NYC Muslim Day Parade 2012

YouTube, October 1, 2012

Footage from a Muslim-pride parade and prayer session in Manhattan.


Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • jackryanvb

    Please use the “fear of Muslim terrorists” theme to motivate White Judeo Christians to work for immigration control.

    Don’t let Christian Zionists put all the spin that most American immigrants are hard working Hispanic Christians with strong family values, natural Reuplicans.

    Any alien looking, non White immigrant, legal or illegal is a potention Al Qaeda terrorist or a Zeta cartel killer. Why take chances?

    Any White pol who is soft on immigration is taking Al Qaeda ‘s side to come in to our country and murder our people like on 9-11-01. Don’t let bad on immigration pols like Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, Karl Rove, John McCain try to change the subject to talk about gub rights or opposing Iran

    The war is here in our country, who’s side are they on:

    Mohammed Ata, the Zeta drug cartel or on our side solid, regular American people.

    • Please use the “fear of Muslim terrorists” theme to motivate White Judeo Christians to work for immigration control.

      Good advice. But then, we’ll be hearing from the flood of extreme crackpots on our WN side of the aisle that “Muslims are good, it’s only the JOOOOOZ that are working us up in a lather of hatred against them.”

      • Manaphy

        Jewish involvement in our genocide is certainly troubling, but we should also address the Muslim and black and Hispanic problems as well in order to defend our country. Simply saying “its all the Jews’ fault”, while not necessarily untrue, is not going to get us anywhere. Of course it is the duty of every WN to oppose the Zionist Lobby and Jews like Caroline Glick who hate America and White people and want us to endlessly supply Israel with troops and aid, but we shouldn’t get distracted with the Jewish Question when Muslims and Mestizos are invading our country.

        • Talltrees

          Yes, but what very wealthy group sends lobbyists to Washington on behalf of Muslims, Mexicans, Indians, you name it? If we look at any of the non-White minorities, we see the ‘unmentionables’ behind them.

          I thought my dog was the only one who had her nose in everything, (doesn’t miss a thing), but some of these unmentionables had their noses in all of our affairs before the 1880’s, then many more came here and immediately increased their campaigns. For such a small group allowed to meddle so much, I’m still in shock. This occurred even in Europe. I think that shock will pass, not sure though.

        • HamletsGhost

          It was Jews who opened the floodgates to allow Mestizos and Muslims into our country. To complain about the symptoms without addressing the root cause of the problem is just a giant waste of time.

          • blight14

            Correct………that FACT is undeniable…..period, end of story.

        • blight14

          I believe the best description is ‘disease/symptom’……cure the disease and the symptoms dissipate……allegedly……..

    • mobilebay

      You’re right, Jack. The war IS here in our country and our leaders have no intention of defending us. We have fought wars all over this world, defending ourselves and protecting other nations, yet when we are attacked on our own soil, the white flag of surrender is raised. This is a different enemy. Rather than tanks and blazing guns, they come by stealth and cunning, but with the same goal – to occupy and overcome. And they are welcomed by those who took oaths to protect us.

  • Homo_Occidentalis

    The Yankee WASP descendants of the old New York aristocracy who once prayed at the pews of Trinity Church must be cowering in their Fifth Avenue high-rises. It’s good to know that they who worked so diligently to foist divershitty on the rest of us will now get a taste of it. If they didn’t all flee NYC in the seventies, that is. Just one look at this parade should disgust any sensible white at Obongo’s idea of bringing 100,000 Syrians here.

  • Want to turn Michael Bloomberg against these people?

    Someone should have gone to this shindig and given every one of them a 32-ounce soda.

    • blight14

      Nope sorry, wouldn’t happen……B’berg et al want NOTHING MORE than the ‘dilution’ of our people by any means necessary……he and his loathe our people infinitely more than event their genetic ‘cousins’…….

  • Oil Can Harry

    Last month in New York City they had a parade for mentally ill people (sorry, no link).

    I was stunned until I did some research and found out these have been going on in other cities for 20 years.

  • Jefferson

    Where haven’t any Atheist groups in New York City come out to protest this Muslim day parade ?

    Oh yeah I just remembered, the only religion that left wing Atheists despise is Christianity. They turn a blind eye to Islam.

    • evilsandmich

      I don’t care what they think. The handful of Atheists that I’ve known have been true to the line “those who believe in nothing will believe in anything”. Some believe in anti-Christianity, but most seem to be completely off the rails and believe in little green men (in an alternate dimension) manipulating the environment so that Dick Cheney could get elected or some such non-sense.

    • JohnEngelman

      Even though everything they hate about the religious right and the Bible Belt is far more true of Muslims and Islamic culture.

    • OhWow

      Not true. I’m an atheist and I know plenty of other atheists who readily admit that Islam is the most violent and dangerous religion on earth. While I may not be religious, I can clearly see that Christians are not flying planes into buildings or strapping bombs to kids.

    • OlderWoman

      Atheist homosexual Pat Condell doesn’t hate Christians but he despises Islam. Google for his videos.

    • NordicHeritage

      Not all atheists see Christianity as the only religion worthy of derision. Most see all revealed religions as idiotic. We even have a draw the prophet “moohammed” day each year.

  • evilsandmich

    The muzzies need to brew up a fun holiday like Cinco de Mayo or even Hanukkah if they want generalized acceptance.

  • storibund

    What, no bombs at the end to celebrate?

  • Alexandra1973

    Their rear ends in the air make such tempting targets for people’s feet, don’t you think?

  • shmo123

    I have an observation that I normally wouldn’t make, but can’t resist: There’s something about the way they pray, with heads on the ground and asses in the air that makes me want to kick every last one of them.

    • The__Bobster

      I wonder if they would fall like dominoes.

    • TheAntidote

      All of them have to take their shoes off as well. Their ceremonies and assemblies must be very stinky affairs.

  • To be honest, I am not all that enthused at the way Amren is starting to take interest in Islam as part of a racial self preservation message, and believe me, I have as much of a problem with “Islamification” as anybody else. I just would not wish for the Amren project to start going the way of ‘counter-jihad’ groups and some of their (sometimes unmentionable) backers.

    However, I suppose it sort of falls under the general transformation of Europe and America, and quite rightly too, because it shows what can result from unfettered immigration and disparate birthrates, but I believe we need to retain a more clear focus in general. Islam is a religion, not a race. That is just my opinion though, I know many will differ.

    I cannot remember which article it was (on here) I read relating to this, but one from the other day went on to explain how those of middle eastern descent and origin in the United States were officially counted as “white”.

    Given the way the Islamic population expands in a host society, I would suspect that this classification would be problematic in discerning the true demographic figures of what would normally be recognised as European or White.

    • I just would not wish for the Amren project to start going the way of ‘counter-jihad’ groups and some of their (sometimes unmentionable) backers.

      That’s the kind of crackpot mentality Jack Ryan and I are begging everyone to avoid. If you want to talk about the unmentionables for a minute? Fine. The unmentionables are heavily opposed to “Islamophobia” — Just read the website of any of the “defamation” and “poverty” and “J” goober groups. So where this notion that THE JOOOZ are provoking us to hate Muslims comes from, maybe other than the fact that American neo-conservative Jews (which are themselves a relatively small minority among all American Jewish political types) have a particular disgust for Muslims that they don’t have for blacks, Hispanics, etc.

      But there’s another consideration: If you’re so worried about the unmentionables and their disparate influence in keeping white countries’ borders wide open, then you should really take up the Jack Ryan strategery. Because that is the huge, gigantic weak point in the unmentionables’ program — They might heavily want amnesty and open borders, but hardly anyone else does. Therefore, getting people focused on the immigration issue is how we beat the unmentionables. And the way to get people focused on the immigration issue is to dwell on the negative consequences of mass non-white immigration that the average person can grok: Muslim terrorism, Hispanic crime, and driving down the wage-salary scale economy-wide for native born white Americans. It’s basically a long game tactic against the unmentionables.

      • My only point is that Islam as an ideology/religion, and Race, are separate things.

        I would not seek for them to be conflated or confused in some kind of unclear soup in which the English Defence League and other counter-jihadist sites and organisations derive their vantage point from. Good on them for what they do, but their fight is not always our fight and I would like to ensure that the differences are maintained where necessary.

        I realise that it is a complex issue when it comes to those who cannot seem to be mentioned here, and I share the view that it can be used as a tool to get people “on the ladder” of taking more interest in their own identity, providing that our real message is not drowned out or surpassed in this quest for expediency.

        Whilst parties in the UK like ‘UKIP’ might prove to be an expedient and worthy vehicle to get some way down the track to recovery than we would otherwise be without them, it also plays on my mind that by playing too heavily into this diversion of how it just about “economics” of immigration, a matter of “culture” and that it is only a religious ideology that is the problem that people should focus on, could in fact ultimately make it harder to present the case for true racial nationalism and racial self preservation, not easier.

        I am not one who labours the point over the Jewish influences, and that is not really my point, but I do tend to get a bit uneasy about the prospect of our cause being herded into directions which may not prove to be beneficial in the long term.

        Perhaps I just think too much and have no cause for concern. I am willing to concede this, but I thought I would speak my mind about it all the same.

        • I realize the problematic nature of both the EDL and the UKIP.

          However, it can only benefit our cause when the (admittedly less than perfect) EDL engages in boisterous street theater in reaction to a nasty Nigerian convert to Islam chopping off the head of a (real) Englishman. I can assure you the kook left and some of the unmentionables aren’t hostile to the EDL because the EDL is pro-Israel and has Jewish and LGBTQMIAPDLOLPLPLTH divisions.

          The UKIP is really nothing more than an interim political solution until a real white nationalist political party can be developed, whether that comes from the revival of the BNP or some other party. But I can assure you that the hate directed at the UKIP from Official Britain isn’t because it’s not right wing enough.

          • Thanks for the clarification.

            I have originally come into racial nationalism from an anti-Islamic vantage point myself, so I know what the score is about the potential for its use as an awakening conveyor belt.

            However, back when I started, it was prior to the counter-jihad movements and what are believed to be Islamic atrocities which have sharpened up peoples minds since.

            Providing the conveyor belt is running our way instead of pulling people away from our direction, I suppose I am fine with some degree of expediency as long as we also fence the other issues and successfully manage to steer it our way.

            However, knowing what I now do about our situation, when I see what were once racial nationalist sites (elsewhere) quoting texts of the Koran and Hadith, I do tend to worry that we can quickly be submerged and diverted into a cause which is not necessarily our own.

          • when I see what were once racial nationalist sites (elsewhere) quoting texts of the Koran and Hadith

            Those kind of people only do that because they’re too obsessed with the unmentionables for their own good, and want to try to make common cause with enemies of those unmentionables, never realizing that they hate us even more than the unmentionables hate us. (Begin sarcasm) Because the way to get good solid white NYPD and FDNY cops and firemen on our side is to quote the Koran. (End sarcasm) However, like I said above, punting on the negative consequences of open borders is tantamount to punting on the immigration issue, which is in turn willingly dropping to the ground the only real figurative weapon we have against the unmentionables. This is why it was so hypocritical and mystifying that so many WNs obsessed with the unmentionables were so in the tank for open borders no borders Ron Paul.

          • I think that an awareness of the ‘bigger picture’ is vitally important to be able to place things in their bigger context. It has to be handled sensibly though. It took me quite a few years to get my head around these concepts and deal with them in a more balanced manner.

            I tend share a dislike of those who fall into the extreme trappings of going completely hardened to either side as part of some sort of ‘enemy of my enemy’ principle or even some kind of ‘worse is better’ principle.

            My general position is that both aspects of our plight are needing to be fought simultaneously, preferably by not getting heavily into bed with either side particularly.

            There are some elements of both ‘sides’ (Islam and the other) that can be of virtue and of use to us at times, and I do not always see a problem in admitting that and being opportunistic about it where possible – but I think it must be ultimately framed in what is ultimately good for us as a people and worked with on that basis.

            I try and aim for this ‘third way’ as much as possible. There are what may be called “obsessives” on either side. One side may get swept away on their rhetoric and alienate the general public or put them at odds with expressing winnable positions, but equally, so can the other.

          • OlderWoman


            What on earth is that? Is that they name for a speech defect?

          • The “official” acronym for the alternate lifestyle is now LGBTQMIAPD. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual/Transgender, Questioning, M (?), Intersexual, Asexual, Pansexual, Demisexual. I make fun of the ever-expanding acronym by adding “LOL” and “PLPLTH” after it.

          • David Ashton

            What about Bi-Curious, and Trans-Curious, Pan-Curious… ?
            Then there are the Hole-in-a-Fence-Curious, Shop-Window-Mannequin-Curious, Dead-Animal-Curious, Blow-Lamp-on-Genitals-Curious [an actual case in the UK], &c.
            Ready for those Nursery Education books yet, folks?

      • The__Bobster

        So where this notion that THE JOOOZ are provoking us to hate Muslims comes from I haven’t a clue

        You haven’t? Check out all the unmentionable warmongering neocons who want to make war on every country surrounding Unmentionableland.

        • Reread the post. Neos are a severe minority of American Jews. 83%/68% of Jews in 2008/2012 voted for a supposed “anti-Israel” Obama that most of the neos despise.

          • NordicHeritage

            Which is funny because Obama is even more of a neo-con on the war on terror than Bush was.

          • blight14

            Nordic, you need to put ‘war on terror’ in quotes as its the biggest nonsensical label in history……….

          • HamletsGhost

            Numbers don’t count that much. It’s influence that matters. After the fall of Baghdad, the neo-cons proudly touted the fact that only about a half-dozen of them were responsible for the war.

            Obama is supposedly “anti-Israel” because he doesn’t want to attack Iran now now NOW! like the neo-cons insist.

          • People like to brag about their disproportionate influence, even if it’s really not that true, to feather their own nest and pad their own CVs.

            If Jane Jones beats John Smith in some election by one vote, and two Bhutanese-American Scientologists voted in that election, press releases from the National Association of Bhutanese-American Scientologists will come flooding out bragging about how Bhutanese-American Scientologists are the crucial swing voting demographic.

    • bluffcreek1967

      True, Islam is a religion (albeit a deadly one) and not a race per se. But there’s definitely a racial component to it. Had the Muslims never been permitted to immigrate into white nations, it would have been a religion limited to only Arabs, Persians, and other middle eastern ethnicities, including a few Bantu nations.

      Regardless, the point is that Islam is utterly destructive to the white race and its european culture, religion, and way of life. And let’s not forget that while Arab Muslims may hate blacks, a large number of them also hate whites. This evil religion is simply no friend to the white man. Human history and the ‘crusades’ also support this notion – and we must never forget this.

      • I agree that Islam is a system of life which is a threat to the continuance of what is recognised as Western civilisation. It is certainly an ideological beast, not particularly ‘religious’ in terms of ‘spirituality’.

        I know that the objective is turn the “land of war” into the “land of peace” and given that my home town is around 30+% Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslim, I also see how it “rolls out” in transforming a society. I am supportive of thwarting the Islamic dimension to our civilisational decline.

        However, if the ultimate (hypothetical) question was one of A) retaining a homogeneous white population in Britain and them ultimately being Muslim in faith, or B) Being continually and increasingly multiracial and retaining to be’ culturally’ European in their ‘way of life’, I would perhaps tend towards (A) rather than (B).

        This is because an ideology or religion can be overturned, rejected, or otherwise done away with in centuries to come, just like some economic policy, or ‘flat earth’ grip over a demographic – whereas once our people are gone, it is game over, and we will not have the choice available.

      • I also think that it is a travesty that America is heading the way as shown in the video above. I have always had a fond place in my heart for European Americans and America – and it disturbs me as to how it is heading, just as it disturbs me how other European nations and my own nation is heading.

        Given that, as I understand it, the original American ‘dream’ of settlement and inclusion was eligible to only “free, White men” and it was recognised that the nation was blessed with this commonality of traits and interests…. I can not even begin to think that the Founding Fathers gave thought as to how an entirely different ethos and system to their own (Islam) could come from ‘inside’ and overthrow it through demographics and subversion from the nations own governance.

        The Constitution, in my view, was not designed around the potential or likelihood that a system like Islam could overturn it and replace it with another way of life.

        • Talltrees

          “I can not even begin to think that the Founding Fathers gave thought as to how an entirely different ethos and system to their own (Islam) could come from ‘inside’ and overthrow it through demographics and subversion from the nations own governance.”

          They did. Quotes from Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and George Washington.

          Thomas Jefferson was concerned that, “they will bring with them the principles of government they leave. Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?

          Immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind –ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

          Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”

          Alexander Hamilton speculated that, “The safety of the Republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment:…The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to…corrupt the national spirit. Consider the example of another people who had been more generous with their immigration policy than prudence dictated: the American Indians. Prudence requires us to trace the history further and ask what has become of the nations of savages who exercised this policy, and who now occupies the territory which they then inhabited?

          The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

          George Washington contended in a 1794 letter to John Adams that “there was no particular need for the U.S. to encourage immigration, except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions. The policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”
          And, of course, according to them, immigrants were to be only “Free White men.”

          • That’s just it though, it was known to them that mass immigration of unsimilar peoples and cultures would destabilise the America they were trying to create.

            They had learnt from history and had studied what had gone wrong elsewhere in the world before they tried to establish the constitution of America (with all its internal safeguards clevery stitched together).

            This is why I think it would be inconceivable to them to see America today, and that they would not have particularly factored in the sheer insanity of what has talen place in terms of immigration, ‘cultural marxism’ being able to indoctrinate the ‘body’ of the American demographic as they hoped they would be, to the point it reaches some kind of death-spiral and death-wish.

            Change the demographics, you change the whole attitude and ethos of what they aspired to be America. The constitution and such cannot be sustainable when you have groups in their many millions who do not subscribe to those beliefs and even have their own system (ie, Islam) which they want to supersede it with.

            They knew this would be the case, hence being selective on who settled there and their thanks that they are not to be burdened with such follies that other parts of the world had committed. Now that things are as they are, stopping the rot and the pushes for ‘change’ will no doubt be extremely difficult.

          • Talltrees

            Our Founding Fathers were uniquely wise, intelligent, learned men. One would think, following advancements since then, our legislators would be more so. Instead, they have learned nothing and are unteachable.

      • anarchyst

        You are incorrect, bluffcreek1967. Islam is a political system masquerading as a “religion”. Islam controls EVERY aspect of a person’s life, beyond anything proposed by any other “belief system”.
        As such, there are NO Constitutional “protections” afforded Islam. The United States government would be correct in banning this alien political system. Adherents of this foreign political system should be required to register as “agents of a foreign government” with the U S Department of State pending deportation to their home countries.
        There is NO SUCH THING as a “moderate” (peaceful) muslim . . .

        • Talltrees

          You are absolutely right. It is a political system masquerading as a religion.

          Since it is a political system, competing with and attempting to take over our own, it should not be permitted here. We need to be just as finatical about removing it as Communism in the 50’s. Wish we had a McCarthy now.

          • A Freespeechzone

            Unless courageous Patriots who will take a stand against the threat of islam to destroy all freedoms we have been given by the sacrifice of our forefathers.

            Complacency has allowed this evil group to thrive and start to dominate some communities in our country–Patriots need to take action en mass to force islam back into the ‘box of religions’ in the USA like it was 50 years ago.

            Make NO mistake that the goal of islam is to destroy our Constitution and force sharia law on all–with no exceptions or tolerance. If muslims have to slaughter all Christians, Jews and ‘infidels’, they want that power and will do it. Look at their actions all over the world.

            Failure to do something to stop these mentally ill, anti-American and violent members and supporters of islam will ultimately destroy any sense of freedom and safety for our descendants–even it it requires another violent revolution.

            Our forefathers are watching….the peaceful future of the United States is in our hands. What will we do?

        • The__Bobster

          Islam controls EVERY aspect of a person’s life, beyond anything proposed by any other “belief system”.

          You obviously haven’t lived around devout Baptists. 😉

          • anarchyst

            Devout Baptists don’t have the concept of “jihad”, “taquiya” or “dhimmitude”. Look them up . . .

        • NordicHeritage

          Here is a man that can explain political Islam quite well.

    • Nathanwartooth

      Muslims are primarily Arab and Black. It’s a race issue for sure.

      • shmo123

        That’s not true. Indonesia is the largest Muslim country on earth, and they’re hardly Arab or black. But that doesn’t matter. What does is to keep Islam out of the Christian West. Cancer even if it were benign, is still cancer, and the philosophical foundations of Islam, let alone the theological, do not comport with the Christian foundation of the West. And they never will. The best way to keep and maintain peaceful relations with any Muslim countries, to the extent we have to, is to live apart–and the further the better.

  • A Freespeechzone

    Make no mistake that muslims have the goal of forcing islam on all Americans and are embolden by the courts and the likes of CAIR; they will NOT stop unless forced.

    Many in islam are brainwashed to the point that they will literally do anything to force islam and sharia law on the rest of us—including terrorism and violence; remember Boston?

    Look at ‘no go’ areas like Dearborn, MI.

    Time for all who value freedom and freedom of religion without force to rise up and force islam back into the ‘box of religions’ like it was 50 years ago; failure to do this puts our posterity at risk.

  • Why don’t Christians organize one of these where everyone goes on their knees to pray?

    • Talltrees

      That is a great idea. But we also need to block traffic, auto and pedestrian. Christians should request a prayer room in airports, schools, and places of employment. Churches need to ring their bells much louder so Muslims will cringe.

      • The__Bobster

        And we need to do it in THEIR countries. For authenticity, we can even groom their homely young women.

      • David Ashton

        I believe there was a case in Britain of Muslims objecting to the ringing of church bells, and so they were muted. In France Jules Isaac felt uncomfortable in Christian villages which rang church bells. I am not a Christian but the churches are part of the heritage in England and other European countries.

    • NordicHeritage

      Don’t know if you know this or not but christian groups are part of those bringing them over here. Case in point is Minneapolis where they now have a section called little Mogadishu from where they have imported so many muslim refugees.

      Example :

  • 5Sardonicus

    This New York Islamic demonstration seems much more restrained than those I’ve seen in formerly Great Britain. The anti-Zionist rhetoric is less virulent than similar demonstrations in many European countries. I understand that New York City has over a million Muslim immigrants so I would expect these demonstrations to grow every year.

    • This New York Islamic demonstration seems much more restrained than those I’ve seen in formerly Great Britain.

      It’s a matter of percentages and also that there’s a big difference between the NYPD and The Met.

  • David Ashton

    Any chance of a simultaneous “Gay Pride Parade” in the same vicinity?

  • Talltrees

    God does not oppress women. The way Christianity is taught oppresses women. It’s how the Bible is interpreted by those with agendas.

  • bigone4u

    Muzzie parades are just a way to get in the faces of whites and stick their ugly tongues out at us, while mocking our inability to kick them out of the USA. I wonder what an anti-muzzie parade would look like? Christians, Asians, Gays, lots of women, etc. all united to spit right back at muzzies and their stone age religion of hate. Muzzies alienate everyone no matter where they go and no muzzie pride parade is going to change that.

  • OlderWoman

    ‘…atheist means not believing in any god.’

    Actually, atheism is the belief that there is no God.

    • Sqeptique

      I find atheists (what, 9% of the population?) creepy. Just sayin’. Also quite arrogant.

  • jackryanvb

    Agreed. We have to play the cards we are dealt. Throat cutting, women beating, 7th century Muslim immigrants who hate all things western, hate Israel and won’t let regular White people have a beer – regular Whites will resent, resist them.

    We would have to be complete idiots not to make the Muslim immigrants the #1 propaganda enemy.

    We would have to be….idiots.

    (Most of our people are idiots. We wasted the 80s fighting the Russians, arming nasty Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan fighting our kinsmen the Russians.)

    • It is certainly a card to play, but the problem with constructing this blanket image of “throat cutting, women beating, 7th Century immigrants who hate all things Western and won’t let regular White people have a beer” is that it does not particularly hold up to scrutiny for the vast amount of people who come into contact with Muslims in Britain.

      This is also why the likes of Tommy Robinson are potentially quite dangerous to the cause of our self preservation, not useful tools to it. The closer they are scrutinised, the more their argument can fall apart.

      This is because they are fighting a fog of ‘attitude’ and ‘strains of doctrine’, not something more solid and definable, such as race, ethnicity and the righteousness of the preservation of the indigenous European people.

      They actually actively work against those solid arguments in the media, proudly proclaiming their commitment to multi-racialism, showing their multiracial families and condemning ‘racism’. It is not all ‘playing clever’ – they genuinely believe it.

      They say they are against Islam, but when they are pushed hard on it, they say they are only against ‘extreme’ Islam and ‘extremists’. That in itself is a huge own-goal to me, no matter if it is being said for expediency or as part of a genuine belief.

      So it is okay if millions are Muslims are here and taking over and expanding their demographic in the future – as long as they behave themselves and allow ‘liberalism’ to continue?! It gets to be a complete nonsense!

      The main grief many counter-jihadists have with Islam, when really put under the microscope, is that it is a threat to multiculturalism, multi-racialism and the cultural Marxism which poisons our society today. They essentially seek to defend the status-quo position of how we are now living. That is certainly not my fight.

      The Muslims may wish to curtail self destructive lifestyles, shove homosexuals back into the closet, crack down on drug abuse and reject many of the “ills” which have befallen the rest of
      society (and put us all in the dangerous position of being so ‘weakened’ in the first place).

      Many people are concerned about Islam and Islamification of this country – and I agree that it should absolutely be a concern and that nationalists should use it as part of a toolbox of recruitment
      – but as I said earlier, when the ogre like ‘caricature’ does not stack up to real life interactions with the majority of the populace you are seeking to recruit, it can become detrimental and actually work against you because they will tend to reject what you are saying.

      My town is over 30% Muslim. Do they hate all things western? No. Many of them are actually just as bedded into the “mainstream culture” as anybody else – with Rhianna, X-Factor, McDonald’s, the latest fads and crazes of commercialism, etc.

      Do they deny the British people from having a beer? Far from it, they often serve it, they provide it in their shops, they ferry the drunken British idiots back from their hedonistic alcohol fuelled nights out every weekend in the way of their Taxis.

      Are they throat cutting and women beating? No, not really. Not
      for the most part. We know that a distinct proportion are drug dealers, groomers, fraudsters, hardened Islamists, but a majority are not this way at the moment.

      Let’s say a friend of yours works in a store in town which is staffed with 80% Muslim staff (which many now are here in my town).

      You head down there to tell them the threat from this barbarous like “7th century” cult, only to find that the staff are very polite, very reserved, well spoken, well educated and well dressed.

      They are talking to your friend about how they helped look after their elderly disabled relative last night and whether they would like to sponsor a charity event they are taking part in to raise funds for a local good cause. They are on the face of it good, honest people – but they uphold what they see as Islamic virtues and values.

      How well do you think this rhetoric of “throat cutting, women beating, 7th century dwelling” lunatics will go down with people like your friend or anybody else who actually familiar with Muslims in this way?

      They will, and do, think you are the lunatic who is ‘ignorant’ one with ‘extreme’ views. I have had it myself.

      Of course, we know what the ultimate score is and how things will end up when the balance tips and when the demographics dictate a more hardened and more Islamic compliance. We know what happens when the ratchet tightens.

      They however will simply see what is under their nose, and it does not always stack up to the wild image that is so often portrayed. This leaves a problematic gap.

      We may be able to convince them that when the tide turns it will become greatly different, but there is only so far you can go before you get “detached” from the realities of the people you are trying to convince.

      Arguing in favour of nationalistic credentials, such as racial self preservation, self sustainability, healthier and more moral societies, etc, do not place you at odds with people’s perceptions nor does it rely on plaiting some kind of fog of trying to pin down just what degree of fanaticism with Islam becomes a problem.

      Eg. If a Muslim is pro-Western for the most part, into freedom of speech, into the same cultural reference points (football, music, food, tv shows, etc) but happens to go to a Mosque on a Friday, would like to see some kind of mild Sharia take place for ‘family disputes’ (because it is cheaper than spending £1000’s
      on lawyers in the prevailing system) and does not agree with paying usury to banksters so takes a liking to Sharia compliant banking, where does he or she fit? What is the threshold we can go forward with?

      The country is being filled up with these kinds of people – and we are in the tricky position of having to define what is and what is not acceptable in societal terms whilst we racially slip down the pan forever.

      The more we try and “box” around it and claim it is just about extremism, or “doing what the Romans do”, or that they need to “fit into our ways” – the more harder it might become to
      propose racial self preservation as a factor if (or when) this
      amalgamation (or redefinition) of what is “British” occurs.

      For that notion and definition is now slipping and getting to be more fluid. Not for nationalists, but for general society that is being manipulated into a new narrative of ‘who we are today’.

      People who bang on endlessly about certain conspiracies and such can be detrimental to winning over the public. It is often too much for people, too detached from their understanding of the world.

      But at the same time, those whose only argument is “suicide bombing” or “limb amputating” supporters of “paedo prophets” are equally as useless and equally a liability in my view.

      This is perhaps why I get a bet cagey when I see these kinds of arguments and commentary (and stories) become more common on websites that have traditionally had a racial, not religious, theme.

      I agree with using Islam as a reference point and I agree it needs to be tackled – but it needs to be tackled as part of a whole, not singularly.

      • jackryanvb

        Your long over intellectual comment shows you don’t get it.

        Our struggle is simple, we need to present our struggle in short, simple ways:

        It’s “us” against “them”.

        We need to keep “them” out of “our” countries, “our neighborhoods”, expel those that are here.

        Making dark, hairy, racially alien Paki, Arab, Black, Turko Mongolian Muslim extremists, White child rapists “the enemy”, it’s an easy sell. Why make life complicated?

        So we’re stretching the truth a bit, using the fear of Muslim immigrants as justification to keep out 40 million additional Mexican, Central American Mestizos who are nominally “Christian”. Who cares?

        Go with what works.

    • Hindsight is 20/20. Turns out that arming the Afghans against the Russians was a really big mistake. At least the Russian were (at the time) an enemy we could see and whose capabilities and intentions were clear. These violent terrorist type Muslims are the enemy we can’t see, who like to hide in the shadows, and I don’t mean that in the illegal Mexican alien parlance.

      Never arm non-white people when their intention is to hurt other white people, if you’re not fond of other white people. It should be a lesson learned.

  • David Ashton

    Bring it on! White pyjamas and black hejabs on the other side, a colorfest.

    Actually it would be such fun that you cannot imagine anyone in City Hall daring to authorize it (except the week before his own retirement).

  • Talltrees

    And where were the anti-Muslimists parading against them in the streets of Manhattan?

    With help from Tommy Robinson and the English Defense League, the British are beginning to catch on in England. See them quickly get a group together to march. Notice they are all White.

  • Kalel Jorelson

    Are you sure? I thought it meant “take no prisoners.”


    Religion, or Who has the best imaginary friend

  • saxonsun

    There are tons of gay folks who are married–I was one. And why? Because of this sick straight world. That is ending now, this hiding–thank God.

  • jackryanvb

    With Muslims, over half the male population is named “Mohamed”. So it’s just statistically certain, that some guy named “Mohamed ” was a flaming homosexual. So some movie maker for our side needs to put put a lot of publicity saying he ‘s making a movie “Mohhamed was gay”. The international Muslim community is so stupid that they’ll assume that the film is talking about their prophet and they’ll riot, attack gay people, form ugly mobs, do the violent, hateful things Muslims do. And then the Left will have to apologize or defend the gay community, freedom of speech against Muslim mobs.

    Have some fun out there.

    • IOW, cut the traffic lights and create a car wreck at the intersectionality of Islam and LGBTQMIAPDLOLPLPLTH. And as a bonus, it will create yet a better propaganda opportunity to sell immigration patriotism.

  • Paleoconn

    hmmm Jihadists vs NYC liberals. Pass the popcorn!

    I’d pay good money to see the hot female Muslim speaker go at it with the wimpy bald guy in the business suit who was afraid to say anything to the narrator. She’d whup him something fierce.