Re: Ways of removing Islam from the West

[Byker]

"Topaz" wrote in message news:72f5ect4u6spnlcqd...@4ax.com...
>
> Tiptoeing around Our Problems

What must we do to put an end to this jihad? Although each Western nation
has its own specific political context, governmental structure, and legal
requirements for going to war, there are a number of general actions that
all Westerners and/or Western nations can and should take if we want to end
this barbarous assault. Here are ten essential steps:

1. Acknowledge that we are at war.

Westerners must acknowledge that we are at war with Islamic states and
jihadist groups that have attacked our countries and killed our countrymen.
We are at war regardless of whether our political leaders have declared war,
regardless of whether Western intellectuals admit we are at war, regardless
of whether anyone acknowledges the fact. Our alternatives do not include
whether to go to war. Our alternatives are whether to win the war that is
being waged against us, or not to do so. Our alternatives are: victory or
submission.


2. Name the enemy.

We cannot target the enemy that is attacking us—much less defeat it—if we
are unable or unwilling to specify who and what it is. We must name the
enemy. We must name it accurately. And we must demand that our governments
and politicians name it accurately.

Our enemy in this war is: Islamic regimes that have in any way sponsored or
supported attacks against the West, and jihadist groups that have planned or
executed such attacks. The enemy regimes are primarily those in Iran and
Saudi Arabia; and the jihadist groups include Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood,
Al Qaeda, and Islamic State (aka Daesh).

Importantly, although Islam is a philosophic and cultural enemy of the
West—in that it opposes every principle of Western civilization and calls
for the murder of those who refuse to submit to “Allah”—Islam is not our
military enemy.

Islam is a religion—a body of ideas—and, militarily speaking, one cannot be
at war with ideas. What would one bomb?

The relationship between Islam and our current military enemy is essentially
of the same kind as the relationship between Nazism and Nazi Germany or
Shinto and Imperialist Japan in World War II. Nazism is an ideology, a body
of ideas; Nazi Germany was a state ruled by a regime that was motivated by
its leaders’ and supporters’ acceptance of those ideas. Shinto is a
religion; Imperialist Japan was a state ruled by a regime that was motivated
by its leaders’ and supporters’ acceptance of that religion. Likewise, Islam
is a religion; various states, regimes, and groups today are motivated by
their leaders’ and supporters’ and members’ acceptance of that religion.

Islam motivates our military enemy. And this is an important fact. But Islam
has not attacked the West; Islamic regimes and jihadist groups have. Islam
cannot be eliminated; Islamic regimes and jihadist groups can. Our military
enemy today is not Islam but the regimes and groups that embrace that
religion, take it seriously, and thus seek to kill us in the name of their
alleged God.

Grasping this distinction is vital, because naming our enemy accurately is
crucial to winning the war. If we misname the enemy, calling it “Islam” or
“Radical Islam”—or, worse, “terrorism” or “extremism” or the like—then we
won’t know specifically where to deploy our forces, whom or what to bomb, or
what winning this war means (more on this below).

Additionally, if we accept the notion that our military enemy is “Islam,” we
might come to think that in order to win the war we must kill every
self-described Muslim on the planet, which would be a moral atrocity (to put
it mildly).

Although all jihadists are Muslim, not all self-described Muslims take Islam
seriously enough to engage in, materially support, or encourage jihad. And
unless a Muslim does so, he cannot properly be regarded as our military
enemy.

Like the vast majority of today’s Jews and Christians, many of today’s
Muslims refrain from acting in accordance with the murderous or otherwise
rights-violating tenets of their religion. This does not absolve unserious,
non-rights-violating Muslims of any and all responsibility for jihad, but it
does limit their responsibility to a sub-legal, sub-political level.

Just as we do not and should not hold all Jews and Christians legally or
politically responsible for assaults or murders committed in accordance with
their religious scriptures, so we should not hold all Muslims legally or
politically responsible for assaults or murders committed in accordance with
theirs.

Merely believing in a religion that calls for rights violations does not, in
and of itself, violate rights. To violate rights, one must initiate physical
force against people, either directly—by, for instance, hitting, stabbing,
or shooting them—or indirectly—by, for instance, materially supporting those
who commit such acts, or encouraging or inciting others to commit such acts.

If a Muslim in any way materially supports, encourages, or incites jihad—if
he provides jihadists with weapons, shelter, information, or the like; or if
he calls for aggression against Westerners—he is, by that fact, an agent of
the enemy and should be treated accordingly. But if he merely “believes in”
the tenets of Islam and does not practice the rights-violating tenets of the
religion, he cannot properly be held legally or politically responsible for
practicing them. We recognize this fact in regard to other religionists and
religions, and we morally must recognize it in regard to Muslims and Islam
as well.

Our military enemy in this war is Muslims who engage in jihad, or materially
support jihad, or encourage or incite jihad. These are the Muslims of which
the Islamic regimes and jihadist groups are comprised. And these are the
Muslims, regimes, and groups we must eliminate.


3. Acknowledge and assert our absolute right to self-defense—and recognize
that individuals, groups, and regimes that engage in or call for jihad
against the West thereby forfeit their rights entirely.

Westerners must acknowledge that we have an absolute right to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness—and that this includes the right to
self-defense: the right to do whatever is necessary to eliminate threats
posed by regimes, groups, or individuals who seek to kill us or otherwise
violate our rights.

Although Muslims have a right to believe whatever they want to
believe—including the nonsense that “Allah” exists and is the source of
truth and moral law—they do not have a right to act on their beliefs if
doing so involves committing murder or otherwise violating rights. There is
no such thing as a right to practice religious tenets that call for rights
violations. The notion of a right to violate rights is a patent
contradiction in terms.

We must also recognize that although rights are inalienable (meaning they
cannot be taken away), they are not unrelinquishable. One can relinquish or
forfeit one’s rights by violating the rights of others. If a person, group,
or regime engages in murder or terrorism, or aids in such activities, or
incites others to engage in such activities, he or it thereby forfeits his
or its rights entirely.

Jihadists and their supporters have no rights. They are, by their own chosen
actions, right-less animals. Thus, when we kill them in retaliation, we do
not violate their rights. We cannot violate that which does not exist.


4. Define victory.

We cannot win this war if we do not know exactly what winning it means. If
we want to win, we must define victory—and we must do so in a way that
specifies what is necessary for us to return to normal, jihad-free living.

Victory against this enemy means: (a) the elimination of all Islamic regimes
that have in any way sponsored or supported attacks against the West, and
(b) the elimination of all known jihadist groups (and individuals) that have
attacked, aided in attacks, or encouraged attacks against Westerners or
Western nations.

Only when this two-part goal is accomplished can we return to normal,
jihad-free living. Only then will we have won this war.


5. Use the full force of our militaries to eliminate all Islamic regimes and
jihadist groups that have supported or executed attacks against our
countries or our countrymen.

Which military strategies and weapons will best serve the purpose of
eliminating the Islamic regimes and jihadist groups that have attacked the
West is a matter for military experts and generals to decide. But all
thinking and decision making pertaining to this matter should be guided by
the principle that our respective governments and militaries have a moral
obligation to eliminate the regimes and jihadists who have attacked us—and
to do so as quickly as possible and with minimal risk to the lives of our
civilians and soldiers.

Western nations in general—and the United States in particular—have
extremely powerful militaries. America’s military alone could eliminate any
Islamic regime or jihadist group on the planet in a matter of days (if not
hours)—if the U.S. government unleashed its forces. And America’s military
combined with those of other Western nations could eliminate the entire
field of enemy regimes and groups in short order—if the West chose to do so.

The jihad against the West persists only because the West has not chosen to
end it. This is a moral atrocity. Westerners have a selfish, moral
obligation to end this assault on our lives and the lives of our loved ones.
Permitting this enemy to remain in existence is like permitting known serial
killers to roam our neighborhoods. It is sheer insanity.

It is time to end the insanity. It is time to end the jihad.

Importantly, by eliminating these murderous groups and regimes, we would not
only solve the immediate problem of their existence; we would also strike a
significant blow to the root of the longer-term problem. By summarily
eliminating the existing Islamic regimes and jihadist groups that have
attacked the West, we would significantly discredit the religion that
motivates jihad and that will continue spawning more jihadists until it is
discredited.

Although, as noted above, we cannot eliminate Islam (a body of ideas), we
can discredit it—and doing so is an essential aspect of winning this war. By
demonstrating to jihadists and would-be jihadists that their fantasy God is
powerless against the West’s very real militaries—by showing them that
Westerners can easily destroy the entire Muslim world if we so choose—we
would show them that jihad is a thoroughly hopeless cause (more on this
below).

Of course, no matter what the West does now, some preexisting jihadist cells
will erupt and murder or attempt to murder more Westerners. At this point,
nothing can stop that. We live in a causal environment, and Western
governments and leaders have permitted these Islamic regimes and jihadist
groups to remain in existence and to plan, plot, recruit, and develop cells
for so long that future attacks by existing cells are a certainty. The
question is: Will we tackle the broader problem now and thus reduce the
number and intensity of future attacks—or not?

If we fail to eliminate the jihad-sponsoring regimes and jihadist groups,
not only will existing jihadist cells attack the West; new jihadist cells
will continue to form and attack as well. If, on the other hand, we end
these regimes and groups now, we will cut our losses dramatically and take a
giant step toward normal, jihad-free living. The correct choice couldn’t be
clearer.


6. Airdrop leaflets explaining the West’s new policy and encouraging the
establishment of rights-respecting governments.

After obliterating jihad-sponsoring regimes and jihadist groups, Western
nations should airdrop leaflets throughout the Muslim world explaining that
henceforth this is how the West will respond to any and all jihadist threats
against Westerners, and encouraging the people of the Muslim world to make
the choices and take the actions necessary to join the civilized world.

These leaflets should read roughly as follows:

Dear Arabs, Persians, and Muslims,

This letter is from the coalition of Western nations that recently destroyed
the Islamic regimes in Iran and Saudi Arabia as well as various jihadist
groups that have attacked Westerners or Western nations.

We are writing to inform you of our new policy regarding jihad against the
West and to encourage you to join the civilized world.

Our new policy regarding jihad against the West is that it is forbidden.
Henceforth, any and all people or groups that engage in or advocate jihad
against Westerners or Western nations will be summarily eliminated. Please
do not test us on this. We will not issue additional warnings.

We do not want to be at war with you. And we no longer are. War implies that
both sides in a conflict have some degree of military power and the will to
use it. We have sufficient power to eliminate the entire Muslim world in a
matter of days (actually seconds). And we have demonstrated our will to use
it. Relatively speaking, you have no military power at all.

What you do have is the power of choice. And your alternatives are: Cease
jihad against the West or die.

We want to establish friendly, mutually beneficial relations with you. We
want to be able to engage in trade with you; we want to be able to hire you
to work for our companies, and to be hired by you to work for yours; we want
to be able to visit your countries and have you visit ours; we want to be
able to benefit from each other’s rational ideas, innovations, creativity,
prosperity. In short, we want to live in peace and harmony with you.

But in order for us to do so, you must meet two conditions:

You must repudiate all forms and degrees of rule by Islamic or sharia law.
If you want to believe in “Allah,” that is your prerogative. But if you
attempt to govern or in any way rule others by means of Islamic law, you are
by that fact unfit for peaceful interaction with the civilized world.
You must establish substantially rights-respecting governments—governments
that recognize and protect each individual’s right to think and speak and
act as he sees fit. Such governments entail complete separation of Islam and
state. (See condition number one.)
If you choose to meet these conditions, you will be able to engage with the
West in all manner of mutually beneficial, life-serving ways. If you choose
not to meet these conditions, you will suffer the consequences of that wrong
choice.

Our militaries are watching you, and they have orders to similarly eliminate
any and all individuals or groups that make any effort to engage in jihad
against the West. Please do not require them to take further action.

Please, instead, choose to repudiate sharia law and to establish
rights-respecting governments. Your reward for making this choice will be
lives of prosperity and happiness for you and your loved ones.

Sincerely,

The people of the West


7. Acknowledge that jihadists and their sponsoring regimes bear full
responsibility for all death and destruction resulting from retaliation
necessitated by their aggression.

If a gang of thugs opens fire on a group of concertgoers, and if a
concertgoer draws a gun and fires back at the gang members—thereby killing
an innocent bystander—who is morally responsible for the bystander’s death?
The gang of thugs is, and every thinking adult knows this.

This is a matter of the law of causality: He who initiates physical force
against people is morally responsible for any and all death and destruction
caused by the retaliatory force he thereby necessitates.

The same principle applies to jihadists’ attacks against the West. When the
West’s use of retaliatory force against Islamic regimes and jihadist groups
leads to the deaths of innocents, their deaths are fully the responsibility
of the regimes and groups that initiated aggression and thus necessitated
retaliation.

Of course, leftists and other apologists for jihad will deny this. But their
words have no bearing on the laws of nature. Unlike “Allah,” the law of
causality is real. People can deny it, but their denials have no bearing on
the fact. Just as people can deny the law of gravity but cannot alter the
fact that it exists, so too they can deny causal connections regarding human
choices and actions, but they cannot alter the fact that these connections
exist.

Causal connections are not matters of opinion; they are matters of fact.
When a person, group, or regime necessitates retaliatory force, he or it is
responsible for the consequences of that retaliatory force.


8. Answer objections to the effect that “This approach will fuel more
jihad!” with observations as to why that makes no sense.

Claims to the effect that “killing jihadists will cause more jihad” are
absurd; and, when such objections arise, we should point out why this is so.
Here are a few facts to have at the ready:

First, jihadists cannot attack or plan or plot or recruit if they are dead.
And Islamic regimes cannot spawn or sponsor jihad if they do not exist.
These truths are self-evident.

Second, in the wake of a campaign of total destruction of Islamic regimes
and jihadist groups that have attacked us in the name of an allegedly
all-powerful “Allah,” even the dimmest mullahs and jihadists who escaped
destruction would have to wonder whether Allah is as great and powerful as
they had assumed. They might even begin to doubt his existence. “If Allah is
not willing or able to save us or our regimes from the retaliatory wrath of
the West,” they might wonder, “then maybe he’s not all he’s cracked up to be
. . .” The more intelligent survivors might make substantially deeper and
broader connections: “Maybe, instead of serving Allah, we should serve
ourselves. Maybe we should do what those triumphant, wealthy, happy
Westerners do, and go by reason rather than faith; be productive rather than
destructive; pursue life and happiness rather than death and martyrdom;
establish rights-respecting republics rather than rights-violating
theocracies . . .”

Of course, not all surviving jihadists would pause and think. Some would
doggedly persist in their efforts to murder Westerners. But such
mathematically challenged jihadists would be relatively few in number, and
Western forces could hunt them down and eliminate them in short order.

Third, any Muslims who attack Westerners because we killed jihadists who
murdered our countrymen were already with the enemy and are now just making
it known. This information is beneficial to us because it enables us to
identify and kill these newly exposed jihadists as well—and to do so sooner
rather than later, affording them less time to plan, plot, recruit, murder.

Additional facts can be cited in response to claims that “killing jihadists
causes jihad,” but the foregoing indicates why such objections don’t make
sense.


9. Call Islam what it is. Call dishonesty what it is. And call apologists
for Islam what they are.

Westerners must not let leftists or other apologists for Islam get away with
misrepresenting or excusing this exceedingly evil religion.

Islam is a religion of war, conquest, enslavement, rape, pedophilia,
bloodlust, and death worship—it is a religion of unspeakable evil—and
everyone paying attention knows this, including those who claim otherwise.
As I wrote in the opening of “The Evil of Whitewashing Islam”:

One religion today regularly motivates large numbers of its followers to
murder, behead, rape, and enslave people across the globe. That religion is
Islam. Not Christianity. Not Judaism. Not Buddhism. Islam. Only Islam. You
know this. I know this. Everyone paying attention knows this.

The Koran explicitly and repeatedly commands Muslims to engage in jihad or
“holy war” whether they like it or not. “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s
Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be
that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing
which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know” (e.g., 2:216, 9:38).
The Koran explicitly and repeatedly commands Muslims to “kill the
unbelievers wherever you find them” (e.g., 2:191, 9:5), “strike off their
heads” (e.g., 8:12, 47:4), make sex slaves of their wives and daughters
(e.g., 4:24, 33:50), and continue this jihad “until all opposition ends and
all submit to ‘Allah’” (e.g., 8:39, 9:29). You know this. I know this.
Everyone paying attention knows this.

According to Islam, the “Prophet” Muhammad is the ideal role model for all
boys and men; he sets the perfect example for how to live and wage jihad.
Muhammad regularly killed and beheaded unbelievers (e.g., the massacre of
Banu Qurayza), made slaves of those he conquered but didn’t kill (he had
many slaves), “married” (i.e., repeatedly raped) slave girls (e.g., Safiyah
and Rayhana), raped children as young as nine years old (e.g., Aisha), and
founded a religion in which all such behavior is regarded as morally great
because the “Prophet” did it. You know this. I know this. Everyone paying
attention knows this.

Of course, the moment anyone mentions the murderous and evil tenets of Islam
or practices of Muhammad, leftists and other apologists for Islam begin
harping about the murderous and evil tenets of Judaism and Christianity.
What are we to make of this?

Although Jewish and Christian scriptures call for murder and other rights
violations, almost all Jews and Christians today disavow or ignore those
parts of their religions. Their adherence to their scriptures has been
tempered by the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and by the obvious need
to reject patently barbaric religious tenets in order to live as civilized
human beings. Given the clear and rationally unarguable fact that virtually
no Jews or Christians today are motivated by their religions to murder or
enslave or rape or the like—and given the equally clear and equally
unarguable fact that many millions of Muslims today are motivated by Islam
to do so—choosing to focus on the evils of Judaism and Christianity rather
than on the evils of Islam is obscenely evasive.

When educated adults deny that Islam is a religion of war and unspeakable
evil—or when they imply that Judaism or Christianity somehow pose threats
similar to those posed by Islam today—or when they imply that the tenets of
other religions somehow mitigate the clear and present danger of Islam—they
are not merely mistaken. They are lying. They are pretending that facts are
other than they know them to be. And, in so doing, they are aiding the
jihadists.

This kind of aid to the enemy is not illegal, but it is evil, and those who
engage in it should be labeled accordingly, as “apologists for jihadists.”
And they should be treated accordingly. They should be morally condemned,
publicly shamed, and thoroughly ostracized.

Islamic regimes and jihadist groups have repeatedly attacked and continue
attacking the West because we embrace secular, Enlightenment values and thus
refuse to submit to their alleged God. They have already murdered many
thousands of Westerners, and they aim to murder all of us. Some Westerners
want to identify the relevant facts so that we can solve the problem. Others
want to obfuscate the facts and thus enable the jihad to continue. Some
Westerners are moral. Others—who don’t deserve to be called Westerners—are
evil.

This is no time to mince words or to hedge the truth. It is a time to call
everything exactly what it is.


10. Acknowledge the difference between being “politically correct” and being
morally correct—and proudly embrace the latter.

The approach advocated here is not “politically correct.” Rather, it is
morally correct. And this difference makes all the difference necessary to
justify it fully.

“Political correctness” requires that we pretend that facts are other than
they are. Moral correctness requires that we call things exactly what they
are. “Political correctness” denies that Islam is a religion of war and
opposes the elimination of Islamic regimes and jihadist groups that attack
and murder Westerners. Moral correctness acknowledges that Islam is a
religion of war and demands the elimination of regimes and groups that
attack Westerners. “Political correctness” is morally wrong. Moral
correctness is morally right.

Of course, in being morally correct, we will “trigger” the ire of leftists,
who will call us names, such as “Racist!”—as if Islam were a race;
“Islamophobe!”—as if fear of those who embrace a religion that requires them
to murder us is somehow irrational; “Warmonger!”—as if defending ourselves
and our loved ones against faith-driven animals who seek to murder us is
somehow wrong. But being on the receiving end of such inanities is a small
price to pay for protecting our rights and the rights of our loved ones.


If a sufficient number of Westerners were to embrace these ten principles of
action, the jihad against the West would soon be a thing of the past. We can
end this god-awful nightmare and return to normal, jihad-free living. We
know what we need to do. We just need to do it.

http://bit.ly/1YC2jXh

[CheckBox]

Yes, it seems 1,2,3 simple.

But it's never that simple.

While the jihadist organizers know what they're
up to, all the Moslems see only what they want
to see - opposition to outside micro-management
and prejudice and they are not going to forget
the British and French colonialism either. Their
world is Their World - the right and proper way -
and anybody, even evil-minded jihadists, who
fights for them (or SAYS they do) will get a lot
of support.

Are they wrong ? Any more wrong than any other
historically shit-upon culture ? Any more wrong
than strutting Brits and French and US CIA agents
pushing alien Rights and Wrongs down their
throats ?

The relativist view HAS to be mentioned.

In PRACTICE the jihadists are far worse, far more
dangerous, even to their own, than anything the
west currently has to offer. They will be far more
oppressive, more controlling, more evil than
France or the UK or USA. Death and terror
will follow in their wake.

But I don't think any of us can do much about it,
at least not directly. Western culture has been
whispering in Islams ear for a long time now.
For awhile you could see women in fashionable
clothes in Iraq and Iran and even Afghanistan.
A lot of Iranians yearn for a return to such moderate
times, but the extreme few stand in their way and
torture and extermination are their tools of power.

And no, resistance is NOT easy. Hell, Americans
can barely stand up to wimpy "woke" and their
nebulous threats. "Obey or we'll throw a tantrum !"
is enough to scare our leaders and business
magnates. It's true.

I think, quietly, we can convince a lot of Moslems
that there is a better middle way. The problem is
the damage their "saviors" do in the meanwhile.
Said "saviors" KNOW our responses will only
help build their case. Bin Laden was well aware
of this paradox - prick the infidels and watch them
prove they are the Great Satan. This is a serious
problem and for now there may be no good solutions.

[Byker]

"CheckBox" wrote in message
news:o7cmag9j9aktkop00...@4ax.com...

> Yes, it seems 1,2,3 simple.
>
> But it's never that simple.
>
> While the jihadist organizers know what they're
> up to, all the Moslems see only what they want
> to see - opposition to outside micro-management
> and prejudice and they are not going to forget
> the British and French colonialism either. Their
> world is Their World - the right and proper way -
> and anybody, even evil-minded jihadists, who
> fights for them (or SAYS they do) will get a lot
> of support.

A little something from 2016. Have things gotten any better?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Liberals are VERMIN!" wrote in message
news:2f2c0840-5edf-47e2...@googlegroups.com...

> Seems that Obama's weakling act isn't getting it done. He can't even
> bring himself to use the term, "radical Muslim." So, in order to fix the
> European Muslim issue, they should take these steps:
> 1. Deport all known radicals. There are 5000 or more in Europe that they
> know about.
> 2. Deport all unemployed single Muslim men.
> 3. Deport all Muslims who travel back and forth to their home countries.
> 4. Deport Muslims who speak deferentially about Jihad.
> 5. Close the borders to ALL Muslim immigration.

That's a good start

How Muslim Repatriation Could Work

Those of us who contemplate the problems Muslim immigration and
proliferation are causing in Europe sooner or later realize that the only
possible way of preserving European civilization is for the Muslims to
leave. But how could that come about? Below I present a sketch of a possible
repatriation policy that could be implemented by a future government that is
interested in preserving the well-being of its people instead of waging war
on them.

Stage One: Registration

First of all, all Muslims will be required to register as such with the
government. There should be a deadline for doing this. After the deadline,
it becomes a criminal offence to be an unregistered Muslim in the country.
New converts to Islam are given a grace period in which they must register.
There will need to be some form of tribunal able to judge whether a person
is a Muslim or not even if they have not registered as such. The standard of
proof should be the civil one of "more likely than not" rather than the
criminal one of "beyond a reasonable doubt", even though criminal penalties
will apply. The penalties for failure to register as a Muslim should be
forfeiture of all worldly goods (even the clothes they are wearing) of the
Muslim and all family members up to a certain degree of separation,
following by expulsion from the country.

Stage Two: Voluntary Departure

After the initial registration process is complete, all Muslims should be
told that they are required to leave the country within 6 months. They can
go wherever they like, as long as it's away from Britain. They can take all
of their goods and assets with them. During this period, all registered
Muslims leaving the country for good, giving up their British passports,
will be paid a certain amount, say £10,000 to help with their resettlement
costs. This will be per head and will apply even to children so a Pakistani
family of man and wife with 5 children could be going home with £70,000 in
their pockets. That is a lot of money in Pakistan and should allow them to
buy a nice, big house and enjoy a comfortable lifestyle there. There can be
no complaints that they are not being generously treated.

The money will only be paid if the Muslims are leaving not only Britain but
the European Union. Many Muslims would seek to use their EU passports to
move elsewhere in Europe. Offloading the Muslims to another European country
would not be responsible, however, as all west European countries share the
same predicament.

During the voluntary departure period, all Muslims in public employment
should be dismissed from their jobs and all Muslims should lose their
eligibility for benefits. The public practice of the Muslim faith should be
prohibited. Mosques should be confiscated by the state and demolished. These
measures are necessary to incentivize the departure of the Muslims.

Stage Three: Involuntary Departure

After 6 months, the involuntary expulsion phase begins. In this phase, no
compensation is paid to the Muslims who are leaving and they have no choice
about their final destination. The Muslims are removed by force and the
money is instead paid to the governments of whichever country agrees to take
them. There are dirt-poor countries in the third world that would probably
be happy to take the Muslims off our hands for £10,000 per head or so. If
necessary, we should pay more, perhaps throwing in some military
training/equipment or foreign aid to sweeten the deal. If it proves
difficult to find countries willing to accept the Muslims, we should
consider alternatives. These would include simply occupying parts of
countries which have no effectively functioning government, such as Somalia,
and offloading the Muslims there. Another alternative is to recognize a
separatist movement somewhere, where there may be a militia in conflict with
a central government, acknowledging it as a separate country in return for a
promise to take the Muslims off our hands. Of course we could also supply
money and equipment in this case too.

Consideration should also be given to creating a completely new country and
using it as a sink for undesirables (mainly the Muslims due to be expelled,
but it could also prove useful for dealing with others such as illegal
immigrants or asylum seekers). Africa would be the most obvious choice for
creating a new country. Governments there are poor and the borders are
largely artificial anyway, having been drawn up by European imperialists
rather than evolving over the course of centuries according to the natural
contours of geography, ethnicity and popular feeling.

Britain could offer to purchase territory from an existing African state or,
in extremis, could simply occupy land and create a new state there without
the agreement of the government which is formally in control of it. For the
first few years, deportees could be given assistance in the form of money,
food and agricultural equipment in order to establish themselves there.
Britain would need to maintain some degree of imperial military control of
the new country until the process of deportation was complete. If it is
desired to maintain the newly created country as an outlet for illegal
immigrants, imperial control would have to be maintained indefinitely.
Imperial control could take the form of either maintaining a military
presence at the points of ingress to the country (for example ports or
airports) or, if it was thought desirable, Britain could attempt to play a
shaping role in forming the government of the new country.

As an alternative to Africa, the Arctic could also be considered. Although
generally inhospitable to human habitation, parts of the Arctic are capable
of sustaining some forms of agriculture.

In this way it should be possible to get rid of the entire Muslim population
in Britain (or any other European country) in a reasonably humane way within
a few years. Pursuing a policy like this is the only way to prevent civil
wars breaking out in Western Europe within a few decades. Many people have
strong moral inhibitions about implementing a repatriation program. Those
inhibitions must be overcome. It is, quite simply, the only way to preserve
our way of life.

http://tinyurl.com/pojkucv (dead link)