Moors Law

Derbyshire cited some statistics from this exponential demographic calamity article, which are truly remarkable:

Figures from the 2011 census show that the Muslim population in the UK has substantially risen between 2001 and 2011 from 1.5 million to almost 3 million. This now takes the proportion of Muslims from 2% of the population to 5%. In some towns, Muslims make up almost 50% of the population, and in large cities like London and Manchester they make up around 14% of the population. But why has the number of Muslims risen so much and what are the implications? […] There are several reasons why the number of Muslims has doubled. […] … By the next census Muslims may even double again and make up 10% of the population. These statistics encourage us to think more carefully about the provisions made for British Muslims and the ways in which they are an integral part of the nation. [Emphasis in original.]

(It ‘encourages’ me to think of different things entirely.)

March 24, 2015admin 20 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Apocalypse

TAGGED WITH : , , , , , ,

20 Responses to this entry

  • Moors Law | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on March 24th, 2015 at 10:00 am Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    I think leftists have always hated their origins and wanted to destroy them, and so for them, an apocalypse is the desired outcome. Everything burns but the self, the beautiful self… of course.


    admin Reply:

    They are no doubt thrilled. For anybody else, you’d think the fact that this cataclysm has an acknowledged doubling period would at least provoke mild consternation.


    Anonymous Reply:

    I think they just want jobs for themselves. Can you imagine how much community organizing can be done, how many voluntary sector jobs, non-profit organizations and advocacy groups can be created when you have a permanent underclass? This is the reason why they prefer Palestine to Israel, or Haiti to the Dominican Republic.


    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    Man seeks transcendence; this memeplex has scrambled itself and merged ‘from nothing’ and ‘to nothing’ – to annihilate one’s self is a certain kind of transcendence. It’s certain that a misunderstanding of martyrdom could lead to forgetting that the Crowns were real and not imagined. But once the sacred order has dissolved, the ascetic mind moves to death as transcendence. How it arrives there doesn’t seem to matter; was it Timothy Leary that wished to kill himself at a time he planned? There was a philosopher, or misosopher more rightly called, that saw that since he could not create himself, he had no ultimate agency (since even though he could choose, he could not set the circumstances in which his choices would be made) but there was one way he could take command of his existence: ending it. This of course only works, mentally, if you have forgotten that death died. Man is limitation; if he has any freedom from limitation it must arise from outside of him. Which is just to say, one only need read Isaiah to understand that this arc recurs periodically; the nature of this indulgence is that it ends, at least for a time, in autophagy. It will have reached the point when it considers non-transcendent annihilation both transcendent, enlightened, moral, AND noble. THE LAW BRINGETH FORTH DEATH.

    “How can you be really sure you have the car unless you detroy* it”


    Kgaard Reply:

    Yes you are on to something here. There’s a weird psychological dynamic right under the surface. It stems from some sort of Buddhist/Christian concept of “total acceptance.” Otherwise known as “saying yes to life.” I can kind of see the appeal of this stance: The world is changing at lightning speed and unless you spend all your time thinking about this stuff you will simply find yourself in a cloud of angst and wariness. Best to accept it all. If this means accepting your own death (which is where it leads) that’s fine too.

    I was in a Course in Miracles (ACIM) circle last year with a very smart 55-year-old engineer and these topics came up. I said, “What would you do if you had brain cancer and there were no brain surgeons because society had degenerated to the point that nobody could do it anymore?” His answer was, “Well, I guess I would just die then.” He said it with total equanimity. This guy’s wife and kid were running all over him too. I actually threw a book at the guy I was so angry. (Well, threw it in his general direction, knocking over a water pitcher in the process.)

    But you can see the problem: It’s as if your choices are to accept it all or spend all your time fuming at the collapse of western civilization. Neither choice is particularly good.


    Hegemonizing Swarm Reply:

    > I said, “What would you do if you had brain cancer and there were no brain surgeons because society had degenerated to the point that nobody could do it anymore?” His answer was, “Well, I guess I would just die then.”

    I can’t see that as particularly angering. It is honest and most probably correct. What would have been your own answer?

    Kgaard Reply:


    My answer was, “You are defeatist. You are so bent on being non-judgmental and accepting that you refuse to even begin to judge the events occurring in the world that may, in fact, lead to the disappearance of brain surgeons. Your refusal to JUDGE is leading to your c**t wife running roughshod all over you and your kid becoming a freeloading pothead. Both of them, I might add, are miserable because you won’t stand up and be a man.”

    This is exactly the sort of anti-life mentality that Nietzsche correctly identified as being integral to Christianity. If you won’t make Aristotelian judgments about what is good and what is bad in THIS world and then fight for them, you end up a pathetic pawn of events — always fighting your own DESIRE to judge (which is innate) but never actually doing so out of guilt. You become resentful of those who are willing to judge and fight for what they determine to be correct and true.

    This is the PC COEXIST mindset in a nutshell.

    Exfernal Reply:

    Kgaard, what would you do, answering your own question?

    Kgaard Reply:

    Well if I actually had brain cancer I would get sick and die. But the issue at hand is one of disposition toward changes in the external world. Do you just accept everything and have a stance of TOTAL non-judgmental-ness for changes in the world around you, or do you stand up and say, “This is good, that is bad?” That was the ultimate point of my exchange with the engineer dude. His highest priority was total acceptance — even to the point of inviting his own death (via creeping degeneration of the society around him).

    As an aside, the guy’s son (the pothead) was actually in the circle with us, which made it a very interesting exchange. I kept saying, “Why don’t you cut the kid off and let him go get a damn job?” And even the kid was saying, “Well, you know dad, I COULD get a job.” But for the father this was all very difficult to swallow. His identity was based on complete acceptingness. He was a great example of pathological altruism.

    That said, I want to respond to something Blogospheroid wrote yesterday in a different thread about levels of altruism. There is a difference between SJWs (who are active bullies) and deep groovies who embrace “planetary consciousness.” The latter are more serious people and present a more interesting challenge to neoreaction. Maybe I will expand on that over there.

    Hegemonizing Swarm Reply:

    Not asserting oneself leads to other people running all over them, and that can be anger-inducing if you care for the person.

    However the opposite, busybody worry-about-everything is even more tiring and counterproductive. It could be said to be one defect of SJW types, that they judge from far away, with limited information, mostly matters they cannot change anyhow (thus invoking the power of government … and we all know where that leads).

    There’s a balance to be had here. Oh crap, that sounds new-age too.

    Posted on March 24th, 2015 at 12:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Moors Law | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on March 24th, 2015 at 1:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    This would all be so much informative if they mentioned the proportion of muslims amongst those below 20 years old.


    admin Reply:

    You’re not expecting that figure to be comforting?


    spandrell Reply:

    Perhaps comforting to my decision of going as far away as I could.


    scientism Reply:—religion.html#tab-Religion-by-age-and-sex

    “Muslims had the youngest age profile of the main religious groups. Nearly half of Muslims (48 per cent) were aged under 25 (1.3 million) and nine in ten people (88 per cent) were aged under 50 (2.4 million). Muslims also had the youngest age profile in 2001.”

    Here’s the age structure of the UK:–population-estimates-for-the-united-kingdom.html#tab-The-structure-of-the-population-of-the-United-Kingdom

    Looks like Muslims were about 7% of the under 25 population in 2011 (the data on Muslims is for England and Wales whereas the age structure is for the UK, though, so this doesn’t count any Muslims in Scotland or Northern Ireland).


    Posted on March 24th, 2015 at 5:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    The title of this post is perfect. Bravo!


    Mark Warburton Reply:

    Ah – snap!


    Posted on March 25th, 2015 at 5:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Warburton Says:

    The title of this post made me laugh orange juice through my nose.. haha.


    Posted on March 26th, 2015 at 9:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • Revive The Knights Templar? - Honor and Daring Says:

    […] Muslim population of Europe continues to grow, and they start to gain political clout. There is reason to believe that this is already well […]

    Posted on March 31st, 2015 at 2:15 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment