Wednesday, 20 February 2013
Over slow time, in the advanced countries of Western Europe, there developed a system whereby the members of those societies made provisions for everyone, to make sure that a minimum standard of living could be shared. When Bismarck first proposed what is, in effect, Social Security, it was adopted now by this country, and now by that. In the United States, when Social Security came in, in the 1930s, it was opposed by some as a step toward Bolshevism. Other things, too, were provided: free and universal education, up to a point (that point, that age, varied over time and space). Universal medical care and housing, too, came in time. But these were all predicated on the idea that the better-off members of a society should make provision for the less better-off, or even the not-at-all-well-off, members of that same society, people who shared the same language, cultural, identity, historical memory. They were part of a national family. That made sense.
What does not make sense, however, is that having constructed this expensive system of what some call entitlements, others a Welfare State, the taxpayers in those countries, having agreed to such an institutional framework for those in that national "family" who they felt should be guaranteed such aid, find that more and more, expensive and hostile outsiders, who in some cases hardly know the local language, and who -- for reasons of deep faith -- cannot possibly share in the historical identity of the non-Muslim lands within which they have, through ignorance, negligence, and in some cases, ideological blindness, been allowed to settle. Indeed, they are not even merely neutral in their attitude, but actively hostile to the laws and customs, the ways and claims, of the non-Muslims among whom they live. The fact that not all break the law, that some disinegenuously claim that it is enough that they are "law-abiding" (some are, many are not), when it is clear from Muslim clerics that until Muslims become stronger, they must temporarily accommodate the non-Muslims among whom they live, but only to the point that they feel compelled to, and when they gain in numbers and gather strength, they are of course counselled not to live by man-made, or still worse Infidel-man-made, laws.
The cost of Muslims begins with the cost of security against Muslim terrorism - the more Muslims, the more security that is needed -- for churches, synagogues, Hindu and Buddhist and Sikh temples. For Christian and Jewish schools. For bus stations, and metro stations and railroad stations, and airports. On busses, on tthe Underground, on trains, at airports. For bridges, and for major highways. For important symbols of such as buildings in Washington and London, in Paris and in Rome and in every other Western capital. For national symbols, such as the Statue of Liberty. For the cost of monitroing mosques -- no doubt many Muslims, by the thousands or tens of thousands, are now on the permanent government payroll to monitor the mosques and other meeting-places of other Muslims -- quite a jobs programs. For the cost of the amazingly high crime rate, especially such crimes as rape, which Muslims are charged and conviced with at rates some ten times that for non-Muslims. In some countries, as in Scandinavia, 70% of the imprisoned rapists are Musilm, though they may make up 2-5% of the populatiion.
Then there is the cost of trying to "integrate" them which, for some reason, just doesn't work. The cost of teaching the locla language. The cost of special classes, of every kind, in schools. The disruptiion, in the regular schools, of the classroom, sometimes by Muslims who are threatening to non-Muslim students (see France, see Germany, and the testimony of teachers and students alike), sometimes because they threaten or even attack teachers who say things that they don't like (such things as dwelling on the history of France, or teaching about the reasons for the Crusades, or antisemitism -- anything that they think might cause sympathy for non-Muslims, or might somehow reflect badly on Muslims and on Islam) . The cost to the educational systems all over Western Europe are best known to those who teach in those systems -- all you have to do is ask those teachers, and those harried, sometimes threatened staff.
There is the cost to public hospitals, where Muslim men demand that male doctors not treat "their women," or that if they do, the Musilm men be present as the interlocutors. There are, again, the threats made, the attacks carried out, against hospital staff, that lead to a general rise in tension for non-Muslim doctors, nurses, and patients. Again, the security problem costs money.
There is the cost to everyone, in the diminishment of social calm and social cohesion, that can be seen not in Mayfair, or Belgravia, and not along the Avenue Foch, or Neuilly-sur-Seine, but everywhere that those not protected by great wealth -- the very people who, in politics and in the media, have been so wilfully unaware of how the Muslim presence in Western Europe damages life, diminishes the douceur de vivre, in every respect, and makes for a world "much more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous" for the indigenous non-Muslims, and other, non-Muslim immigrants, than would be the case without a large-scale Muslim presence.
Think about it. Try your best to pretend that what I have just written isn't true. Because, after all, we don't want it to be true. It is too upsetting. It requires that one start thinking about doing things that some, for some strange reason, just can't allow themselves to contemplate -- such as hatling all Muslim immigration, and working to reverse the Muslim presence in their countries by creating an environment that is Islam-hostile, not grotesquely Islam-friendly.
Try to keep denying it.
Then, when you finally give up, you will find that, clear-eyed, you feel much better. And not nearly as monstrous as you thought you might become. There's nothing monstrous about it. You can be just as sweet, humorful, clever, amusing, as you ever were. And at the same time, you can be calmly, but relentlessly, against Islam and its carriers and its apologists..
Posted on 02/20/2013 11:26 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
No comments yet.