Over recent years, it has become evident that the Muslim and Christian races are deeply divided. It is widely known that Islam is a violent and barbaric religion – why else would there be a need for the term ‘jihad’ – a word literally translating as ‘struggle’?
Christian inspired patriots by contrast, hold nothing but the purest love of the one true God in their hearts when they attack mosques, refuse to bow down before fictional lions and remove headscarves of Islamic women, hoping only to aid their adaptation to our most gentle land.
The impact of inter-racial and inter-religious tension is now so widespread in modern Britain that the decent people of Albion find it nigh-on impossible to walk the streets without having a machete, meat cleaver or similar sharp blade thrust in their direction by a violent barbarian.
According to a report from ONS, in 2011, across Britain 3,885 died in falls; 1,938 in transport accidents; 210 by choking; and 8 by accidental suffocation in bed – by good fortune a mere 0 died in terrorist activities that year, doubtless a statistical anomaly which will not be repeated.
It remains to be seen how many people died by each of these causes in 2013, but the Woolwich Lee Rigby murder means that the number of deaths inspired by Islamic extremism is at least one, with a full statistical survey of the undoubted carnage still to be carried out. Perhaps the Muslim problem may pose even as grave a danger to the British people as their own duvets.
The events of Woolwich were clearly no isolated incident, an egotistical and violent idiot or two seeking to impose their fringe beliefs, as was the case with the Boston Bombers or Anders Brevik. The events in Woolwich were different to these in nearly every way, though none that come immediately to mind.
Islam is on the rise, a violent, monolithic religion, which has launched an unprecedented crusade against the lionhearts of Christendom within our holy land.
It is necessary, in my most humble opinion, that we deport the foreign-born, those whose interest do not necessarily align with the nation’s.
But which races should be deported?
It is my assertion that this inevitable clash has not been brought about by the superiority or inferiority of either race, but by the contrast between the two. Therefore, I argue that it would not be sufficient to deport the Indians, the Pakistani, but also the French, Germans and Canadians.
Though the Danes seem a warm and courteous people, it would be unfair to discriminate between the races, and impractical to decide on a case by case basis whether foreigners can remain in Britain. As a result, it is only wise that all foreigners be returned to their country of origin, leaving Britain as a nation purely for the British.
I think it sensible, in addition to deporting the foreign-born, to remove those who pledge their loyalty to foreign religions lest they be tempted by split loyalties. As a result, Scientologists will be deported to America; Zoroastrians will be deported to Iran; Catholics will be deported to Vatican City, with only Anglicans allowed to remain. Those nations will then of course have discretion to move those people on or torture them as they see fit – but given the dividing points of religion and race, which inevitably cause violence whenever people of differing groups meet, it is clear that this is the best solution.
There will be cases when the choice of whether to deport or not deport is not so clear cut.
For instance, if a family have moved to Britain with a two-year-old child, who spends the next 28 years learning the culture and language of our proud nation, should they not be considered British, despite the misfortune of their birth?
It is a tricky conundrum, and to solve it, it is my belief that we should return to the legal principle of ‘time immemorial’. In essence, this means that we should look back as far as records go, and discover which proportions of a person’s DNA originated in each nation, and return a proportionate amount of the person to each nation.
It may not be the cleanest solution, but it will be the purest, and will have the added benefit of making Britain a nation feared around the globe, helping to restore the greatness which, alas, is now no more than an empty title.
Furthermore, ‘tis my most sincerest belief that this proposal for relieving tensions between the peoples of the Earth could be expanded on further, to bring yet greater harmony within our great nation.
As the EDL wisely argue, it is our differing natures which cause conflict, however hard the pacifists and scholars of the English Defence League had worked to overcome the differences.
Is there not then, the possibility of divisions between the varied cultures of Britain? Might not a Cornishman and a Melton Mowbrayer disagree over the ideal content of a meat pie? Is not a Yorkshireman travelling to Devon, taking with him his peculiar habit of coating his pudding in gravy, likely to cause disagreement amongst the local population?
As with the races, I propose that the people of Britain are likewise returned to their point of origin.
Whether this should be done on a county by county or city by city basis is a matter to be debated amongst religious scholars such as Stephen Lennon or Tommy Robinson. Each are men more erudite than I – a mere amateur tinkerer in the great ideas by contrast.
This policy, necessitating Britain becoming soaked in blood in order to return ourselves to peace, will not be universally popular. As such, it is my belief that we must first turn to request volunteers. And where better to turn for volunteers than amongst Britain’s noblest and proudest patriots, those heroes of the English Defence League?
As proven by their actions and statements in the past, they are of the belief, shared by all reasonable people, that the character of a person’s soul is not formed by their friendships, or the entirety of their education and experiences. No, a person’s character is determined in full by the piece of land upon which they or their ancestors were born.
Being the wise, noble souls that they are, willing to commit violent attacks, however distasteful, to defend their peaceful nation from the violent would-be usurpers, I call on members of the English Defence League to once again lead by their most noble example.
How should an individual with more than one point of origin be separated out? Allow me to propose a method of calculation, if I may be so bold.
Suppose, for instance, that an Englishman is born in Luton to two Irish parents. This would make him, at first glance, one third English, and two thirds the product of the Emerald Isle – though research into his genealogy would no doubt divide that figure down further. Let us take the more basic figure for the purpose of explaining the method.
In this case, two thirds of the individual’s body mass will be removed from our nation, the remaining third allowed to remain in our noble land.
The same shall be the case when the body parts of the EDL members are divided ‘tween the regions of the country which formed them.
Which body parts are to be separated shall be left at the individual’s discretion, it being the belief of this writer that an individual with a generous heart and a respectable work ethic should be allowed to decide their own place of residence.
I profess, in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavouring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the public good of my country, by encouraging the peace, purifying the races, and bringing happiness to all those proud patriots who have of late used the world wide web and the streets of our towns to express their concern with the Muslim problem.
As stated, this is a solution that will not prove popular to all people, many lacking the stomach to do what is necessary for the greater good. I therefore call on all members of the English Defence League to lead by their noble example.
I believe that, if they do so, the separation of their body parts will inspire great joy across our nation.