Month: September 2025

“For over two centuries, the Home Secretary has safeguarded the nation. Today, we begin a new chapter as we welcome Shabana Mahmood to the Home Office as the new Home Secretary,” the British government announced.

It is indeed a new chapter for the Pakistani Muslim politician, who took her oath of office on a Koran and who has now become the highest ranking Muslim in the British government.

And a new chapter for Islamic colonialism as seeing the white flag, 1,000 Muslim invaders crossed the Channel and invaded England on Mahmood’s first day at work.

But it’s also a new chapter for the people of England as a Pakistani Muslim woman who has made no secret of her hatred and contempt for them will now be empowered to persecute them using not only her control over immigration to displace them, but also her new arsenal of ‘public safety’, ‘national security’ and ‘law enforcement’ power to escalate her targeting of them.

What sort of chapter it is can be understood from Mahmood’s past declaration that “the people you see holding the English flag most of the time down my neck of the woods will be the EDL and they are white and they are male and they’re bad people.”

The Home Secretary is responsible for law enforcement. These “white men” will be the ones she comes after. Mahmood had previously proposed banning offenders from ‘pubs’ instead of arresting them. This new twist on the Starmer regime’s infamous two-tier policing would punish Englishmen while giving Muslims a pass. And implement Islamic Sharia law in the bargain.

Mahmood had urged adopting the definition of Islamophobia manufactured by the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims. That definition would ban anyone from mentioning that Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, was a pedophile, referencing “Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule” and claimed that discussing the “issue of ‘grooming gangs’ which was a dangerous “trope” that increased the “vulnerability of Muslims to hate crimes”.

After a Muslim terrorist murdered three little girls, Mahmood, in her role as ‘Justice Secretary’ cheered as 500 prison cells described as “inhumane” were prepared for protesters against Islamic colonization and terrorism. Criminals were released to make room for those who had spoken out against the horrifying Islamic atrocity against English children.

Mahmood then visited a mosque and bragged of sending protesters against the Muslim murder of children to prison for years “within a week” and of show trials “broadcast” live and of “working through day and night” to find prison cells for political opponents.

While Shabana Mahmood deemed English people terrorists, actual Muslim terrorists were another matter entirely.

Mahmood had previously taken part in a Muslim Council of Britain event against ‘Islamophobia’. The Islamist organization had opposed a ban on Al Qaeda because it believed terroism was a way for some people to “claim their rights”, its founder had mused that “death is perhaps too easy” for Salman Rushdie and the MCB’s secretary general had signed a declaration demanding that all Muslims provide money to Hamas and called for war against all countries supporting Israel.

Now that Shabana Mahmood will preside over counterterrorism, an ally of the organization that labored for Al Qaeda and Hamas, what happens to the national security of the UK?

And can the United States trust any counterterrorism that falls into her hands?

Mahmood is taking part in her first ‘Five Eyes’ meeting, making it abundantly clear that global counterterrorism has been hopelessly compromised and lives will likely be lost because of it. And counterterrorism in the UK will be further twisted to enable Islamic terrorism and punish all those who oppose it.

In her first remarks, Mahmood, a Pakistani Muslim, visited Mark Rowley: the head of London’s Met Police which had arrested a man for criticizing Hamas, threatened a Jewish man near a terrorist rally that he would be arrested for being “visibly Jewish” (a policy Rowley subsequently defended) and arrested those correctly naming a Muslim terrorist as such while giving numerous Muslim terrorist supporters a pass.

“Supporting Palestine and supporting a proscribed terrorist group are not the same thing,” Shabana Mahmood tweeted after her meeting, making the laundering of support for Hamas into the takeaway of her initial meeting with the police commissioner.

A decade ago, Mahmood had appeared at an anti-Israel rally at which one of the speakers had declared, “It is Israel that are the terrorists here, not Hamas. It’s not a sin to fight for your freedom.”

The Pakistani Muslim politician had a history of attending anti-Israel and pro-terrorist rallies including a rally outside a Sainsbury supermarket protesting its sale of Israeli products and could be seen holding a “Free Palestine” sign calling for the destruction of Israel.

Now she has secured one of the most powerful positions in the UK and Europe.

“Islam, my own religion, like a lot of practicing Muslims my faith is the most important thing in my life. It is the absolute driver of everything that I do,” Shabana Mahmood once admitted.

Now Mahmood’s religion is also the “absolute driver” of the British government.

UK Muslim Counterterrorism Minister Called White Men the Enemy | Frontpage Mag

President Trump on Monday responded to the horrific and senseless murder of a Ukrainian refugee by a career criminal.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, 34–year-old Decarlos Brown Jr. murdered Iryna Zarutska last month by stabbing her multiple times on the Charlotte, North Carolina, light rail as bystanders did nothing.

Decarlos Brown Jr. criminal rap sheet, with arrests dating back to 2007. He was later arrested at least six more times on charges, including felony larceny, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and communicating threats, according to the Daily Mail.

Most of the charges were dropped.

Other reports and social media posts suggest he may have been arrested and released at least 12 times.

President Trump blamed the far-left judges and radical, pro-crime Democrats for Zarutska’s murder.

“I have seen the horrific video of a beautiful, young Ukrainian refugee, who came to America to escape the vicious War in Ukraine, and was innocently riding the Metro in Charlotte, North Carolina, where she was brutally ambushed by a mentally deranged lunatic. The perpetrator was a well known career criminal, who had been previously arrested and released on CASHLESS BAIL in January, a total of 14 TIMES. What the hell was he doing riding the train, and walking the streets? Criminals like this need to be LOCKED UP. The blood of this innocent woman can literally be seen dripping from the killer’s knife, and now her blood is on the hands of the Democrats who refuse to put bad people in jail, including Former Disgraced Governor and “Wannabe Senator” Roy Cooper. North Carolina, and every State, needs LAW AND ORDER, and only Republicans will deliver it! Additionally, where is the outrage from the Mainstream Media on this horrible tragedy? VOTE FOR MICHAEL WHATLEY FOR UNITED STATES SENATE, HE WON’T LET THIS HAPPEN AGAIN!” President Trump said on Truth Social.

Horrifying video of the senseless murder shows Zarutska seated on the Metro scrolling through her phone before Decarlos Brown begins stabbing her. Decarlos Brown then walks away, leaving a trail of blood.

AUDIO: The suspect who stabbed Iryna Zarutska in cold blood can be heard saying "I got that White Girl" after committing the murder pic.twitter.com/KkFqoAYj6B

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) September 8, 2025

thegatewaypundit

By Bepi Pezzulli

The Home Office just hired a match to run the fireworks stand. Shabana Mahmood steps into the job of Home Secretary as though history itself were a credential: the first Muslim woman, the first politician of Pakistani origin, the first activist-turned-law officer in charge of Britain’s borders, police, and security service. Britain congratulates itself on diversity milestones. The rest of the world—Washington and Jerusalem in particular—sees something else: risk, doubt, and a ministry run by someone whose words and alliances have long tracked closer to movement politics than to national security.

For the United Kingdom, the contradictions are glaring. Mahmood is presented as the enforcer who will “end the hotel farce,” move asylum seekers onto military sites, and speed up removals. In the same breath, she champions a radical reading of the European Convention on Human Rights—one that stretches Article 8 privacy rights into a near-bulletproof vest for migrants contesting deportation. The spectacle is absurd: a Home Secretary promising control at the border while engineering endless litigation that neutralizes her own policies. It is not governance, it is theatre, and the traffickers will see through it faster than the backbenchers.

For Britain’s Jews, this appointment is a cold reminder of who gets to hold the levers of state. Mahmood’s public record is marked by episodes that shook communal trust: cheering on a BDS action that forced the closure of a Birmingham supermarket in 2014, marching under banners that framed Israel as a pariah, and defending rhetoric that blurred the line between protest and mob pressure. Her subsequent condemnations of Hamas after October 7 cannot erase the imagery or the alignment. Jewish families who already live under constant police presence at synagogues and schools now face the knowledge that the woman in charge of protest bans and terror proscriptions once stood shoulder to shoulder with those who would boycott their businesses and normalize their intimidation.

The problem intensifies once the gaze shifts across the Atlantic. President Trump has made counterterrorism, border enforcement, and Islamic extremism central pillars of his foreign and domestic policy. Five Eyes is not a polite talking shop; it is an intelligence covenant built on shared trust and seriousness. Washington has little tolerance for ambiguity when it comes to Islamist movements. A Home Secretary who once flirted with the “resistance” lexicon, who praised Islamic identity in absolutist terms borrowed straight from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s catechism, will raise doubts in DHS, the Pentagon, and Congress. And doubt corrodes intelligence sharing: allies ration what they fear will be mishandled.

Israel’s judgment will be even harsher, because for Israel this is not theory. Mossad tips have repeatedly prevented Iranian terror operations on British soil. Those pipelines of intelligence exist because Jerusalem believes London takes Islamist threats seriously. A Home Secretary with a history of marching under intifada slogans, of treating terrorism as “resistance,” will force Israel to reconsider what it shares. Britain’s own security will be the casualty, for without Israeli leads, MI5 will move slower, blinder, and later.

Mahmood insists that faith is the “absolute core” of her life. Faith itself is not the issue. The issue is when faith, politics, and activism combine into a record that casts doubt on impartiality. The Home Secretary’s job is not to embody a community, not to score history-making headlines, but to project unflinching reliability to allies and uncompromising resolve to adversaries. On that score, Mahmood begins in deficit.

Britain’s security establishment now faces a stress test: will the new Home Secretary govern like the activist she once was, or like the custodian of national survival the job demands? If she leans into her record, Britain will hemorrhage trust with its allies. If she resists it, she may yet prove her doubters wrong.

But there is no middle path. In intelligence, perception is capability. Partners do not share secrets with a question mark. And today Britain has put a question mark in charge of the Home Office.

The Home Office doesn’t need a minister who makes history; it needs one who makes Britain safe.

americanthinker

A British judge has caused outrage after he wished the mastermind behind the 7/7 tube bombings in London“all the best” as he prepares to walk free.

Sir Robert Jay made the remark to Haroon Aswat, who is set to be released from hospital to Yorkshire despite police fears he remains a threat.

Mr Aswat was jailed for 20 years in the US after he admitted conspiring to set up a terrorist training camp in Oregon.

After being deported to the UK in 2022 after completing his sentence in the US, he was detained under the Mental Health Act.

He is set to be released imminently, although an exact date has not yet been confirmed.

Court documents obtained by The Sun stated Mr Aswat confessed to being a “mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks and a 2005 terrorist attack in the UK.”

Mr Justice Jay told Mr Aswat: “I have to wish you all the best and say to you that the way forward is to keep on your medication, listen to the advice you are going to get, and keep out of the sort of things you were doing.

“Because you saw where it ended up and you do not want to go back to that, I am sure.”

Mr Aswat first became associated with firebrand radical Islamic preacher Abu Hamza at the Finsbury Park mosque in the mid-90s.

With Hamza, he helped to co-ordinate 200 UK-based men of Pakistani origin to engage in terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir regions.

In November 2004, he met with Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer in Pakistan.

Around eight months later, Mr Khan, alongside Mr Tanweer, would orchestrate the London bombings on July 7, 2005, which killed 52 people. Mr Aswat was never charged in connection with the attack.

He is set to be freed without ankle tag monitoring due to a loophole which forbids checks on psychiatric patients.

Reacting to the news of Mr Justice Jay making the remark to Aswat, Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said: “Nobody should be wishing this evil terrorist ‘well’ and sympathising with their time in prison, least of all a High Court judge.

“Justice Jay should be ashamed of acting pally with a convicted terrorist.”

The High Court hearing was Mr Aswat’s first public appearance since he was deported back to Britain in 2022.

He is currently held at Bethlem Royal Hospital in South London.

Security concerns skyrocketed after probation officials refused to assess his risk due to regulations that forbade checks on psychiatric patients.

Detective Chief Supt Gareth Rees, a senior anti-terror detective, said he had “grave concerns” that Aswat remained a risk to national security.

Reacting to the reports on GB News, human rights lawyer David Haigh told The People’s Channel: “I think a bad judge and a very, very bad choice of words.

“It is very, very, very, very difficult to raise a complaint against a judge. First of all, you only have a short period of time to do it in, and there’s a very few instances in which you could raise a complaint. These words wouldn’t pass that test.

“So if someone complained about him, if someone like Nigel Farage did put a complaint about him in, it wouldn’t be upheld on the rules that there are at the moment.

“That’s why those rules are not fit for purpose. And last week I was arguing we need a register of interest for judges as well.”

A Government spokeswoman said: “If any individual poses a threat to national security the police and intelligence services have a range of powers they can apply.

“We will always do whatever is necessary inside the law to protect the public from any risk posed by former terrorist offenders or people of terrorist concern.”

gbnews.com

Lisbon’s Elevador da Glória has long been one of the Portuguese capital’s most beloved landmarks. It has now become infamous. What happened on September 4 was emblematic: The funicular, which had been inspected that very morning and certified it—including a declaration that its cable had “263 days” of life left—hurtled down its hill nonetheless, killing sixteen people and wounding over twenty. It is Portugal’s bitterest disaster in almost a quarter of a century. The Entre-os-Rios disaster — when a 114-old-bridge over the Douro collapsed in 2001, killing 59 people — earned a spot in the national conscience as a synonym of government sclerosis. So will now September 4.

What happened? A government inquiry is on its way, but what we do know is that, a few years ago, the Lisbon City Council diverted €4 million from transport maintenance to fund the useless Web Summit. Of course, political exhibitionism has long mattered far more than civic care. But with local elections next month, not many voters in Lisbon will be eager to ignore how the current mayor, former EU Commissioner Carlos Moedas, loudly demanded the resignation of Infrastructure Minister Jorge Coelho when Entre-os-Rios Bridge collapsed. On that occasion, Moedas didn’t wait to ask for accountability. Now, he was hardly heard of. 

Portugal’s crisis of governance is multidimensional, however. This summer Iberia endured its worst wildfire season in history: In the entire EU, over 1,000,000 hectares have burned—an annual record—and Portugal alone lost nearly 274,000 hectares. The total burned area is four times the average of the last 19 years; the number of fires, nearly double. While the country was ravaged by flames, firefighters died, and civilians used garden hoses to protect their homes, the PM was smiling to the cameras—laughing and drinking at his party’s big August feast. Should he have played a lyre? 

Of course, it isn’t just that the political class seems incapable or, frankly, uncaring. The Portuguese cannot help but notice how nothing seems to work anymore. If the landmarks tourists fret over are falling apart, what isn’t? In the experience of the ordinary citizen, not much. Following the abolition of the border services by former Prime Minister António Costa, the country was overwhelmed by mass immigration in ways previously unseen in its history. The government didn’t just let them in; it had no idea how many entered. When right-wing opposition leader André Ventura first claimed the country was well on its way to having a million immigrants, he was laughed at by the press. Months later, the government recognised that the number was far higher than even Ventura’s own estimate. The chaos was such that it turned out there were 10,000 registered immigrants in a 400 meter long street in Lisbon. One three story building had 1,400 registered residents.

This both adds up to and causes the seemingly unstoppable implosion of public services. Schools don’t work; there aren’t enough teachers. This year, 1.4 million Portuguese students couldn’t attend at least one class because there was no one to give it. Hospitals are falling apart, too. Chronic underfunding, brain drain, staff shortages, and infrastructural decay all mean that Portugal is increasingly a country where healthcare is a luxury, not a right. Urgent patients are forced to wait for as much as 9 hours on average; crucial emergency services are now closing due to strikes almost every week; mothers are dying in ambulances as maternity services close or lack sufficient staff. For the moment, Portugal’s establishment is still hoping that the people’s patience will last forever. That is quite the bet.

Democratic or not, no system of government can hope to survive if it won’t deliver results. Like in the last decades of Eastern European socialism, a sense of hopelessness seems to be haunting the Iberian nation. Nothing seems to work anymore, and no one seems to be doing anything about it; the establishment clearly lacks the ability, the resources, or indeed the will to stop the bleeding and revert the general collapse. To this generation of Instagram politicians, the only thing that actually matters is optics. Not competence, but the illusion of competence.

Of course, most of these problems are not exclusively Portuguese at all. They’re European. If so much about modern Portugal looks and sounds like the last years of Bulgaria under Zhivkov’s surrealist-absurdist regime, so too the broader EU appears unmistakably late Soviet. Following two decades of what will certainly be remembered by future historians as Europe’s own “Era of Stagnation”, the Union’s economy is now visibly falling apart—the rising odds of France begging the IMF for a bailout or Friedrich Merz’ confession that the federal government can no longer afford the welfare perks Germans grew used to make that plain enough. 

Like the USSR pre-collapse, the EU’s leadership isn’t just out of touch; it seems wholly inadequate for the heavy responsibilities it carries. Latter-day eurocrats are shallow, vapid, and inexperienced. They believe in nothing other than self-preservation. Most have never built anything or stood up for anything. Adenauer had resisted the Nazis; de Gaulle fought them in the field of battle. But how about our generation of leaders? Few would entrust them with running a corner shop, never mind nations or a whole continent. And, perhaps more crucially, like the USSR in the 1980’s, the EU is a prophet whose religion has been refuted and abandoned by everyone else. The USSR died when Marxism-Leninism lost the ability to inspire. So, too, will the EU now that its own gospel — that of post-national, post-historical, liberal globalism — gave way to a new era.

Back in 1979, Margaret Thatcher mobilised an exhausted and disillusioned British public with the slogan “Labour Isn’t Working”. Well, be it with Portugal or Europe more generally, it seems that whatever we’ve been doing as of late isn’t working either. Will Europeans stand for it? Or will they stand up to it?

brusselssignal

A 59-year-old woman was chased through the streets of Magdeburg on Sunday afternoon by a Syrian knifeman, who stabbed her to death as she fled into an office building.

As reported by Bild, the incident occurred in broad daylight on Lübecker Straße, one of the busiest streets in a city that suffered the heinous Christmas market terror attack last year.

Shortly after midday, the victim sought refuge inside an office building that also housed a gym after being followed by her attacker. Cornered in a stairwell, the victim was stabbed multiple times, according to police.

“Despite immediate rescue measures, the victim died at the scene,” said police spokesman Stefan Brodtrück. Emergency doctors and paramedics also treated the suspect, who was found with serious self-inflicted injuries when officers arrived. He was taken under police guard to the Municipal Hospital in Magdeburg, and remains in a critical condition.

Both the victim and the suspect are Syrian nationals living in the state capital of Saxony-Anhalt, authorities confirmed.

Police cordoned off the intersection of Lübecker Straße and Fabrikenstraße as crime scene specialists from the State Criminal Police Office worked at the site. A helicopter and dog handlers were also deployed. Investigators from the homicide division are leading the inquiry.

“The background to the crime is still unclear,” a police spokesman said, noting that investigators had not yet ascertained whether the victim and suspect knew each other, and if so, what any motive for the attack may have been.

The Magdeburg public prosecutor’s office is treating the case as manslaughter. It is unclear why a homicide charge is not being sought.

Preliminary autopsy results are expected on Monday, after which prosecutors will decide whether to apply for an arrest warrant and whether the suspect should be held in remand prison or in a psychiatric hospital.

rmx.news

Spain’s government has ordered the relocation of thousands of unaccompanied migrant minors from the Canary Islands to regions across the country, triggering protests from conservative leaders who accuse Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez of using migration as a political weapon.

Under the decree, the Canary Islands will transfer minors to multiple regions, but Catalonia and the Basque Country are exempt because they are governed by separatist parties whose votes Sánchez relies on to keep his coalition in power. 

Meanwhile, PP-led regions such as Andalusia, Madrid, and Castilla y León say they are being unfairly targeted, with local facilities already overwhelmed and residents worried about security and costs.

The latest escalation came from Brussels. Estrella Galán, an MEP for Sumar—Sánchez’s far-left coalition partner—submitted a formal question to the European Commission accusing several Spanish regions of “failing in their legal obligations” by resisting the relocation scheme. Galán urged the Commission to intervene and enforce compliance with the Spanish decree under the banner of “European solidarity” and children’s rights.

Spain’s Supreme Court has already ruled that it is the central government’s duty to handle the reception of minors in the Canary Islands. Instead of fulfilling that obligation, Sánchez’s cabinet shifted the burden to the regions and is now seeking EU enforcement.

The figures show the scale. Andalusia alone must take in 2,827 minors, almost double its available capacity. Madrid, Castilla y León, and Valencia also face large quotas, prompting officials to announce legal challenges.

Catalonia and the Basque Country, however, are spared entirely. The government cites “regional competencies,” but opponents call it a political favour to separatist allies whose votes keep Sánchez in power.

Beyond politics, the impact on local communities is real. In neighborhoods such as Hortaleza in Madrid, the arrival of large numbers of minors has been linked to rising crime.. Police unions warn resources are stretched thin and the situation is becoming unsustainable..

The financial burden is also heavy. Each minor requires between €3,000 and €4,000 per month for accommodation, social services, and security. For Andalusia, taking nearly 3,000 additional minors could mean well over €100 million annually in extra costs, with no infrastructure in place to handle them.

Some note that each minor costs the same as sending a Spaniard to a prestigious private university, arguing the issue is priorities, not resources. 

By appealing to the European Commission, Sánchez’s allies risk dragging EU institutions into Spain’s internal political disputes. Galán has asked the EU executive whether regional resistance violates European law and what measures it will adopt to ensure compliance.

Thus, the same European institutions that often struggle to respond to genuine migration crises could now be drawn into policing Spain’s internal disputes.

Opponents argue the plan is about political survival, not humanitarian duty, pointing to quotas imposed on opposition-led regions and exemptions granted to separatist allies as proof.

europeanconservative

British teenagers are more patriotic about the United Kingdom than their parents, potentially spelling more political trouble for the left-wing Labour government, which gave the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds in the next general election.

A survey conducted by the More in Common polling firm for London’s Sunday Times has found that 49 per cent of 16 and 17-year-olds are proud of their British identity, compared to just 10 per cent who said that they were ashamed.

This compares to 45 per cent of the country as a whole being patriotic and 15 per cent feeling shame over their identity, meaning that teenagers are significantly more patriotic than their parents.

As is becoming increasingly typical in Western politics, the survey did find a striking disparity between young men and women. According to the poll, just 39 per cent of 16 and 17-year-old girls said that they were proud to be British, while 57 per cent of boys expressed patriotic sentiments.

A similar spread was found in terms of who would sign up to defend the country in the event of a war, with 32 per cent of boys saying they would be willing and 47 per cent against, compared to 15 per cent of girls and 64 per cent against.

Nevertheless, the rising level of patriotism within the younger generation also appears to have coincided with a growing concern about mass migration, with the survey finding that 44 per cent of 16 and 17-year-olds saying that the government has not focused enough on the illegal boat migrant crisis in the English Channel, compared to 26 per cent saying there has been too much focus.

While Labour may have hoped to increase its vote share by allowing teens to vote in the next general election, the findings may serve as a boon to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party, which has vowed to detain and deport all illegal migrants and which has consistently pitched itself as a patriotic party proud of Britain’s history.

The Farage party has also actively courted the youth vote, with the Brexit boss cultivating large followings on social media apps like Tik Tok and the party offering discounted membership for people under the age of 25.

According to a separate poll for the Sunday Times published last week, Reform is roughly on par with the Labour Party among 16 and 17-year-olds, at 23 and 24 per cent respectively, when former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s new far-left party is included, effectively splitting the left vote by grabbing 21 per cent of the age group.

Commenting on the rising patriotism among the British youth, director of More in Common, Luke Tryl, said: “Much of this research shows how different the next generation of adults’ experience of childhood has been. Today’s young Britons have come of age through a decade of political turmoil, a pandemic, and a cost-of-living crisis. It’s no surprise they feel like a distinct generation, with different politics and shifting values.

“Despite the common belief that patriotism is fading among young people, 16 and 17-year-olds are even more likely than adults to feel proud of being British. Their pride is clearly less tied to traditional institutions like the royal family, but it is still strong, and possibly growing.”

breitbart

One of the consequences of the Hamas atrocities of October 7, 2023, was this: they reminded native Europeans that a good many of the millions of Muslims who live in their countries are not necessarily the friendly bearers of cultural enrichment that politicians claim them to be. After Gazans massacred Israelis on such a terrifying scale, native Europeans were compelled to recognize that the same thing could happen – tomorrow morning – on their own turf. Little wonder that anti-immigration parties have won more support.

And nowhere in Europe, perhaps, has awareness of the danger of mass immigration spiked more than in Britain. A handful of brave souls have been talking about the Muslim rape gangs for years, but even now precious few of the perpetrators have been brought to justice. A not inconsiderable percentage of Muslims in Britain admit to pollsters that they’d like to see the country subjected to sharia law. A long list of major British cities have Muslim mayors. Even as native Brits struggle to find decent, affordable housing, the government is putting Muslim illegals up in luxury hotels.

Those who dare to complain publicly about any of these things risk arrest and prosecution. Indeed, while people are allowed to march in the streets waving Hamas flags, displaying the Union Jack or the St. George’s cross – the flag of England – is treated as a crime. For years, both the Conservatives and Labourites have repeatedly promised to reduce immigration and repeatedly broken their promises. Reform UK, the party whose electoral fortunes have skyrocketed as a result, seems too timid to do what’s necessary to rescue the UK from full Islamization.

Perfect timing, then, for an article in the Guardian arguing that Britain, and indeed all of Europe, needs to increase immigration levels. “Those wanting to shut Europe’s borders,” avers the British journalist Alex Clark, “must contend with a stark demographic reality: the continent’s native population is expected to fall sharply over the next century in an era of low birth rates.” So if anti-immigration parties take control in Europe and actually succeed in reducing immigration rates, it “could speed up the population decline of Europe, creating economic shocks including slower growth and soaring costs from pensions and elderly care.”

Clark (not to be confused with a conservative American commentator of the same name) approvingly quotes John Springford of the Centre for European Reform, a pro-EU think tank, who approvingly notes that mainstream politicians “recognise that immigration is needed to ease demographic pressures” but are being challenged by the “radical right.” What a way to put it. In fact most Europeans oppose mass immigration, especially from the Islamic world, and have been opposed to it for a long time. The problem is that the politicians who are supposed to represent their interests have utterly ignored their wishes and have allowed the flow of immigrants to continue unabated.

Those politicians, and “experts” like Springford who stand up for them, would have you believe that mass immigration is really in the best interests of the people of Europe, whether those foolish ignoramuses realize it or not. They point out that a large cohort of the European population will soon reach retirement age, and will require more medical services and, perhaps, placement in old-age homes, and that the continent will need more doctors and nurses to provide that care, not to mention more working-age people whose taxes will fund that care. Absent mass immigration, goes the argument, the tax burden on working-age Europeans will rise appreciably. “Tax burdens are already rising across Europe,” warns Clark. Yes, and a major reason why they’re rising is that a disproportionate number of the Muslims who have flooded Europe during the last couple of generations, far from being added to the work force, have been added to the welfare rolls.

Yes, in some European countries a surprising number of the health-care professionals are Muslims. (According to Clark’s chart, the European country with the most foreign–educated doctors per capita is Norway, at 43.6%.) But the felons, prisoners, and – yes – welfare recipients are also disproportionately Muslim. The unfortunate fact is that while not a few of the Muslims in the U.S. are educated urbanites, an alarming number of those who’ve settled in Europe are semi-literate folks who come from remote villages, who are extremely pious and traditional (which is to say barbaric) in their cultural practices, and who – harboring a profound hostility toward the West, toward Christianity, toward Jews, toward gays, toward individual freedom, and toward any concept of social tolerance or sexual equality – are highly resistant to integration. On the contrary, far from wanting to assimilate into European society, more and more of these Muslims have been less and less shy about acknowledging that they expect native Europeans, in the fullness of time, to submit to Islamic governance.

To her credit, Clark does (late in her article) include a comment by Alan Manning of the London School of Economics that challenges her rosy thesis. “For immigration to help,” says Manning, “ it’s got to be that immigrants are actually in work, and many European countries have quite low employment rates among a lot of immigrants….So it’s really important that they’re going to be in work, and that has been problematic in some cases.” That’s putting it mildly. European welfare states, which were originally established so that natives who’ve been paying taxes all their lives could get help in times of financial crisis, are now ATMs for immigrants, some of whom have just arrived and others of whom have been around for decades but never bothered to look for work. In Britain, according to one source, 78% of Muslim women and 63% of Muslim men are unemployed and on benefits.

Check this out: in Norway, where I live, one of the things you have to do in order to become a citizen is to pass a test in “social knowledge.” I expected queries about Norwegian history, culture, and values; instead, a ridiculous number of the questions were about the many different welfare schemes of which immigrants can take advantage. The point, in short, isn’t to test immigrants’ knowledge of their adopted country but to encourage them, when preparing for the test, to discover yet more ways of acquiring free money.

So yes, increased immigration from the Islamic world could keep the European population growing. But eventually Europe wouldn’t be Europe anymore. Many Londoners and Parisians – not all of them right-wing extremists or bigots – already say that those cities are no longer what they used to be. They’re no longer English or French – no longer European. Increasingly, Islam is taking hold. An increase in mass Muslim immigration might or might not solve some employment and taxation problems – although every indication is that it wouldn’t – but it would most assuredly accomplish one thing: it would speed up the continent’s Islamization and hasten the introduction of sharia law. Moreover, as Europe becomes increasingly Islamized, native Europeans will surely flee in growing numbers.

Some statistics. At current immigration levels, says Clark, the EU’s population, which is currently 447 million, will fall to 419 million by the year 2100. If immigration were reduced to zero, the population would drop even further, to 295 million. In order for the EU population to rise significantly during that period, then, it would require at least a couple of hundred million immigrants – probably more, given that many millions of natives would at the same time be leaving. There’s one word to describe this phenomenon: replacement. If people like Springford have their way, native Europeans will be replaced by foreigners, the overwhelming majority of them from the Muslim world.

Replacement? Where have we heard that word before? Well, in 2011 the French writer Renaud Camus published Le Grand Remplacement, in which he contended that Europeans were gradually being replaced by immigrants from Africa and Asia and their descendants. The left reacted to the book with outrage. They called the idea hogwash and labeled Camus a racist. They still do. Wikipedia, which can always be relied upon to present a tendentiously progressive view as if it were the perfect objective truth, describes the Great Replacement theory as “a debunked white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory.” But a great replacement is precisely what Clark and Springford — and other political, academic, and media elites who think they know better than the people – are calling for. Just don’t use the word replacement.

Yes, population decline is a problem. Part of the reason for Europe’s population decline is that Europeans have – with good reason – lost their faith in the continent’s future. People are getting married much later than previous generations did, and are having fewer children. There may be effective ways of addressing this problem. Under a law that took effect this year in Hungary, for example, women who have two or more children will be exempt from paying taxes for the rest of their lives. Whether this policy, or any other, will have the desired effect remains to be seen. But one thing’s for certain: accelerating the continent’s Islamization is no answer.

Bruce Bawer is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Europe’s Elites Want a Great Replacement | Frontpage Mag

Peter Whittle explores Linehan’s arrest, the broader free speech crisis in the UK, and why European states suddenly abandoned their most basic principles.