Economic Counter-Jihad and the Dynamics of Cultural Shifts in the UK
What is economic counter-Jihad? Let’s put that in simpler terms: Boycotting Muslim businesses.
Economic counter-jihad, a term gaining prominence in the UK, refers to a movement where people, concerned about the impact of mass immigration and cultural tensions, express their grievances through non-violent means—specifically, by choosing where they spend their money. This movement advocates boycotting businesses owned by Muslims. The rationale behind this strategy is rooted in the belief that money spent at Muslim-owned establishments contributes to the construction of mosques and may facilitate further immigration, prompting Brits to reconsider their consumer choices as a form of societal expression.
The British have traditionally been reasonably open to immigration in modest numbers. However, during the Blair years, the immigration floodgates opened, and no government since has sought to close them. What happens when mass immigration begins to irreparably damage the host country?
The 7/7 bombings in 2005 marked a devastating turning point in the relationship between the indigenous British population and Muslims. The heinous attacks intensified existing tensions and eroded trust. Muslims found themselves under increased scrutiny and suspicion, facing the repercussions of yet another act perpetrated in the name of their religion. The repercussions continue to reverberate in the socio-cultural landscape of the UK and contribute to the desire for economic counter-Jihad.
In the aftermath of the 2013 brutal murder of soldier Lee Rigby on a London street in broad daylight in the name of Islam, the phenomenon known as “economic counter-jihad” really began gaining more momentum across the UK. This movement, triggered by concerns about mass immigration, is reshaping consumer choices and sparking a dialogue about cultural integration, immigration policies, and the role of businesses in shaping societal dynamics.
The 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, orchestrated again by a Muslim extremist during an Ariana Grande concert, stands as another tragic episode in a series of attacks on the UK by individuals citing allegiance to Islam. The indiscriminate nature of the attack, which included children and young people among the victims, amplified anti-Muslim sentiment among many Brits.
Muslims rioted in Denmark over a cartoon. They rioted in France. In Husby, Sweden, frequent riots by Muslim youths have highlighted the challenges of cultural integration. Or rather, the lack of it.
They tend to start rioting, burning things, and attacking their host country anywhere in the West they choose to live in significant numbers. And that includes the UK.
Many feel that Muslims do not seek to integrate with British society and seek to purposely separate themselves from the indigenous British people.
The reason for this is that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the traditional British way of life and British core values.
Grooming gang scandals in Telford and Rotherham exposed a disturbing pattern: authorities, paralysed by fears of racism accusations, failed to protect young victims from largely Pakistani Muslim rapists and child abusers. The reluctance to address these crimes echoes across the UK, as seen in Manchester’s Operation Augusta, where concerns over race relations hindered investigations. These systemic failures raise urgent questions about the true scale of the Muslim immigration problems the UK faces.
This is from a Muslim on Twitter:
As more Brits start to use economic counter-jihad, the grooming gangs scandal serves as a stark reminder of how the Muslim culture is incompatible in the UK.
Their prophet purportedly married his wife Aisha when she was six or seven, and consummated that marriage at nine or ten. This type of thinking is simply not compatible with civilised societies.
So what is to be done about the cultural terrorism we find ourselves faced with at the hands of Islam? Stop funding it is one simple answer that is gaining traction. And we are back at the door of economic counter-Jihad.
The roots of economic counter-jihad can be traced back to the concerns surrounding mass immigration and its impact on the host country. Tensions in various European countries, including Sweden, have fueled debates about the consequences of an increasing Muslim population.
Brits, closely monitoring world events since the 2001 September 11th attacks, find themselves today grappling with the implications of the Gaza-Israel conflict in 2023. This recent conflict has added another layer to the already complex tapestry of concerns, as Muslims express their grievances throughout the UK with large protests and marches. Large gatherings for prayer outside Parliament and a march on Armistice Day are seen by many as a threat.
The concerns extend beyond the UK borders, with Muslims rioting in Denmark over a cartoon and similar unrest in France. Observers note a pattern of rioting, burning, and attacks on host countries by Muslim communities in Western nations with significant Muslim populations.
Critics argue that some Muslims in the UK intentionally separate themselves from the indigenous British people, citing the incompatibility of Islam with traditional British values. This sentiment is echoed by political blogger Pat Condell, who articulates the concerns of many British people in videos addressing the challenges posed by cultural differences.
The discourse takes a sharp turn as issues of political correctness and accusations of racism come into play. Mentioning certain issues related to Muslims and Islam is often labeled as racist, despite the argument that Islam is not a race but a religion. The term “Islamophobia” has been coined to describe prejudice against, hatred towards, or irrational fear of Muslims, sparking debates about the boundaries of free speech and the right to express concerns without being labeled as discriminatory.
Addressing the cultural terrorism at the hands of Islam, the article navigates through potential solutions. Extreme measures like burning mosques or engaging in physical violence are deemed impractical and illegal. Repatriation of Muslims faces political challenges, and closing the door to further immigration is met with resistance from the political establishment.
Enter economic counter-jihad—a movement gaining traction among British citizens seeking a non-violent way to express their concerns. The theory behind this movement is rooted in the belief that money spent at Muslim-owned businesses contributes to the construction of mosques and may facilitate further immigration, prompting some Brits to reconsider where they spend their money.
The economic counter-jihad movement prompts a broader discussion about the financial dynamics between communities. Critics argue that a significant portion of disposable income flows into Muslim businesses, contributing to mosques and potentially funding arrivals from the third world. The question arises: Should Brits consider redirecting their spending to non-Muslim businesses to address these concerns?
Cash industries like take-away food, taxi driving, barber shops and market stalls employ many Muslims, raise questions about tax contributions and the tax office’s approach to these matters. The reluctance to address these issues raises concerns about fairness and equality in the broader societal context.
The evolving dynamics of economic counter-jihad underscore the need for ongoing conversations. Share your views on this complex issue in the comment box below.