Friday 7 October 2011

The 5 Stages Of Islamism

The 5 Stages of Islamist Conquest (tried and tested in over 56 Countries over 1400 years)

The UK is at Stage 3.

America is at Stage 1

History shows that Stages 2,3,4,and 5 follow as sure as day follows night

The Five Stages of Islamism.

Below is a timeline of how Islamists colonise and conquer a nation.

The process is defined by five stages.

Stage 1

Liberals, Socialists and Capitalists allow mass Muslim immigration into a nation. This is done on the grounds of creating a pool of cheap labour for the Right, a new voting bloc for the Left and to undermine Nationalism by the Liberals. Rather than being forced to Integrate into the host society, the Muslims are allowed to colonise areas under the ideology of Multi-Culturalism. As a result of the failure to integrate them, they retain their ancestral cultures and high birth rates. The Welfare State allows unemployed Muslims to sustain high birth rates and to increase demographically in society.
The Muslims in Britain who came in the 1960's and 1970's were economically integrated into the economy and became doctors, pharmacists, taxi drivers and restaurant owners.
There were no Veils, Niqabs, Burkhas or calls for Sharia Law.

Stage 2

As the Muslim community increases in numbers money starts to arrives from oil rich countries to build mosques. At the same time foreign Imams were sent to Britain to control the growing community and issue intructions as regards the actions of the Muslim community in Britain. Islamists start to agitate for Islamist causes. Islamists start protesting against "oppressive" local laws and advance the case for Sharia. Moderate integrated Muslims are attacked and intimidated by the Islamists. If moderate Muslims do not obey the Islamists then they are ostracised or forced out of the community via intimidation campaigns. This was the period of the Salman Rushdie Affair when Islamists burnt books in British streets. The Heroin Jihad begins and Heroin from Afghanistan comes into the UK to subsidise the Islamists in the UK and the Global Jihad. This was the period of the 'Covenant of Security' when the British government allowed thousands of Islamists to enter and settle in the UK during the 1980's when they were using the Islamists to attack the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Taliban trained terrorists and war criminals from all over the world were allowed to settle in the UK and thereby consolidate Islamism in British society.

Stage 3

As the Islamists study and discover the host country's weak spots, they move into the relevent professions and start to take over areas. (Tower Hamlets, Bradford, Luton, etc, ). Politically correct laws and liberal social engineering projects allow the Islamists to take control of the public bodies in an area. The Muslim voting bloc allows the Islamists to take control of local politics. The Police and other authorities are intimidated and silenced by calls of 'racism'. The local media conspire to hide crimes / terrorism in the name of community cohesion. Local people start to move out as Sharia Law Zones are established. Moderate Muslims are forced to leave. The first Islamist terrorist incidents begin to occur in order to divide the Muslim community from the host majority, to terrorise moderate Muslims into silence and to radicalise the younger generation of Muslims into adopting Islamism.

Stage 4

White Flight increases as the local community becomes terrorised by Islamists who organise and form vigilante groups to enforce Sharia Law in Sharia Zones. The politics of the community becomes a servant of the Islamists and all non-Islamists are no longer recognised as part of the community. The remaining moderate Muslims are forced to leave the area. The first Islamist Militias such as the Muslim Defence Leagure are formed. Terrorism increases to further polarise the society into divided camps. The mainstream politicians surrender ever more of our rights and liberty in order to appease the growing Islamist threat to society. Free speech is repressed and denied and those who speak out about the growing threat of Islamism are arrested and prosecuted under 'Hate Speech' laws. Local opposition groups to the spread of Islamism are formed, such as the English Defence League. The police and government arrest the leaders of these local groups in order to appease the Islamists.

Stage 5

The Muslim population reaches around 30 % of the total population of the nation. The low level terrorist war of the Islamist is joined with the Militias and large scale military / terrorism atrocities start to take place against the non-Islamists remaining in Islamist controlled territory. The government and politicians surrender their territory to the Islamists in order to prevent more conflict. Slice by slice the Islamists take control of the nations territory by terrorising the cowards in the establishment political parties. Muslim political parties are formed to impose Sharia Law via democratic means as the terorrists and militias put pressure on the government to surrender ever more power to them and their political representatives. Finally civil war begins.

Add to Technorati Favorites


Anonymous said...

Read this, it could have many implications.

* Could it mean that to reject a statute, one would have to reject [U]all[/U] statutes, or could one reject selective statutes?

* Could this mean re-entry into the unions for Nationalists?

* Could this see Nationalists rejecting pro-ethnic (ie anti-White) statutes that litter this land?

* Could this actually see an advantage in being a Nationalist (for once), by being educated in knowing how to, and be assisted to, rejecting Statutes.

If this is true, someone with a legal mind could genuinely help an endless stream of people evade unfair discriminatory statutes passed by an anti-White corrupt cabal (as well as make a fortune). Everything from housing, to youth clubs, to parking tickets. God knows we need a White Fightback. I don't know if this article is true as I am not a lawyer, but it needs an acute mind to look into it deeper, as I have never heard anybody in 20 years of Nationalism ever talk about this issue.

Derek Failsworth

Anonymous said...

F*ck me! I won't be sleeping tonight!!

Defender of Liberty said...

Thanks Derek, I will check this out.

Thanks for the tip off.


Anonymous said...

Hi, thank you for responding Lee, and thank you for taking the time to look into it, you are a credit to the nationalist movement.

Most people within Nationalism, I have noticed over the years, are not receptive to new ideas. They seem to think that once they've dealth with the race issue and the New World Order conspiracy then there is nothing left to know. Personally, I have always liked to keep an open mind, as just when one thinks one knows everything, Bang, something pops up that throws the intellect. I believe that this Constitution issue is one such issue.

Besides the article I highlighted in my first posting, I also found the other articles enlightening too; ie "THE LEGAL FICTION-HOW THEY CONTROL US" and "CONSENT-THE MOST IMPORTANT WORD IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE". Even from my legal layman point of view I found myself following the argument, well, most of the time, lol.
obviously, this needs to be looked into on a theoretical basis, but also on a practical basis. I could imagine myself, for example, stood (with my bad back) in the dock, thunderously declaring that I give no consent to this court as statutes are not laws, with a blank faced Judge shaking his head in dibelief, and lawyers falling about laughing. We need to know how one actually goes about rejecting such statute 'laws' in a real world situation (not just theoretically), and then make up a sort of 'template of action' so to speak. Then, others could be encouraged to do the same. You could be the new Jack Straw Lee, no sarcasm intended.

We also need to act to ensure that this Constitutional Group does not forge ahead, thus stealing influence from our voters. I am sure they mean well, but like most middle class types of the traditional right, they seem timid and naiive. What we need are a few good men, a few good Nationalists that do not own anything of monetary value, and hence have nothing to fear, going into the court and taking this issue on. Threats by the Judge to bankrupt someone only work on those who possess a house/money etc. They do not work on those with nothing (which is most Nationalists I unfortunately have to add, lol).

By Nationalists making the Common law, ie the real law, then this issue will become identified with Nationalism. Whover takes up this mighty challenge, this poisoned Mjolnir, could unite Nationalism I think. Why? Because having to have ethnics in political parties is a statute, which is the reason the NF is currently having a small surge in membership. Under Common law, political parties may choose who they have as members.
Also, disbarring right wingers from unions is a statute. If this issue could go before a Jury, even a predominantly non-White one, I am sure most decent minded people would recognise it as an unjust law designed solely to oppress Labour's political opponents.
If Nationalists could join unions, Patsy Harrington and his union would become superfluous.
And how many statutes put Whites to the back, in jobs, housing, welfare, etc etc. The list is endless.

If true, it is amazing that nobody ever saw this issue before, even qualified legal people. But, as was pointed out in the articles, even law degrees hide this knowledge away from curious eyes. Only the sly, devious and corrupt politicians knew about it, and loose lips sink ships.

who would have thought it. Nationalists don't have to go throwing petrol bombs and such like, that some had thought was the way forward in the 70s. All they needed to do was,


Anonymous said...

Concerning Statutes and Act of Parliment.

(From Musashi on the FMOTL forum)

"There is a great and continuing confusion going the rounds out there in Freemanity and lawful rebellion land. I would like to take this ripe opportunity to advertise the matter ever more widely and try again to clear it up. It goes like this------

Statutes are ordinances issued by the crown.
Acts come from parliament.
Statutes are 'fine tunings' of the common law.
Acts are rules and regulations from parliament to control the petty details of our lives.
The truth is that we are all subject to statute law because statute proceeds from common law. The devil is in Acts.

Statutes, being ordinances issued by the crown, are not amenable to parliamentary reform, repeal or amendment. The statute of Ed 1297, like the statute of Acton Bumel, or the statute of Jewry, can only be amended or repealed by the crown. If parliament could do this then parliament would be above the crown - yet parliament must go to the crown to get assent to a Bill. Doesn't make sense, does it?
Also, parliament did not exist at that time to make the 'law', therefore cannot repeal or amend it. Just as parliament did not set into place the Bill of Rights (a convention of the people did that) and cannot amend or repeal it.
It is logical to conclude that, if parliament had such power they would not be sneaking around slipping us the shaft by hiding dodgy deals inside this or that unrelated Act of parliament. They would simply remove, at a stroke, all our protection and checkmate us.
The deal is that they could not take the constitution and the common law away from us so they took us away from it. It's that simple.
As V says, "It's the grand illusion." As John Harris says "It's the spell (of the words)." As I say "It's all bollox and bullshit."

Anonymous said...

Statutes do not 'fine tune' Common law. The Juries through the centuries have made the Common law. It is the only link we have to the common man of the past. our ancestors speak to us through this law from centuries ago.

You have not explained the difference between an 'Act' a 'Statute' or an 'Ordinance'.

I hardly think that these statutes only control "the petty details of our lives". They seem to deal with all manner of things, from having a job, to getting married, how mucg of our taxes they take etc etc. I hardly think such legislation is "petty" to people. It is of profound importance.

The general gist of what you have just said (Musashi) is rambling and disjointed to me. I do not follow what you are saying. Please explain clearly, instead of just assuming we know what you are rambling about.

And how can statutes not be "amenable to parliamentary reform"? The politicians are forever retracting statutes (which they call repealing) or tinkering with them (which they call ammending).

What seems logical to me, is that if statute law always over-rode common law, then why still have common law? Why don't the politicians just declare all common law null and void, and just write some more statutes to replace them?
Perhaps it is because, as these articles are saying, because staute 'law' is not really law at all, and all real law is common law and protected by the Magna Carter. The article is saying, that if we are governed solely by statute, then we are just slaves doing what we are told. But if the Magna Carter concept is real, then we are indeed free Englishmen, and society is held together by nothing more than INDIVIDUAL consensus of each and every individual. Election results being irrelevant. (I am not advocating that Nationalist parties should stop standing in elections by the way, far from it).

These ideas need to be fully explored, and cannot be readily dismissed on the basis of whatever (the non-English sounding) Musashi is saying.

I suspect that is issue is here for a good time to come.
Thank Godness.