Journalist beaten up in Portland by Antifa thugs for an article he wrote

In my mind it does not matter one iota what you think of anyone's ideas - NOTHING justifies this sort of premeditated violencce. And yet liberals seem to think that an "offensive" article is justification enough for meting out violence.

It seems to me that Antifa are the real fascists - the 21st Century brownshirts.

Journalist, Andy Ngo beaten up by Antifa thugs


Today Andy Ngo was singled out by Antifa thugs and beaten up and is in hospital.

I really believe Twitter is so perverse they will ban Andy Ngo instead of Antifa.

He seems to have been singled out for this treatment because he wrote and article.

"Just a reminder that Andy Ngo was the author of the massively islamophobic WSJ article which claimed there was Sharia law in Tower Hamlets because he saw an 'alcohol restricted' sign.

An article which you dislike is reason to assault someone?!  

The "offending" article from the WSJ.

A Visit to Islamic England

Muslims headed to Friday prayer while non-Muslims went the other way. No one made eye contact.

Andy Ngo

WSJ,

28 August, 2018

London

Other tourists may remember London for its spectacular sights and history, but I remember it for Islam. When I was visiting the U.K. as a teenager in 2006, I got lost in an East London market. There I saw a group of women wearing head-to-toe black cloaks. I froze, confused and intimidated by the faceless figures. It was my first encounter with the niqab, which covers everything but a woman’s eyes.

This summer, I found myself heading back to the U.K. as it was plunging into a debate over Islamic dress. Boris Johnson, the country’s former foreign secretary and London’s ex-mayor, wrote a column opposing attempts to ban face-covering veils. Nonetheless, he added, “it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes.” The responses could hardly have been more heated.

I wanted to cut past the polemics and experience London’s Muslim communities for myself. My first visit was to Tower Hamlets, an East London borough that is about 38% Muslim, among the highest in the U.K. As I walked down Whitechapel Road, the adhan, or call to prayer, echoed through the neighborhood. Muslims walked in one direction for jumu’ah, Friday prayer, while non-Muslims went the opposite way. Each group kept its distance and avoided eye contact with the other. A sign was posted on a pole: “Alcohol restricted zone.”

Women and girls were dressed in hijabs, niqabs and abayas (robes). Some of the males wore skullcaps and thawbs, Arabic tunics, with their trousers tailored just above the ankles as per Muhammad’s example. The scene could have been lifted out of Riyadh, a testament to the Arabization of Britain’s South Asian Muslims. At the barbershop, women waited outside under the hot sun while their sons and husbands were groomed.

Inside the East London Mosque, visitors were expected to dress “modestly.” Headscarves were provided at reception for any woman who showed up without one. A kind man on staff showed me around the men’s quarters. He gave me a bag filled with booklets about Islam. In one, Muslims are encouraged to “re-establish the Shari’ah,” or Islamic law. Those who ignore this mandate are “of little worth to any society.”

That night, I visited the Houses of Parliament. Rifle-carrying police officers greeted me when I stepped out of the Tube. The extra security was mobilized in response to last year’s car and stabbing attack in Westminster by Khalid Masood, who killed five people. Outside the station, there are roadblocks along Westminster Bridge and a new security fence in front of the palace yard. I asked an officer about Masood’s attack. “I’d rather not talk about it,” he replied. “I was there that day.”

Forty-eight hours later, I woke up to the news that a car had rammed a Westminster security barrier. Police arrested Salih Khater, a 29-year-old Sudanese refugee who had been given asylum and British citizenship. Three people were injured in the attack. London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, expressed support for banning vehicles from parts of Parliament Square.

Next I visited Leyton, another district in East London where some Muslim social norms prevail. An Arab cafe near the Tube station was filled with men; no women were inside. An Islamic bookstore sold hijab-wearing dolls for children. The dolls had blank, featureless faces, since human depictions are prohibited in conservative Islam.

I stopped outside the Masjid al-Tawhid, a South Asian Salafi mosque and madrassa (school), just before afternoon prayer time. A group of girls in robes and veils walked around back, toward the dumpsters, where the women’s entrance is located. I later saw the Islamic Shari’a Council of Leyton. This community has religious, educational, business and legal institutions to maintain a separate identity.

All this gave me pause. But I was unprepared for what I would see next in Luton, a small town 30 miles north of London and the birthplace of the English Defense League, which has held unruly anti-Muslim demonstrations. At the Central Mosque, I met a friendly group of Punjabi-speaking young men. 

“You’ve come to see Luton?” one struggled to ask me in English. The young men asked me to follow them through the town center.

Within minutes, we walked by three other mosques, which were vibrant and filled with young men coming and going. We passed a church, which was closed and decrepit, with a window that had been vandalized with eggs. We squeezed by hundreds of residents busy preparing for the Eid al-Adha holiday. Girls in hijabs gathered around tables to paint henna designs on their hands. 

All the businesses had a religious flair: The eateries were halal, the fitness center was sex-segregated, and the boutiques displayed “modest” outfits on mannequins. Pakistani flags flew high and proud. I never saw a Union Jack.

The men finally led me to a discreet building that housed a small Islamic center. They spoke privately to its imam. I was led upstairs to see him. The imam asked me if I was prepared to convert. Apparently there had been some miscommunication with the young men. I told the imam I wasn’t ready for that, but I would appreciate any literature I could take home. He led me to a bookshelf and said I could have whatever I wanted. I grabbed the first booklet that was in English. It was by Zakir Naik, a fundamentalist preacher from India. 

“The Qur’an says that Hijab has been prescribed for the women,” the booklet explained in one section, “so that they are recognised as modest women and this will also prevent them from being molested.”

Other tourists might remember London for Buckingham Palace, Piccadilly Circus and Big Ben. I’ll remember it for its failed multiculturalism. Or perhaps this is what successful multiculturalism looks like.

Mr. Ngo is an editor at Quillette.

Here is a rebuttal from Business Insider

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/wall-street-journals-andy-ngo-writes-cowardly-islamic-england-2018-8?fbclid=IwAR1QXXt-mFS9hifW51cFt5pBfozBPdK70tntqHYiKIHqTApYi2ebqSY28kE

Here is Andy Ngo with Tucker Carlson

From CNN 4 years ago.

London's 'Muslim Patrol' aims to impose Sharia law in East London

Note, Whitechapel, mentioned in the piece above and Tower Hamlets are adjacent

Calls for more Islamic schools in New Zealand

My problem is not with the Muslim community at all 
but with government, media and international globalist 
agendas of "open borders" while Muslim countries 
continue to be bombed.

The hypocrisy of government and media on “special needs” for Muslims

This is my video commentary



This is part of the story I neglected to discuss in the video.

This is an article from 2005 regarding a Muslim school back then and the concerns the then-government  had back then.

What has changed since?

And this year.

This is what really is going on behind the scenes and 
is being suppressed under the rubrick of 
"islamophobia".

There are indications that young people in Australia 
and New Zealand were radicalised by the al-Noor 
Mosque in Christchurch, the same one where the 
attack on March 15 took place.

Dispatches: Undercover Mosque - The Return - Real Stories

https://www.cryptogon.com/?p=54552

Apparently, it is hate speech in Canada to criticise Muslims but not to abuse white people or even to punch them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/07/canadian-judge-punching-a-caucasian-and-yelling-i-hate-white-people-isnt-a-hate-crime/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6b6b69ff230c

Here are some examples of "positive discrimination".  Most "positive" discrimation involves discrimination AGAINST other groups

Muslims in the UK fill 44% of high security prisons, out of a 5% Muslim population

It seems to be"islamophobic" 

to point out a statistical fact

Earlier today I shared the following article on Facebook. The link worked fine.

By evening the entire website had been disappeared.

gggg

UK: Muslims fill 44% of high security prisons, out of a 5% Muslim population

• 1,229 out of the 5,885 prisoners in high-security jails follow the Islamic faith
• The figure equates to 20% compared with 5% Muslim population in Britain
• At Whitemoor prison, Cambridgeshire, 44% of the 447 inmates are Muslim
• Some experts warns jails are ‘ripe’ to become extremist recruiting ground

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/uk-muslims-fill-44-security-prisons-out-of-a-5-muslim-population.747557/


This appeared in the Daily Mail in 2016. I 
suspect that 3 years later it would be 
IMPOSSIBLE for even the Daily Mail to report 
that fact as it is now for anyone to rereport it

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3415435/How-one-five-inmates-maximum-security-prisons-Muslim.html

At least someone (RT) is giving Tommy Robinson a fair hearing.

The dubious claims of the French mainstream media on immigration

Jean-Yves Le Gallou: The Reality of the Great Replacement

Translator’s note: typical street scene in Seine-Saint-Denis.

Unz Review,

25  April, 2019

The following is a translation of the summary of Jean-Yves Le Gallou’s speech at the third Fête du Pays Réel (Festival of the Real Country), held on March 30. This is a useful summary both of some of the dubious claims of the French mainstream media on immigration and of the known facts.

* * *

If disinformation is extremely widespread, immigration is surely the area in which it is strongest, notably on the question of the great replacement. On this point, the mainstream media make mutually contradictory claims, because they assert both that the great replacement does not exist . . . and that it is not intentional!

I. “The great replacement doesn’t exist”

To discredit those who assert the existence of the great replacement, the media again use contradictory arguments because they claim on the one hand that France has always been a land of immigration but, on the other hand, that the structure of the population has not fundamentally changed.

1.a “France has always been a land of immigration”

Translator’s note: Immigration to France since 1851. From the end of the Barbarian Invasions in the sixth century to the nineteenth century, there was little immigration to France, and what there was largely of Europe origin.

As shown by a monumental study[1] edited by Dupâquier,[2] this is a falsehood. In fact, for 5000 years, the French population, stemming from an Indo-European settlement, has changed very little: a few percentages over several centuries. The bulk of these migratory movements took place within the European continent, including what has been called “the great invasions.”[3]

It is true that at the end of the nineteenth and at the beginning of the twentieth centuries, France experienced migratory phenomena, but this largely concerned Catholic populations coming from Poland, Italy, Spain, or Portugal. This remained the case up to the 1960s.

1.b “The immigrant population is stable”

Translator’s note: Mainstream politco-media institutions like to use charts to show that the legally foreign population in France has been “stable” since the 1960s and therefore, they sophistically add, no population change is occurring.

Even according to official statistics, this is false. In 1911, the foreign population represented 3% of the total, as against 5 or 6% today. This development could seem insignificant but, in reality, this number – the stability of which over the past decades immigrationists like to emphasize – hides a quite different reality. Every time that 100,000 or 150,000 foreigners arrive on French soil, just as many are naturalized.

As such, although the administrative reality does not change (the proportion of foreigners), there is another reality which changes considerably: cultural, political, sentimental, and civilizational reality. Today the term “French” has lost much of its content, because one can have French nationality without having the slightest attachment to France, and in any case without participating in its civilization.

One can estimate the share of the population not originally from France or Europe at 20%, a number confirmed by several sources. Thus the CSA[4] has criticized the media for having TV shows with only 18.5% “diversity,” proof that they consider that its demographic weight is much higher!

What’s more, the INED[5] and the INSEE[6] estimate the proportion of foreigners and descendants of foreigners at 19.5%. Admittedly, these figures include the perfectly assimilated descendants of Europeans and therefore this number should, to a certain extent, be revised downwards.

In fact, for the most part, this figure should be revised upwards! Firstly because the study in question concerns the 2008-11 period and the situation has worsened since. Secondly because the population of non-European origin is not well studied. A parliamentary report admits that we do not know the population of Seine-Saint-Denis[7] by a margin of error of 30%! Finally because this study only takes three generations into account: immigrants, their children, and their grandchildren, supposing that afterward assimilation is achieved. This is certainly true in the context of European immigration, it is much less true concerning non-European immigration.

It is also claimed that immigrant entries are stable, even though in 2008 there were 210,000 recorded entries and in 2018 there were 410,000.[8] It almost doubled!

The 20% figure that I mentioned earlier is also corroborated by Jérôme Fourquet in his latest book, which incidentally has a very revealing title: The French Archipelago: The Birth of a Multifarious and Diversified Nation.[9]

Translator’s note: The rising percentage of Muslim first names for newborns in France.

The director of the Department for Public Opinion and Business Strategy of the IFOP polling organization observes that 18.5% of newborn boys have a Muslim first name. This figure, one must emphasize, does not take into account ambiguous first names and only gives a sense of Muslim immigration and not of non-European immigration as a whole, as the latter is not exclusively Muslim.

Translator’s note: The rising percentage of newborns tested for sickle-cell disease in France’s regions, a rough indicator for non-European ancestry.

Another indicator: the tests for sickle-cell disease are of interest because they are performed at birth and they concern a disease which largely affects non-Europeans. This figure is to be taken with caution because our Caribbean compatriots and some European newborns may take the test, while conversely the Chinese for example do not. The take-away is that this test, which was performed on 20% of newborns in 2001, concerned 38% in 2017.

The demographic figures, while being very revealing, by no means describe the whole reality of the great replacement. It is not only a part of the population which is changing, it’s our civilization: the growing role of Ramadan in our society, the sharia which is becoming the law in certain neighborhoods, the increasing popularity of the headscarf, the generalization of halal (50% of market animals are slaughtered according to this rite).

2. “The great replacement is not intentional”

Translator’s note: The financial speculator George Soros has opposed European patriots like Viktor Orbán and used his billions to pressure Europe to open up to Third-World immigration. He said in October 2015, at the height of the migrant crisis: “Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”

The media, while denying the existence of the great replacement, also assert that mass immigration is not the consequence of a political will, which is treated as a “conspiratorial” viewpoint.

This question certainly deserved to be debates, even if there is evidence which is difficult to deny. In the first instance, everyone can observe that, against public opinion (as revealed by all opinion polls), the pays légal[10] is infinitely more favorable towards the advocates of immigration than its opponents. The latter do not have much access to the mainstream media or the big publishers. On the contrary, they are often welcomed before the authorities of the High Court of Paris’ famous Seventeenth Chamber![11]

The news is teaming with revealing examples. Thus, recently, identitarians were held in custody for 48 hours for having peacefully demonstrated. On the other hand, for an activist favoring illegal immigration to the country, the Constitutional Council blocked the penal code in the name of the constitutional value of the ‘principle of fraternity’![12]

Translator’s note: In August 2016, amidst the migrant crisis, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker declared “Borders are the worst invention ever made by politicians.”

The comparison of the means possessed by the various actors is also very revealing. The European agency Frontex, in charge of protecting Europe’s borders, has a budget of 500 million euros, a sum inferior to that of immigrationist organizations subsidized by billionaires like Soros but also by public institutions, such as the European Union, governments, and the regions.

So who wants this great replacement? It is true that more and more elected officials are publicly saying that they want to limit immigration. But, as it happens, the law is largely of a jurisprudential nature. It therefore pertains to the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional Council, the Council of State,[13] the Court of Cassation, or the National Court for Asylum Law.

This superiority of the courts over government power was particularly well illustrated by the case of family unification: instated by the Chirac government in 1976, the following government tried in vain to abrogate it. In vain, because the new decree was invalidated by the Council of State. Thus, for forty years since, family reunification has continued to be applied.

The same has occurred for the right of asylum, originally meant to protect small minorities persecuted in their home countries. It has become a convenient way to move to France because the courts are building, decision after decision, a legal system extremely favorable to foreigners. Thus, unlike in cases of ordinary law, they do not have to prove their claims whether concerning their identity or establishing the reality of the persecutions which they claim to have suffered in their home country.

Does this mean that the political authorities are impotent? In reality, on the question of immigration energetic measures are indispensable: the rights of peoples to their historic continuity and to their civilization needs to take precedence over the individual rights of man. The State must stop subsidizing immigrationist organizations and abrogate the Pleven laws[14] and others which prevent free debate on a question that is so vital for the future of our people.

By refusing to take such measures, government and parliament are allowing, whether they intend to or not, the Great Replacement to take place.

Notes

[1] Jacques Dupâquier (ed.), Histoire de la population française (Paris: PUF, 1988), 4 volumes.

[2] Jacques Dupâquier (1922-2010) was a French historian and a member of the Institut de France (Academy of Moral and Political Sciences), specializing in the history of populations and demographic history.

[3] Translator’s note: referring to the barbarian invasions at the end of the Roman Empire.

[4] Translator’s note: The Conseil National de l’Audiovisuel, the High Council for Audiovisual Media, the television and radio regulator.

[5] Translator’s note: Institut national d’études démographies, National Institute of Demographic Studies.

[6] Translator’s note: Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques, National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies.

[7] Translator’s note: a département, or county, northeast of Paris which is now overwhelmingly inhabited by Africans and Muslims, and has become a byword for crime, urban decay, and ethno-cultural replacement. The département is home to the Basilica of Saint-Denis, in which all but three kings of France are buried. Just last month, the basilica was vandalized by intruders: stained-glass windows were broken and the organ damaged.

[8] There were 240,000 visas granted, 120,000 asylum requests, and 50,000 “isolated minors.”

[9] Jérôme Fourquet, L’Archipel français: Naissance d’une nation multiple et diversifiée (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, February 2019).

[10] Translator’s note: the “legal country,” embodied in political, judicial, and administrative elites, and their norms and values, in contrast with le pays réel, the real country, the actual people and its values. These terms were coined and popularized by Charles Maurras.

[11] Translator’s note: the Tribunal de grande instance to Paris’ seventeenth chamber is specialized in matters dealing with the press and, therefore, innumerable cases dealing with censorship, whether of ‘hate speech’ or libel.

[12] Translator’s note: the Conseil Constitutionnel, France’s highest court, found the far-left Cédric Herrou not-guilty despite having been arrested multiple times for helping some 250 migrants cross into France from Italy. He has become an icon of the left.

[13] Translator’s note: the Conseil d’État advises the presidency on judicial matters and is the supreme court for administrative justice.

[14] Translator’s note: the Pleven laws (dating from 1972) form the foundation of France’s censorious ‘hate speech’ legislation.