The Islamization of Europe

A very disturbing disaster-in-the-making is the ongoing Islamization of Europe. By Islamization, I mean:

1. Allowing millions of Muslims to immigrate into European countries;
2. Providing public subsidies of Mosque building therein;
3. Providing public support (welfare) for many of those Mulsim immigrants;
4. Forcing majority acceptance of unsavory Muslim practices, such as polygamy, wife-beating, Sharia law, burquas and veils, Halal slaughter and Muslim enclaves (no-go zones);
5. Appeasement of the Muslim immigrants by suppressing crosses, piggy banks, beer and wine, music stores, dogs and signs about bacon;
6. Restrictions on free speech, where Brits, French citizens, Italian citizens, Swedes and Danish citizens are fined or imprisoned (or both) for critically speaking about, writing about, tweeting about, blogging about, or otherwise objecting to Islamic practices and immigrant behavior.

Note that in these countries, truth is not a defense in voicing criticisms or concerns.  Some recent examples of European (and American) support for Islamization:

• French citizens are heavily fined for objecting to Islamization.  See Moonbattery's listing of details.
• German Journalist Michael Stürzenberger Fined 1200 Euros for Criticizing Islam.  See here for details.
• Danish Woman Guilty of Racism for Criticizing Islam -- See this link.
• Germany’s Silencing of Islam Critics --  See this link.
• Censorship, "Mental Illness" Overrun France -- See this link.
• And, even in America:  MAINE FINES GROUP FOR CRITICIZING ISLAM -- See this link.

Western Civilization appears intent on committing cultural suicide.  The mass importation of a barbaric, intolerant, hostile and unassimilable culture, while protecting it from criticism by Draconian means, is truly disturbing.  The question is, how do we fight this Islamization?  How do we reverse it?

Geert Wilders on Islam: "A Dangerous, Totalitarian Ideology"

Geert Wilders was interviewed yesterday about his looming prosecution for "insulting Islam." The interviewer asked hard ball questions but Wilders smacked them all out of the park.

You have compared the Quran to Mein Kampf, and called Islam a fascist ideology.
Why do you find that these remarks fit within the confines of the law?

"I am not the only one who thinks so. The public prosecutor also agrees, and many
professors. Churchill said the same thing."

"I view Islam not as a religion, but as a dangerous, totalitarian ideology - equal to communism and fascism. [Stogie: This is my position exactly.] Aren't I allowed to say so? If I say that about communism, there would not be a problem. I have never talked about people, I've always made it about ideology."

The Geert Wilders dilemma is a microcosm of the battle in the Western world today. On one side are people who see Islam as a dangerous, totalitarian ideology that is both a physical threat to life and property and a long-term threat to freedom and democracy. On the other side are people who see Muslims as just another ethnic group or religion, and any criticism of Islam a kind of bigotry, be it racism or another version of anti-semitism.

The most virulent form of Islam protectionists are now banning free speech in European countres and in Canada to make it illegal to truthfully discuss the history, beliefs and practices of Islam -- even when they are a dangerous threat to the indigenous population. Truly, Europe is in the process of committing national suicide. Liberalism is one massive death wish and perhaps that is why the death cult of Islam is so appealing to them.

I am in the Wilders camp. I see Islam as violent, anti-freedom, evil and dangerous. The Qur'an is a book of hate, advocating terrorism against non-believers.

Some leftist painted me as someone who wants to "kill all the Muslims" because I have stated that, in 50 years or 150, Islam must be wiped out. I was talking about the ideology, not the people, just as Geert Wilders is. If a major war occurs between the non-Muslim world and the Muslim world, we would be foolish to do anything other than ban the practice of Islam once we have defeated them. Without that,we would only wind up fighting them again and again until they eventually conquer us.

What is happening to Geert Wilders right now is frightening. It will happen here soon enough.

Read the interview here. Hat tip Atlas Shrugs.

Elect Obama? Don't Do It, America

There is something very strange about Obama and the Democrats. They seem to instinctively know what is bad for freedom and prosperity and rush to embrace it.

Barack Obama has openly bragged that his cap and trade energy policies will send energy prices through the roof; that high taxation may reduce tax revenues (by eroding the tax base), but that it is nevertheless needed to achieve "fairness"; that he will slash the military budget by 25% and assume the posture of a pacifist-appeaser in facing the world's bullies.

America under Obama will be less free, less prosperous and less secure. The lives of ordinary Americans will be worse, not better.
.
Socialism, i.e. "sharing the wealth" is an old fraud that has been tried in many times and many places and always results in less prosperity and financial security. But it sounds so good on paper! Some people have "too much" wealth, and others not enough; therefore, let's take the excess from the rich ones and give it to the poor ones, and then no one will be poor! It doesn't work, because an economy is not a static system and it doesn't take human nature into account.

When you steal the economic rewards from those who produce the goods and services, they stop producing or produce less; they stop investing, they stop taking the risks that an economy needs to grow, and they employ fewer people. When you give the stolen wealth to the non-producers, they lose any incentive to grow the skills, attitudes and work ethic necessary to move up the economic ladder. In other words, the population of producers decreases while non-producers increase and the economy goes steadily down hill.

Every college sophomore in every generation comes up with the same bright idea about the wonderful effects of wealth redistribution. It sounds so good. Utterly naive, they believe that no one else in the long sweep of history has ever had the same idea. The immature idealists in every generation want to start all over again and insist on proving it for themselves, taking all of us along with them on the same terrible ride. Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. Unfortunately, they make the rest of us repeat it as well, whether we want to or not.

The politically immature are with us always - they're called liberals, they're called Democrats.

America is in a strange place, politically. A strange confluence of many factors have created a historic opportunity for the far left to take over America and they are poised to do so. The result will be a form of national suicide.

Don't do it, America.

Britain's National Suicide

The Brussels Journal (Belgium) has a great article this morning by Fjordman, "The Execution of Britain." I disagree with the title -- when one takes his own life, it is suicide, not execution.

The article, however, describes well Britain's accelerating slide into Islamic barbarism, the suppression of free speech, especially criticism of Islam, and the dilution of national identity, pride and boundaries. The massive immigration of anti-western, unassimilable Muslims into Britain is, of course, the self-inflicted coup de grace.

There is a depressing fatalism in Britain today, as if many native Brits have just given up, accepting their fate. They seem to see the demise of their nation and culture as a done deal, as if the hand of history has been wrought against them and all they can do is watch the sun set on their once great nation. They're wrong. Let the seeds of a British reclamation begin today, in the hearts and minds of one or two or a hundred people, and let it grow to critical mass. Resist! Do not go meekly into the dust bin of history.

When the current system of government fails to protect the rights, safety and culture of the citizenry, the citizens (to quote Lincoln) "have a right to throw off their existing form of government and institute a new one that suits them better." The citizens of Britain are fast approaching that point - where, in my opinion, the legitimacy of their established government no longer exists. At that point revolution is called for. Preferably, it will be a revolution of the ballot box, followed by a new written constitution. However, there are no guarantees. A revolution that ends with a leftist traitor dangling from every lamp post would suit me just fine, but that's just me.

Fjordman writes:

In May 2008, 18 year-old Ben Smith was stopped in a routine check. The police officer noticed an English flag on the parcel shelf and ordered him to remove it because it was "racist towards immigrants."

One of the first things foreign powers usually do when they invade a country is to ban its national symbols. The fact that you can no longer run your flag in parts of Britain – and the Netherlands, Sweden, France, etc. – shows that the country is de facto under occupation, not just by Muslims, but by Multiculturalists and Globalists of all kinds.

In an essay entitled Put away the flags, Howard Zinn, the Leftist author of the best-selling book A People's History of the United States, writes that "On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed. Is not nationalism – that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder – one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?" He concludes that "We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation."

The problem is, rights can only be protected by sovereign states upholding their territorial integrity. How is "the global community" or "the human race" going to protect Mr. Zinn's liberties? For a free society to function, the state has to pass laws in the best interest of its citizenry and enforce these within its territory. Otherwise, self-government is impossible. In order to defend this territory from outside aggression, people need to identify with it as something more than just a random space on a map. By removing sovereign states, you remove the very foundations of a free society.

Read it all here.