapolating from the extremeness of terrorism that the problem is race. Because that is the crux of the issue.

    Want to live in peace and prosperity? Then it’s necessary to live in a homogenous white society. Not to limit immigration. Not to make sure immigrants don’t use welfare. But to radically separate from them. Radical means you get arrested if you are non-white and kicked out of the area….shot if your resist. No contact, no trade, nothing with non-whites….no exceptions……severe punishment (life in prison, for example) for those who disobey. It is a serious issue. A survival issue.

    The bottom line is that non-whites are evil. We used to know this. We used to have commentary on say, the cannibalism that goes on in africa, running through our media, entertainment etc. That has been sanitized out as part of brainwashing. The same way all the horrific black crime is sanitized out of the news.

    Which begs the question, who does the sanitizing. I’d answer that but then you’d never get to read this post on Amren……go look it up. It’s the other side of the race war coin without which, it wouldn’t exist. It’s also the other reason radical WHITE separation is necessary.

  16. ATBOTL says:

    Yet another example of the rightish European seeing the US through rose colored spectacles. Where do they get this stuff?

    “The US has had an arab problem since Sirhan Sirhan.”

    Not really.