Friday, July 04, 2014

Why is This Not Betrayal?

If you appreciate this essay by Fjordman, please consider making a donation to him, using the button at the bottom of this post.
Why is This Not Betrayal?
by Fjordman
It is dismissed as a “crazy conspiracy theory” if one suggests that Western political elites actively support the Islamization of Europe and the Western world. Yet one might argue that this is not a conspiracy theory — or even a theory — merely an observation.
The more Muslims and people who champion Islamic ideas imported into a society, the more Islamic influence there will be in that society. This is basic logic: if you import large numbers of Muslims to a country, you get more Islamization. It’s pretty simple, really.
So let us ask a simple question: Do Western governments allow large numbers of Muslims to settle in Western countries? Yes or no? The answer is obviously yes, as we can easily observe all around us. Western authorities have for decades been in the process of importing large numbers of Muslims to our countries. Since more Muslims means more Islam, this implies that Western authorities actively support the gradual Islamization of our countries.
If you find this to be a provocative observation, then ask yourself the following question: If Western political elites, ruling authorities and mass media really and truly object to the growing Islamic presence in our societies, then exactly what are they doing to curb this growth, apart from some mostly symbolic gestures?
As long as they are not doing anything substantial to halt or even slow down Muslim immigration, they are in fact supporting the continued, gradual Islamization of our countries. There is no other way to put it.
What can be done?
A hard-line option might be to say explicitly that Islamic culture is incompatible with our culture. Therefore, Muslim immigration to all European and Western nations will be immediately and permanently halted. This will probably be seen as too provocative by many people, however.
A more plausible alternative might be to say that while many Muslims might be fine people as individuals, much of the Islamic world is currently in such a state of unrest and turmoil that we need to protect our own societies as much as we can from this. We are therefore sad to announce that we must, for an indefinite time period, suspend any immigration from this part of the world.
An even more moderate solution might be not to say anything about Muslims or Islam at all. Western governments could simply state that our share of the world’s population keeps dropping rapidly. Moreover, we have plenty of problems of our own to deal with. The unemployment rate in several southern European countries is above 20%, with youth unemployment exceeding 40% in some places. It does not make sense in this situation to import millions of more people when we cannot provide work to those who are already here.
With social problems and debt to take care of, we need to put our own house in order first. While we harbor no ill will towards other peoples and nations, we therefore regret to announce that we will have to suspend large-scale immigration from any part of the world until we have put our own house back in order again.
It is possible to understand why, for pragmatic reasons, Western authorities do not choose the confrontational approach and state openly that Islamic culture is incompatible with our culture. However, it is much more difficult to understand and accept why Western governments cannot choose one of the two other options.
They can simply state that due to the turmoil that exists in many parts of the Middle East and the Islamic world, we need to take steps to protect our borders more firmly. If we need to withdraw from certain naïve human rights conventions in order to reestablish effective control over our national borders, then we must do so.
Furthermore, the percentage that Western societies constitute of the global population and the global economy keeps shrinking fast. We are not all-powerful. Moreover, we have distinct national cultures that we would like to preserve, too. Our countries are the homelands of distinct peoples with a shared history, not empty bowls only to be filled by shopping and human rights.
As of today, this has also become an urgent security issue. Britain will feel the repercussions of the civil war in Syria and the rise of Islamic extremism within its own borders for “many years” to come, a top counter-terrorism expert stated in June 2014. At the same time, the former MI6 director of global counter-terrorism Richard Barrett told the BBC that it was “out of the question” for the security services to follow all of the Muslims who had fought abroad in conflict zones such as Syria when they return. There are quite simply too many of them now.
Similar warnings may be heard from the security services in Germany, France and other nations. Thousands of Muslims who are European citizens, from countries as different as Italy and Denmark, are currently believed to be Jihadist fighters in Syria, Iraq, Somalia and elsewhere. Some of them die there. Those who return, however, will often be more militant and deadly than they were before.
While not all of the returning Jihadist fighters will automatically turn into domestic terrorists in Western countries, it is highly likely that some of them will. Some militant Muslims return battle-hardened and with greater knowledge of how to kill those whom they consider infidels. It is all but inevitable that a few of them will decide to target us with deadly attacks. This process has already begun.
Yet despite all of this, large-scale Muslim immigration continues to Western Europe and North America as if nothing has changed. This is completely unacceptable. Even uneducated truck drivers I have talked to see clearly that we cannot continue to import many potential Muslim Jihadists from foreign conflict zones.
One has to expect that supposedly intelligent and well-informed people in positions of power should be able to see this, too. Are they remarkably stupid, or have they blinded themselves by fanatical adherence to an ideology of open borders, mass immigration and the dissolution of nation-states? Whatever the reason, the result is unacceptable.
It constitutes a massive betrayal of Western citizens to continue these failed immigration policies. In fact, harsher terms than “betrayal” could be used.
Yes, considerable damage has already been done due to decades of idiotic policies, but that is no excuse for doing nothing. When the fire brigades come to a house that is on fire, they do not conclude that they will do nothing and just let the entire city catch fire. They try to limit the damage as much as possible.
If damage limitation is the only thing we can do now, then let us at the very least do that. Every single step we take today to reduce the continued inflow of Islam-related problems means fewer or smaller problems for our descendants to deal with in the future. We owe them to do whatever we can.
We cannot base the future of our freedom, security and prosperity on wishful thinking. I am on the record as stating that I do not think Islam can be reformed, at least not if by “reformed” you mean something that is peaceful, based on secular laws, respects freedom of speech and coexists on equal terms with other religions. I would be very happy to be proven wrong in this regard. Sadly, there is little to indicate such an outcome at the moment.
Despite the talk about an “Euro-Islam,” there are few signs of any Europeanization of Islam, but plenty of signs of a gradual Islamization of Europe. There is no convincing indication of a general liberalization of the Islamic world, either. On the contrary, more repressive and aggressive versions of Islam are on the ascendancy from Malaysia to Turkey. Non-Muslims are being put under increasing pressure in many Muslim-majority countries. In a number of cases, they are in the process of being virtually wiped out by violent means. Meanwhile, unrest in parts of the Islamic world is spilling over into other regions.
It is deeply irresponsible of Western political leaders in such a situation to continue large-scale immigration from unstable Muslim societies. Our cities should not be turned into battlegrounds for clashing Middle Eastern tribes.
Serious steps must immediately be taken to halt the continued influx of radical Muslims and potential Jihadist fighters. If Western governments and political leaders fail to do this, then they fail to protect their countries and uphold their basic duties to their citizens. They should be held accountable for that failure.
PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.

91 thoughts on “Why is This Not Betrayal?

  1. I’d love to see this published in the MSM. Or perhaps Pat Condell could make a video presentation of the content.
  2. “Since more Muslims means more Islam, this implies that Western authorities actively support the gradual Islamization of our countries.”
    Western politicians have become so stupid, so dunce. so [lacking in cranial capacity] … that it is necessary to point out to them something as obvious as the above statement.
    Politicians who are stupid, daring liars, unconscionable, stupid, immoral, unscrupulous … pave the way to devastating wars. And still voters go and elect them and call a democracy.
  3. The elites do not imagine that Europe can possibly be “Islamized”. They figure, rightly or wrongly, that the draw of secular life in Europe will prevail in the end, and that European Muslims will defect from Islam or give it nothing more than casual lip service.
    No one they know takes religion seriously. They cannot really grasp that anyone might. So they are quite confident.
    • Many Western elites seem to hold a schizophrenic attitude toward their own native culture: They disdain it enough to promote a massive infusion of “multiculturalism” and sneer at the “nativists” who want to maintain their culture, but they simultaneously believe that the parts of their native culture they really value are indestructible and so manifestly superior that the newcomers won’t even try to destroy them, but will gladly adopt them.
      I think you’re correct in observing that our Western elites underestimate the depth and power and durability of religious commitment among people from Muslim societies in particular. In the “progressive” worldview, people should become enlightened and less fanatical when they’re immersed in a secular-progressive society. For the offspring of Muslim immigrants to become MORE fanatically religious instead is so contrary to their expectations that they cannot confront the facts realistically. So they search for the explanation in some failure of the host society to be welcoming enough.
      Some American observers have fallen into this trap in assessing Islam in Europe: claiming that European countries have not done as well as the U.S. at “integrating” their Muslim populations, but we here in the U.S. are doing it properly, so no worries …
  4. “If Western governments and political leaders fail to do this, then they fail to protect their countries and uphold their basic duties to their citizens. They should be held accountable for that failure.”
    Then if they do not The People have every right to do what they fail to do- as in live up to our duty to protect ourselves and future generations. This article is a masterpeiece in understatement. What these “elites” are doing is mass extermination of cultures and peoples. Calling them “criminals” is an undertstatement.
    • Not nihilism – annihilationism.
      They want to destroy the existing order and replace it with something more feudal. If the native proles won’t get with the program, then they’ll be removed.
  5. To simply stop immigration at this point in time would be equal to what it is in medicine palliative treatment for a lethal disease. What is really needed is surgery – a deep incision that uproots the parallel civil societies the various muslim populations already created in the host countries. That is a direct result of the fact that in islam there is no secularism, religion and politics go hand-in-hand. The existing muslim minorities are numerous enough to step over the threshold from which they can exercise influence on the host societies without accepting integration into the latter. Islam does not integrate, islam absorbs like a vacuum cleaner anything and everything comes its way.
    • How can a ‘religion’ condone, indeed, even promote, murder and mayhem? I maintain that islam is only a violent primitive political system masquerading as a religion.
      • I agree wholeheartedly. I’ve often said that islam is a political power grab ideology disguised as a religion. What intelligent god would ever glorify death over life?!
    • Monostor- You’re not the first to propose such a “solution”, and I really wish it were so simple. However the scheme to remove Muslim minorities from democracies, even if a government were willing to try, would encounter numerous problems:
      1) Who wants to be the first Western-style democracy to begin what would be condemned as “ethnic cleansing”? You and I know that Islam isn’t a race, but our opponents don’t make the distinction.
      2) Who decides, and how, which Muslims are a danger to our way of life? Yes, I can already imagine some followers here arguing that they all are. Would they include Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for example? So you either try to do it fairly, which could take decades, or quickly, which would lead to great injustices.
      3) Where to send them? No point in bundling hundreds of “Dutch” Moroccans, say, onto a ‘plane to Marrakesh if the authorities there refuse permission to land (as they, and many other Islamic nations, probably would).
      4) The first country brave enough to introduce such measures would be ostracised by its fellow-democracies, even if some secretly sympathised, and economic sanctions would likely follow.
      5) Many of these potential deportees have citizenship of the countries where they live. How safe would our citizens abroad be, including diplomatic staff, if we failed to observe the standards we criticise other, less “enlightened” nations for ignoring (eg, Sudan recently)?
      6) The likely reaction of Muslim countries would be catastrophic for much of the global economy. The US, say, might survive without Middle Eastern oil; others wouldn’t. Meanwhile Saudi etc. could get by, if with difficulty, on exports to China, Japan and other countries not boycotted.
      7) There would almost certainly be a huge upsurge in terrorism.
      8) Last, but far from least: there would be massive, bloody riots among the Muslim population; many innocent people would die, millions’ or even billions’ worth of property would be destroyed, martial law would be imposed (and when, if ever, would it be lifted?).
      I don’t have a better solution, other than being much more rigorous in insisting on all the people in our countries’ adhering to our standards of behaviour, and it may be too late for that in some places. If anyone does have a better idea…
      • to: Mark H.
        no need to have such a defeatist attitude. initially small steps are needed to resist radical islam–which may then make our society more confident to take additional steps.
        For example the Prime Minister of Australia has stated fighters returning from Syria will not be allowed back in the country.
        • Australia has her problems, just like the rest of the West. But Australian voters seem to have grasped the importance of key elements of economics, culture, and curbing of p.c. think. They are our best hope.
      • Mark,
        There is no real PC/MC solution that gives Westerners a warm fuzzy feeling that so many people desire especially in the anti-jihad collective. Look the last time we had to be tough with Islam was almost 500 years ago. Even then a good part of Europe had no stomach for it. To be blunt, we’re not capable of realistically assessing the threat as it now stands. It will take a younger generation that will be directly exposed to Islam on our territory to formulate a strategy to deal with them.
        Now the gist of Fjordman’s article. Yes it is betrayal. The elites have canceled the social contract they have with the masses and are now a threat to their existence. What the elites now desire is simply demographic destruction of Western people and their culture and it’s replacement by Islam.
        That said, I’m actually surprised fjordman article was posted instead of him being banished.
        As to why it’s happening. It’s too long to go into here. But suffice to say, the dominant minority(ruling elite) has generally liberal(Marxist) ideologies across the board except when it comes to making money not to mention living in what amounts to a fantasy of their own making.
        Others admit their policies will destroy the West but in the short term their year end bonuses will be god like. Money over life and common sense.
        Some simply desire a state like Brazil where a small elite run everything and become fantastically wealthy. These people think Muslims will be nice and passive like current locals. Don’t think so.
        Be that as it may, we’re stuck with what we have as leadership. Things will get worse until we get a black swan event that the elites cannot paper over like they did in 2008 or maybe ISIS gets lucky and topples the Gulf oil states.
        (The Ancient Chinese aphorism which was appended to this otherwise excellent comment has been taken out. That fortune cookie wisdom is a decades-old virus which was inserted into otherwise normal conversation in English, spreading relentlessly. It is far worse than four letter Anglo Saxon epithets, which have at least the advantage of antiquity on their side. Were we to let the fortune cookie wisdom appear here on Gates of Vienna, why the Wicked Witch of the West would vaporize in front of your eyes. Sorry, anon, that you were unwittingly caught in the fan belt. Stuff happens even in boring times.]

1 comment:

Blogger said...

Get daily ideas and instructions for earning THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS per day ONLINE for FREE.