Author Topic: Islam in Europe and pre-emptive dhimmitude  (Read 463456 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Steyn: The future shows up
« Reply #1050 on: November 14, 2023, 08:43:04 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19435
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19435
    • View Profile




ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19742
    • View Profile
Re: Islam in Europe and pre-emptive dhimmitude
« Reply #1057 on: January 26, 2024, 10:43:37 AM »
what you don't like my title ?

 :-D :-o

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile
Re: Islam in Europe and pre-emptive dhimmitude
« Reply #1058 on: January 26, 2024, 02:00:47 PM »
 :oops: :oops: :oops:

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile
WSJ: Islamist intimidation in Britain
« Reply #1059 on: March 02, 2024, 04:37:55 AM »
TAP FOR SOUND
Wonder Land: If you were an adversary looking at a U.S. uncertainty about its global leadership, what would you do? Answer: Up the ante—which is exactly what Iran, Russia and others are doing. Images: AP/AFP/Getty Images/Zuma Press Composite: Mark Kelly
London

Britain’s appeasement of Islamism, and a Conservative government’s unwillingness to enforce the law, has caused a crisis of democracy. For months, the government failed to counter the carnival of hatred that is London’s weekly anti-Israel marches. On Feb. 21, the tide of antidemocratic incitement reached the gates of Westminster, and the mother of parliaments surrendered to the mob.

The Scottish National Party had proposed a motion calling for a cease-fire in Gaza, scheduled to be debated that day. The intention was to pull Labour, the leading opposition party, off the fence on which its leader, Keir Starmer, has so carefully balanced it. Normally, a motion like this goes directly to a vote. This time the speaker of the Commons, Lindsay Hoyle, broke with precedent, surrendering to Labour’s pressure and proposing an amendment that its members could support.

Mr. Hoyle said he interfered with the legislative process because he didn’t want “another attack on this House,” a reference to the 2017 terrorist attack that killed five in and around Parliament. He feared that if he forced Labour moderates to vote against the original motion, he would be endangering their lives.

Mr. Hoyle is fighting for his job, but we can see why he thought discretion was the better part of valor. A mob of Palestinian Solidarity Campaign supporters had besieged Parliament and projected the genocidal slogan “From the river to the sea” onto the Elizabeth Tower, better known as Big Ben. The group’s leader, Ben Jamal, had exhorted his followers to “ramp up pressure” and force the police to “lock the doors of Parliament itself.”

Two members of Parliament have been assassinated since 2016. That year Labour’s Jo Cox was on her way to a surgery when a neo-Nazi shot and stabbed her to death in the street. In 2021 the Conservatives’ David Amess was fatally stabbed by an Islamic State follower at a surgery held in a church. In 2010, Labour’s Stephen Timms was seriously wounded in a knife attack by an al Qaeda sympathizer for, she said, his support of the Iraq war. The sharp rise in threats and harassment since Oct. 7 has forced members to rely in part on private security.

In early February, Mike Freer, a government minister, announced he won’t run for re-election. Mr. Freer, who represents a heavily Jewish constituency of North London, isn’t Jewish but supports Israel and campaigns against antisemitism. He’s endured death threats, homophobic insults, fake bombs left on his doorstep, and an arson attack on his office. He had already been wearing a stab vest to public events on police advice and considers himself “lucky to be alive.”

Labour members get more threats. The party’s “red-green” electoral strategy depends on the Muslim-rich urban vote. While Mr. Starmer talks moderation in Westminster, Labour moderates are menaced by their own voters for insufficient anti-Zionist zeal. Sometimes the fulminators are from the hard left, but they’re usually Muslim. Churchill defined an appeaser as someone who “feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.” When Labour’s appeasers proffered the Jews and the party’s principles as appetizers, they made themselves the main course.

Last month Rachel Reeves, who will be the next chancellor of the exchequer if the Conservatives continue to self-destruct, was chased in the street by anti-Israel activists. Then, in a Feb. 29 by-election, Labour lost its previously safe seat in the heavily Muslim northern city of Rochdale. The party dropped its candidate, Azhar Ali, after it emerged that he suggested Israel allowed the Oct. 7 attacks as a pretext to invade Gaza. This allowed the extremist George Galloway, who was expelled from Labour in 2003, to win by attacking the party as weak on Gaza.

While diversity remains our strength, at least officially, Britain’s political class fortifies the Westminster “bubble.” The media hector the public about its “far right” objections to immigration. The police appeal limply to “community relations” as if naming the community that needs relationship counseling is above its pay grade. The BBC described the surge in reported antisemitic incidents in October—up 1,350% from a year earlier—as if it were inclement weather, not a victimless crime but one without perpetrators.

Mayor Sadiq Khan denounces “Islamophobia” with the ardor of an identity politician running for re-election. Politicians and columnists sing choruses against the “scourge of antisemitism” but can’t say who’s scourging whom. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak says that “from the river to the sea” is racist and that incitement against Jews is “un-British” but he too can’t say who is attacking British democracy. Naming the problem admits its existence, and its scale.

Maria Lovegrove, head of the government’s antiradicalization program, Prevent, says the organization is racing to “flatten the curve, before it becomes a generational radicalizing moment.” That moment passed in the previous generation. A 2018 U.K. government report found that more than 900 British Muslims “of national security concern,” including women, had traveled to “engage with the conflict in Syria”: more than the number then serving in Britain’s armed forces, and more than the Irish Republican Army’s estimated number of active fighters at the time of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.

British democracy and society are at a crunch point. Multiculturalism, political correctness and a deliberate failure to enforce immigration law have fostered a domestic-terrorist problem of unprecedented scale and complexity. The vast majority of the British people are repelled by extremism, appalled at the demolition of their values, and outraged by the cowardice of their rulers. Last month the red-green alliance crossed the Rubicon and bullied Parliament into submission. This is how a democracy dies.

Mr. Green is a Journal contributor and a fellow of the Royal Historical Society.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19742
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile
Islam in Sweden
« Reply #1063 on: June 09, 2024, 09:03:03 AM »
A bit imprecise to call this Islam, though the countries in question are Muslim.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67342368.amp

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3225
    • View Profile
Germany Grows a Pair?
« Reply #1066 on: July 24, 2024, 05:58:08 AM »
Mayhaps:

Amjad Taha أمجد طه
@amjadt25
·
1m
Congratulations to Germany! Let's hope the UK and US join this humanitarian effort. German police have raided and closed mosques operated by Iran and Hezbollah terrorists from Lebanon and Palestine, who also sponsor the Muslim Brotherhood to radicalize the West. Amazing day!😍

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile
Re: Islam in Europe and pre-emptive dhimmitude
« Reply #1067 on: July 24, 2024, 08:18:30 AM »
The world retains its ability to surprise.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile
Islam in France
« Reply #1068 on: July 25, 2024, 08:51:35 AM »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile
Re: Islam in Europe and pre-emptive dhimmitude
« Reply #1070 on: August 06, 2024, 04:46:04 PM »
What could go wrong?

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3225
    • View Profile
Beaten & Arrested for the Crime of Complaining?
« Reply #1071 on: August 08, 2024, 08:42:51 AM »
Another peek at the "Progressive" future some seek to cram down out throats:

A Postcard from Manchester

AUGUST 8, 2024BY ADAM MILL

About a month ago, I found myself in the UK, strolling through Manchester’s downtown commercial district. Hours earlier, the district bustled with tourists, businessmen, and travelers. But at around 9:15 p.m., the streets were deserted save for a lone woman fleeing for her life in a full-length robe and headscarf. Closing the distance, a man pursued while shouting her name at the top of his lungs. He looked briefly in my direction before continuing his pursuit, unconcerned by the presence of a bystander witness. He shouted her name, commanding her repeatedly in a language I did not understand. In no time, he gripped her arm and screamed in her face.
For a few seconds, she continued resisting and protesting. According to the map, she was in the United Kingdom with all its human rights and protections. In reality, she had no rights. The crowd trailing the man helped drag her back to the home she fled. Words stuck in my throat. I realized I wasn’t in Kansas City anymore. The police, if they ever came, might not take the side of the woman. I might be accused of Islamophobia. I might miss my flight in the morning and my juvenile son had no way home without me. With shame, I submitted to the situation as meekly as she did.

On the way to the airport, I got an earful from my cab driver. Manchester, like many British cities had “no-go” zones that exclude English common law’s representative, the police. He recommended against my returning to Manchester for safety reasons.

A month later, a child of Rwandan immigrants broke into a Taylor Swift-themed summer holiday camp in Southport and murdered three young girls, ages 6-9. In working class Britain and Ireland, officials hesitate to enforce laws against immigrants for fear of being accused of Islamophobia. Complaints are maligned and sometimes censored. In the United Kingdom, you can be arrested for observing that these newcomers often hurt people.
Nothing can excuse the appalling but predictable violence of the riots that followed. Protestors looted stores, threatened mosques, and set fire to occupied buildings. Unfortunately, instead of waking up to the need to address the grievances of their long-suffering citizens, the new Labor government of the UK has used this violence as a pretext to deflect.

The out-of-control immigration persists because the whole of the West has fallen under a brainwashing spell which has tossed out the cherished principle of equal justice under the law. Enforcing immigration laws draws accusations of racism and intolerance, which are words the left tosses about like shields for their incompetence and dereliction of duty. Police are expected to enforce the law, instead, along equity lines. The legacy of colonialism and a thousand other academic narratives are said to justify passive collective punishment.

After all, don’t British natives basically have it coming? We live in a world in which the opposite of racism is said to be … more racism. The British are powerless to even debate mass immigration into what have become their growing Sharia colonies.

In the United States, we can still reclaim the right to debate and vote on the wisdom of more immigration as a legitimate question of public policy. While the right has been reasonably clear on immigration policy, I find myself confused by the other.

The left tells us that Republicans have caused the current immigration crisis by failing to approve bipartisan immigration legislation. But if you ask a Harris supporter to explain what problem the immigration bill would have solved, the hoax quickly evaporates. Does Vice President Harris want to increase immigration, decrease immigration, or just increase the speed at which we process the immigrants into the country? The immigration bill proposed to add 100 new immigration judges, which suggests the goal is really to lubricate processing—in other words, to increase the speed of existing immigration. Why would we want that?

In the UK, the young man who hacked those three girls to death was not himself an immigrant, but his parents were. This suggests that with the overwhelming numbers of immigrants and the ideology now gripping the West, assimilation is not happening as the left likes to advertise when it is politically convenient to them. This crime and a thousand other outrages have accumulated to spark the English people to rise up and demand action. Some held up signs with pleas to “save our children.” In response, battalion-sized gangs of immigrant men roved the streets of London to crack the skulls of protestors who dared speak out. In the end, more Englishmen were attacked by immigrants instead of arresting those roving bands of thugs the police … arrested their countrymen for the crime of complaining.

Unfortunately for the woman I saw in Manchester and thousands of other victims—in both the UK and the United States—their suffering does not matter to the left. In bondage to the principles of “equity,” the people of the United States and the West owe a fictitious debt that can never be fully satisfied but must always be collected.

This spell of dangerous and malignant bigotry has already led to tribal violence. These are the wages of equity. It’s not racism to ask police to protect citizens from immigrant violence. All people, including that poor woman, deserve equal treatment before the law. Race does not disqualify anyone from the first duty of government which is to secure their safety.

https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/a-postcard-from-manchester/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: August 21, 2024, 08:01:51 AM by Crafty_Dog »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile
Hoover: Islamism and immigration in Germany & Europe
« Reply #1074 on: September 24, 2024, 03:38:00 PM »


https://www.hoover.org/research/islamism-and-immigration-germany-and-european-context?utm_campaign=Cultivation&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9nJU-SdBGcv1gmHalK3nUyRiid9x6bXRvIeYuHVKD5Z4gyds3I3pUDiEM2BlrNjgn01xKOIG-x63rKrdb3Yf4fkTiEKw&_hsmi=326009207&utm_content=326009207&utm_source=hs_email

Islamism and Immigration in Germany and the European Context

Large scale immigration has led to important changes in political discourse across much of Europe. The lack of successful integration policies has put pressure on government services, thereby weakening social cohesion and, unsurprisingly, producing a vocal and sometimes violent backlash.

Tuesday, September 17, 2024  5 min read
By: Russell A. Berman
Research Team: Middle East and the Islamic World Working Group, Military History in Contemporary Conflict Working Group
Russ Berman Image
Islamism And Immigration In Germany And The European Context
By: Russell A. Berman
Large scale immigration has led to important changes in political discourse across much of Europe. The lack of successful integration policies has put pressure on government services, thereby weakening social cohesion and, unsurprisingly, producing a vocal and sometimes violent backlash. The anti-immigrant Rassemblement National received the most votes in the recent snap election in France, while the even more radically nativist Alternative für Deutschland did well in the June European elections and is positioned to do equally well or better in regional elections in Eastern Germany in September. Since these parties also tend to be critical of the traditional Atlantic alliance, the potential political shifts fueled by anti-immigration sentiment are directly relevant to American national interest. If these parties eventually enter governing coalitions–not imminent, but not unimaginable–traditional Atlanticist commitments will be called into question. U.S. policy makers should be paying attention.
There is a second piece to the puzzle. In contemporary European discourse, the challenges of immigration are inextricably tied to questions of Islam and Islamism.  Of course not all immigrants come from Muslim majority countries–many more are Christians from Ukraine. Nor are all Muslim immigrants Islamists, i.e. advocates of radical political views shaped by particular strains of Islam. Nonetheless, the dissemination of Islamism in Europe overlaps significantly with immigration patterns. The responses to both issues–immigration and Islamism– connect them to each other, so that immigrants are wrongly assumed to hail primarily from the Muslim Middle East, and Muslims are, equally wrongly, assumed all to be Islamist. With these caveats in mind, it is important to recognize how Europe has not succeeded in integrating the Middle Eastern immigrant population, elements of which cling to Islamist viewpoints incompatible with liberal Western societies.

The specific character of the combination of the two–Islamism and immigration–varies from country to country. Some countries in Central Europe, like Hungary, have adamantly refused to accept Muslim immigrant communities, while Poland, the Baltics and Finland face weaponized immigration from Belarus and Russia. Countries in the European South, like Italy, are in the front-lines of cross-Mediterranean human trafficking so that immigration has shifted politics to the right and induced tensions with the European Union. The United Kingdom opted for Brexit in part to reduce immigration, but successive governments have failed to do so: anti-immigrant civil unrest, evidenced in this summer’s riots, has ensued.

Germany is a particularly instructive case in point. It is the dominant political force in the European Union with the largest economy.  It is also the country with, in absolute terms, the largest foreign-born population, as it has long been an attractive destination for immigrants, whether from other EU countries or from outside the EU. Today about one in five residents was born outside Germany, and of those born outside the EU, most come from Muslim majority countries, especially Turkey and Syria. Many Muslim immigrants integrate successfully–some even pursue prominent political careers–but many others bring with them cultural inclinations that make integration difficult. This cultural baggage from their home countries includes generalized grievances against “the West,” emphatically patriarchal expectations hostile to gender equality, and an uncompromising animosity toward Israel indistinguishable from antisemitism.

Unlike England and France, Germany does not have a history as a colonial power in the Middle East. One might therefore expect an easier path toward integration. Yet post-war Germany also has a history of facing up to its Nazi past, accepting responsibility for the Holocaust, and therefore articulating consistent support for Israel.  Former Chancellor Angela Merkel phrased this commitment famously by insisting that Israeli security is part of Germany’s “raison d’état.” In addition, much of the German public remains acutely concerned about expressions of antisemitism. There are exceptions, to be sure, especially in the academic and cultural sector where antisemitism has become embarrassingly pronounced: more education is no guarantor against bigotry, as the United States witnessed at our own elite universities during the past year. However German public opinion in general still rejects the outbursts of antisemitism that have multiplied in the wake of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks. Unfortunately, that same revulsion against antisemitism does not hold for the Islamist faction among immigrants into Germany.

The post-war efforts to “come to terms with the Nazi past” and to reject the legacy of antisemitism represent one of the main features of modern Germany’s path toward liberal democracy. Yet precisely this German refusal of antisemitism has become a point of conflict with Muslim immigration and assimilation. Many immigrants arrive from countries where antisemitic attitudes are widespread, and these attitudes have fueled some of the anti-Israel protests in Germany. One consequence is a dramatic spike in insecurity in Germany’s Jewish population who have faced physical assaults, as synagogues operate only under armed police protection. A further consequence is a more general sharpening of debates around immigration and the rule of law, moving the Overton window toward the political right. This transformation of the political landscape may ultimately have an impact on US-German bilateral relations and transatlantic cooperation more broadly.

Immigration into Germany is hardly new.  There is a long history of immigration, including the arrival of the Protestant Huguenots from seventeenth-century  France who found a degree of religious tolerance in Prussia; the many Russians who fled the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 to settle in Berlin; and the waves of foreign workers, starting in the 1950s who built the “Wirtschaftswunder,” the economic miracle, through which West Germany recovered after the devastation of the Second World War. Assimilation was not always seamless, but immigrants often ultimately succeeded in integrating, as they viewed their arrival in Germany as a gateway to opportunity.

However, for the large-scale immigration, especially from the Middle East, of the early twenty-first century, different attitudes and circumstances have made integration more difficult to achieve. Among the immigrants, various strands of neo-traditionalism in the Muslim communities have contributed to a preference for separatism and the development of “parallel societies,” hostile to modern social norms. The expectation to identity with and enter into German mainstream culture, a Leitkultur, has come to be denounced as an illegitimate imposition. In other words, cultural assimilation is no longer necessarily regarded as an unquestionable desideratum or an opportunity for improvement. On the contrary, in April Islamist demonstrators in Hamburg, for example,  called for replacing Germany’s liberal democracy with  a “caliphate.” Meanwhile, with regard to the receiving society,  German cultural self-understanding –as in much of the West–has grown less self-confident. It is now shaped more by the fragmentation of multiculturalism rather than by a cohesive German national identity. If a host country is unsure of itself, immigrants may become less eager to integrate themselves into it. More abstractly: contemporary post-modern societies have become entropic and decentered, with the result that assimilation becomes elusive.

As a result of failed integration policies, immigrant-majority neighborhoods develop, such as Neukölln in Berlin, once a German working-class area, now largely a Muslim ghetto. Failed integration also contributes to a widespread perception of greater criminality. The same debate is playing out across the continent: allegations of higher crime rates among immigrants circulate, in turn eliciting quick denunciations that these insinuations are only expressions of prejudice or racism. A secondary debate then follows about the methodology of crime statistics and, in particular, whether the citizenship status or race of suspected criminals should even be reported. Progressives argue that such reporting runs the risk of stigmatizing whole groups, while others counter that concealing the suspect’s identity feeds conspiracy theories and the populist allegation that the press and the government are hiding “the truth.” The controversy is playing out now in Berlin in a symptomatic way.  The General Secretary of the Liberal Party, Bijan Djir-Sarai, has called for transparency regarding the nationality of criminal suspects, while the head of the Social Democratic Party’s committee on Migration and Diversity, Aziz Bozkurt, denounces that proposal as “right-wing populism.” Interestingly the advocates on both sides of the debate have immigrant backgrounds. Djir-Sarai was born in 1976 in Tehran to an Iranian-Jewish family, while Bozkurt was born in 1981 in Germany to an Alawite family from Turkey.

The controversy over reporting the nationality of suspects, which was also the spark that ignited the recent wave of riots in the U.K., is however just one piece of a larger social anxiety about the erosion of the rule of law.  The law governing the evaluation of applications for refugee status, for example, has proven to be a Potemkin village. Individuals whose applications are denied are generally not deported and instead remain in Germany indefinitely in a legal limbo, despite Chancellor Scholz’s declaration that “grand scale” deportations are necessary.  The net effect is an erosion of public trust in the administration of immigration. In addition, regular reports of terrorist plots linked to ISIS–such as the plan for a suicide bombing at a Taylor Swift concert in Vienna– further unsettle the public. Doubts about the rule of law are spreading–whether with regard to crime statistics, immigration management, or terrorism. Hence the proliferation of calls for more law and order. In July the Islamic Center in Hamburg was shut down: Interior Minister Nancy Faeser accused it of promoting extremism, supporting Hezbollah and serving as a front for Iran.

Why should this matter to the United States?  In this era of Great Power Competition, the countries of Europe count as some of America’s most important allies. Political and social instability there should be of concern, if only because of the threat they pose to weaken the alliance. In addition, to the extent that failed integration produces breeding grounds for extremism, it should not be forgotten that the 9/11 plot was prepared significantly among radicals in Germany. Islamism in Europe can turn into a terrorist threat to the American homeland. Finally, the backlash against immigration, especially in Germany and France, has been carried by political parties whose animosity to immigrants goes hand in hand with a rejection of the transatlantic alliance of Western democracies. The crises of immigration and Islamism in Europe are therefore directly pertinent to American national interests. An astute U.S. foreign policy would help manage these challenges.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile
Dhimmitude in Britain
« Reply #1076 on: November 01, 2024, 08:34:44 AM »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile
Pogrom in Amsterdam
« Reply #1078 on: November 09, 2024, 09:50:57 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72229
    • View Profile
Italy and Holland
« Reply #1079 on: November 11, 2024, 07:38:01 AM »


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3225
    • View Profile
Europe Will Fall to Islam
« Reply #1081 on: November 20, 2024, 12:25:32 PM »
Here's an informative, depressing interview that offers some hope with the founder of Jihad Watch:

In the Fall/Autumn 2024 issue of The European Conservative (Number 32:58-60), author and analyst Álvaro Peñas conducted an interview with the Horowitz Freedom Center’s very own Robert Spencer about his latest book, Muhammad: A Critical Biography. We have republished it below.

What is Jihad Watch?

In his book Seymour: An Introduction, J.D. Salinger has his protagonist give some writing advice: he says you ought to think of the kind of books you want to read, and then write them yourself. I have tried to do that in my books and on Jihad Watch, a website that explains what ‘Jihad’ means and how its actions are inspired by Islamic teachings. It is a place to inform and explain about Jihad. It didn’t exist—so I had to make it. In the last 20 years there hasn’t been a day in which there hasn’t been news to publish.

Tell us about your new work on Muhammad.

It is a different biography of Muhammad than the one I wrote in 2006. This new book goes through the stories in Islamic tradition about Muhammad and compares them to other competing traditions, showing that there are variations on practically everything: his name, when he became a prophet, who the angel that appeared to him was, etc. What the book shows is that the Koran is not a historical account but myths and legends that take different forms in different places and times.

Is it going to be a controversial book?

Of course. I honestly don’t know how anyone can read this book and, if they are rational, still be a Muslim.

You have spent your career arguing that Islam is not just a religion like any other but that it actually has a unique tendency to encourage extremism. Why are so many people unwilling to even consider such arguments?

For two primary reasons. The first is that there has been a concerted campaign for over 20 years to make people think not only that Islam is peaceful but that if you think otherwise, then you are racist, Islamophobic, hateful, and should not be around any decent human being. As a result, people are frightened into thinking that they must believe Islam is peaceful—even against all the evidence—and that they face personal and professional ruin if they do not believe this or if they publicly deny that it is peaceful, wonderful, and a great benefit for the countries of Europe and North America. It is a propaganda campaign aimed at making people feel afraid of speaking up, ashamed of their beliefs, and socially stigmatised if they tell the truth.

The other reason is because the reality is too terrible to consider. There are millions of Muslims in Europe, and the demographic trends lead to a Muslim majority before the end of the century—and the same is going to happen in North America. The citizens, the native populations of Europe and North America, look at these trends and think: ‘We are facing conquest and Islamization, and the brutal subjugation—and ultimate extinction—of native populations, as has happened in North Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere.’ When people hear such things discussed, it seems too terrible to consider. And, besides, everyone has met Muslims who are good people, so people think these claims must be false; this can’t all really be happening.

The reality is too frightening to face.

A pleasant lie is better than an unpleasant truth.

Yes—but, at the same time, I think people know it. There are even people who assume that all this is already happening and that it’s too late to reverse. There is no way to change the political order because [the current trend] is too strong, so it is inevitable.

During a ‘Pride’ celebration in Madrid, a journalist asked several attendees what they preferred: an Islamic caliphate or a government with the ‘far Right’ (VOX) in power. The answer was in favour of the caliphate. This reflects the enormous ignorance of a large part of the population.

Young people have been lied to all their lives about what Islam is and about its history. In the United States, there was a concerted effort to change the textbooks—and now all you find is a completely ‘pink’ version of what Islam is, one that has nothing to do with history. These textbooks say nothing about the violence of Jihad, or about the subjugation and extermination of native populations. They only have criticisms of Judaism and Christianity, which generates the idea that Islam is somehow superior to our culture—so why not welcome it?

Countries like Qatar spend money in service of this agenda. Is this money buying the silence and complicity of many in the West?

Yes. For example, Qatar has bought American universities and has invested millions of dollars, so the universities have begun to reflect the views that their funders want to spread. And that’s why this propaganda is so successful—because it’s taught in universities, it’s taught in high schools, you hear it in the media, everywhere. You don’t hear dissenting voices because they are silenced by accusations of racism. Politicians are also afraid because if they don’t accept the narrative that Islam is peaceful and wonderful, then they can be branded as Islamophobic racists—and that, of course, will be the end of their political careers.

U.S. universities are a focus of enthusiastic support for groups like Hamas. How has such brainwashing been possible?

The groundwork for this has been laid for decades. The only framework many students have been given for viewing the world is the Marxist vision of ‘oppressor’ and ‘oppressed,’ which they neatly apply to Israel and Palestine. That is the framework they know, whether it is racial, economic, or territorial. Therefore, the supposed oppressor can never be the victim because this does not fit the narrative they see in the world. Within that narrative, the oppressed sometimes strike back brutally—but this is justified by the greater and more enduring (if hidden) brutality of the oppressor. That is why they justify what happened on 7 October.

Is it impossible to change the narrative no matter what Hamas or any other terrorist group does?

The narrative is a social contagion. I think we have had lessons in recent years about how human beings are stampeded into thinking preposterous things because everybody accepts them. It is like a virus that passes from one person to another. There is no rationality behind it. We have examples in history—like the Salem witch trials in the 17th century—where witnesses swore they saw their neighbours with the devil or talking to evil spirits. It was totally preposterous, but it passed from witness to witness like a virus. This is what is happening now in American universities.

However, we must not give in to this propaganda. That would be a defeat that would have very serious consequences. If the Palestinians and their allies are allowed to set the agenda and dictate their view of reality, there is a chance that Israel will be destroyed in the future. The truth must not be left unsaid.

For example, we often hear that Gaza is an open-air prison. But in a real prison or concentration camp, no missiles are fired into neighbouring territories—so the actions of the Palestinians in Gaza disproves this. Anyone who thinks about it for 30 seconds realises that. Propaganda has money and counts on social contagion, but eventually the truth comes out. Speak the truth and you will be victorious.

This is reflected in my own career speaking about Islam over the last 30 years. When I started—and still to some extent today—to tell the truth about what Islam preaches, many people—Muslim and non-Muslim—accused me of lying. They said there is nothing about Muhammad marrying a nine-year-old girl, or taking sex slaves after battles, etc. And now you have apologists for Islam openly defending child marriage and sex slaves—all of the very things that I was accused of lying about before. So, in the end, the truth comes out.

You mentioned a virus and social contagion. This is very similar to the woke movement.

It’s pretty much the same thing. The woke start saying that men can become women and everybody starts to accept the idea that men can become women. But if they only thought about it for a moment, they would realise that men cannot become women. The problem, however, is that many people are afraid to say so, lest they suffer ostracism and the ruin of their professional and personal careers. So, instead, they accept the claim that men can become women and that their pronouns are they/them. That’s how it works.

We saw a whole display of wokism at the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games.

Yes—but there was a positive point because a lot of people saw it and asked themselves: why are they so afraid of Christianity? Why this obsession with trying to destroy Christianity? Some people are starting to think that maybe we need to bring back the traditions that we have discarded and defend our culture. Although I will not be around to see it, I am confident that in 50 years people will say: can you believe that people used to think that men could become women!

Do you think there is still time to turn the situation around?

I think there is always time, even after they win. Remember the Reconquista: it took eight centuries, but it was a good example of how it can be done. I think this is the most possible scenario in Europe: countries like Sweden, France, the UK, Germany, and possibly Spain, will fall. But there will be pockets of resistance that will never give up—and out of them will come the rebirth of Christianity and the West.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/europe-will-fall-but-there-will-be-pockets-of-resistance/