22 Aug 2009
Hugh Fitzgerald
If the criteria for "refugee" status include the following: that you in flight from places likely to be in thrall to assorted Lords of Misrule, places where economic distress is chronic, save where the manna of oil revenue temporarily disguises it and allows those who rule the government to seize for themselves, and distribute to their courtiers, most of that wealth, places where the natural tendency of the polity is despotism -- military (as with Colonel Nasser, Colonel Qassem, Colonel Khaddafy, Major Hafez al-Assad, and a large assortment of smiling, fly-whisking, terry-thomas-moustachioed Pakistani generals, each more meretricious and dangerous to the West and the interests of non-Muslims than the last), places where women can be beaten, or even killed, with impunity by male relatives (who need only invoke the need to protect the family's "honor"), places where aggression and hostility against one's enemies is always likely, always in the air, and where men are held in check mainly by force and the threat of force, and society closer to the state of natural hobbesian man than in most other places -- why then, our criteria for "refugees" whom we will allow into our places of relative enlightenment, and peace, and prosperity, and something like civilisiation, constitutes almost a complete list of what is wrong with Muslim countries and peoples, because of Islam itself. But why should we be endangering ourselves because of a wrong-headed, nearly suicidal, definition of "refugee." Why do we not instead insist that while non-Muslims may indeed be considered "refugees" from Muslim lands, Muslims cannot be, for they are part of the problem from which they suffer, and carriers of the ideological virus that already has done such damage, over so long a time, to Muslim peoples living in Muslim-dominated lands.
And the solution to the distress of Musliims who, since they never recognize the true source of that distress -- Islam, and instead bring with them, wherever they go, in their mental baggae, Islam itself, and often, when finding themselves among non-Muslims, save for a handful of the most thoughtful and enlightened, tend to become not less but even more fanatical in their faith, and since they are now practicing that faith, and spreding that word, in non-Muslim lands, where the laws, customs, and understandings all go against the spirit and the letter of the Shari'a, and since Muslims have been inculcated with the idea that they are superior in every way to non-Muslims and that Islam must everywhere dominate, and Muslims must rule, it is clear that the immigration of Muslims into non-Muslim countries must necessarily lead to disaster, and has already led to the following inexorable conclusion:
The large-scale presence of Muslims in the countries of Western Europe has led to a situation for the native non-Muslims, and for other, but non-Muslim, immigrants, that is much more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous, than would be the case without such a large-scale Muslim presence.
Commit that sentence to memory. Don't leave home without it. You know that it's true. You may not necessarily agree on measures suggested to deal with this -- you may be one of those inclined to throw up your hands and say "well, what can we do?" and "we'll just have to live with it" and -- to suggestions made by the sober and clear-headed, "Oh, we couldn't possibly do that" -- but what you cannot do is deny the truth of that sentence, fittingly in bold, above.
22 Aug 2009
Alan R
Ths remains an excellent contextual essay on Sweden:
"Defeating Eurabia, Part 4: 'The Case of Sweden'"
-by Fjordman:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/10/defeating-eurabia-part-4.html
