That Unpleasant Affair On Camus Street

by Hugh Fitzgerald (Jan. 2008)

Raymond. A, a 17-year-old Jewish man, who wears a skullcap, was waiting on Shabbat for someone to open the door of the building where he lives, on the rue Albert Camus, when around twenty young people described as being of North African and Black origin attacked him violently at the face and the body after pronouncing his name.

One of the aggressors, Raymond reported, was a red-haired man who did not cease swearing on the Koran while beating his victim. –from this news article

The police will have to step up patrols in neighborhoods known to be Jewish, and to guard Jewish sites. They will more and more have to guard Christian churches, from those intent on vandalizing the statuary (as happened to a statue of the Virgin and Christ in a church in northern France) and paintings — not only because of their Christian imagery but simply because they are paintings.

How much money does the French state spend now in protecting non-Muslim sites? How much will it have to spend in the future? How much money does the French state spend now on the free education, free health care (and obstetrical care), free or subsidized housing, for the millions of Muslim immigrants who fiddle the system for everything it is worth, and more, and whose male children spend their days vandalizing the property of non-Muslims (the usual thousand cars a day, or in moments of heightened tension, the figure goes up to many thousands)? How much damage is done to the educational system, once the pride of France, the product of careful thought by nineteenth-century pedagogues (every little town has a “Jules-Ferry” school, to honor the most famous one), because undisciplined and even violent Muslim students intimidate not only non-Muslim French students, but the teachers too, refusing to read about, inter alia, Voltaire, French Kings, the Holocaust, World War II, or anything that they think is purely a matter for Infidels, or might evoke sympathy for Jews, or might be associated with anti-Islamic attitudes (Voltaire is disliked because of his play “Mahomet”). How much has life in France been degraded, by the fact of large-scale Muslim immigration?

And what intelligent Frenchman, today, would or could disagree with the observation that:

The large-scale presence of Muslims in European countries has led to a situation that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous for its Infidel indigenous inhabitants (and for non-indigenous immigrants who are not Muslims) than would be the case without such a large-scale presence?

Only those who are psychically marginal, that is on the maddened Far Left and on the antisemitic Far Right (their obsession with Jews prevents them from recognizing, or caring, about the threat from Islam) would disagree with that statement.

All others will agree — some readily, and some, still, most reluctantly. But they will agree.

And so will those in Great Britain, Italy, Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden. But the councils — and counsels — of the ruling elites will continue to pretend otherwise. For if they did not do so, they would have to do two things:

First, they would have to admit that those same elites had made a terrible error during the past thirty years, when they allowed in so many Muslim immigrants, without adequately informing themselves — the warnings were there, in France as elsewhere, from Western scholars of Islam, such as Charles-Emmanuel Dufourcq, and from such well-known intellectuals as Jacques Ellul — on the unexamined theory that these were merely “economic immigrants” like any others, that they would either be Gastarbeiter (those Turks who were all going to move back to Turkey from Germany) or, in any case, would simply become upstanding loyal citizens, and their children and grandchildren too, to the Infidel nation-state, to its legal and political institutions, to its ideas about human freedom and individual autonomy. That has happened, but only among those who have either jettisoned Islam (sometimes openly, sometimes quietly) altogether, or — not quite sure of themselves, and with the possibility open that they, or their descendants, may “get religion” once again — have become “cultural Muslims” (a way of saying: I don’t believe the religious stuff,, but I continue to identify with, and thus may even inadvertently promote, the “civilization of Islam”) or “Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only” Muslims, again with the same problem, that the laic father, if he doesn’t make a clean break as an apostate, may give rise to a reverting-to-full-fledged-Islam son.

Second, those same elites would have now to realize that they have a permanent and terrible problem on their hands. And they are trying not to do that, because they don’t have any idea even as to how to begin to talk about this properly, or to lead those whom they presume to protect and instruct to see things rightly.

How, after all, since it is those elites — political and media elites — that have done the damage to those people they now must help to inform, and since those elites do not know how to start talking about the kind of measures, other than those of securing the sites most likely to be subject to Muslim attack, and to monitoring and interrupting the plots of Muslim terrorists (which is a gigantic effort, involving many man-hours of police, lawyers, judges), and cannot face the matter of Da’wa, or ending Muslim immigration, or removing all Muslim non-citizens without necessarily going after other non-citizens (an intelligent, but to some hard to explain selective enforcement), and making it impossible for outside Muslims to pay for mosques, madrasas, and campaigns of Da’wa (seizing money that comes from Saudis abroad if the Al-Saud fail to stop the practice), and finally, discussing rationally the rational behavior of the Czech government when it attempted, in 1946, to remove forever from its midst the security threat posed to it, as the evidence from 1938-1945 demonstrated, by three million Sudeten Germans, resulting in the Benes Decree that, at the very least, offers an example of a liberal, tolerant, wise democracy, led by two cultivated and civilized European statesmen, Benes and Masaryk, doing what they had to do to protect their own people, their own nation, their own way of life.

Consider the costs of mosques. Mosques in Iraq have been sites where forces gather to fire on American soldiers. They have been weapons depots. They have been repositories for explosives used in roadside bombings. Not once, not a hundred times, but thousands of times.

In the “Palestinian”-occupied territories, mosques fulfill the same function. They are also places to which “Palestinians” have run when being pursued by Israelis.

In Bangladesh, mosques have been natural centers of anti-Hindu agitation, and one can find on-line the pictures of a hapless Hindu pleading for his life, as he is beaten to death by Muslim worshippers apparently whipped up by a particularly effective imam in a particularly bloodthirsty khutba.

In Italy, in France, in Great Britain, in Germany, the police and other security services have found mosques with false ceilings, in which counterfeit passports and other useful documents have been found. They have found guns, grenades, devices for making explosives. All of this — in mosques.

Why shouldn’t mosques be under surveillance? Why shouldn’t every last khutba be taped? Why shouldn’t there be agents taping those who attend those mosques where it is discovered that certain things are said, or done, when mosques have such a record as this? There is no distinction in Islam between religion and politics. Islam is all-encompassing. Infidels must stop being mesmerized by the word “religion” and understand this.

Of course, one need not require a mosque to be whipped up to want to kill a passing Infidel. One need not need a mosque in which to plot or plan. One need not have a mosque in which to hide false papers and weapons. Of course not. So monitoring mosques, or demanding that madrasas show what they teach (what happened to the demand for the textbooks, and syllabi used, in that Saudi Academy near Washington, D.C.?), is only part of what must be done.

The disruption to any conceivable achieved or achievable social cohesion or harmony, when adherents of Islam, are present in large numbers, is great and is permanent. For how, in Infidel lands, without undoing ultimately our own legal and political institutions, and abandoning the solicitousness for individual rights, can we deal with, possibly adjust to, since they have no intention of adjusting Islam to accommodate anyone else, those who are taught to believe in the right of Islam to dominate everywhere, and of their duty to ensure that that comes about, by removing all barriers to the spread, and then to the dominance, of Islam, are present in large numbers, and allowed to demand, and receive, even from the security services, outward shows of appeasement and accommodation? Islam was created to rule. It is the faith of conquerors, and it justifies and promotes conquest by them. Islam was designed not to be one among many faiths, not merely to hold out the promise of a surer path to some Paradise than that provided by other faiths, but to prevail, so that its writ may run everywhere on the earth, so that everywhere Islam dominates, and Muslims rule everywhere. The fact that some clever propaganda of the “I Am A Muslim” type appears on YouTube, designed to convince the unwary that Muslims are just the all-American boy next door — carefully left out is any discussion of what is in the head of that boy-next-door, of what Islam inculcates and what he presumably believes, or that it is right for us to assume he believes, from what the texts provide, and what the tenets derived from those texts, and the attitudes derived from those tenets, tell him to believe, cause him to believe, should cause Infidels to be more rather than less wary.

Islam can be likened to a permanently un-immiscible liquid. It cannot mix with Non-Islam, anywhere, without bad results for the Non-Muslims. There are 1350 years of history to demonstrate that. Even now, with Muslims constituting 1% of the population (and half of those being non-orthodox “Black Muslims”) there are textbook publishers who have rewritten history, and state school boards that have not only accepted but demanded such a rewriting to placate Muslims, and as the already ignorant American young are presented with a deliberately false view of Islam and of Islamic conquest, the understanding necessary to withstand Islam’s propagandists, and the rich profusion of what they offer — the distraction, irrelevancies, the gobbledygook, the nonsense, and especially, the lies, lies, lies — will have its effect.

And the cost of dealing with all this? Or, to bring this article back to where it began, the cost of monitoring mosques and madrasas? The cost of guarding every airport, train and bus station, the cost in man-hours for every Infidel to show up an extra hour early, the security rigmarole, the guards at Christian and Jewish schools or churches or synagogues, the cost of guarding speakers, the extra cost now of guarding bridges, and roads, and government buildings, and historic sites, all of them conceivable targets for Muslims who, as all Muslims are instructed to, wish to further the goals of Jihad, but choose, unlike their “peaceful” brethren who do so through Da’wa and demographic conquest, but do so using the instrument of violence. The cost of guarding non-Muslims, all over the Western world, their houses of worship, their schools, their means of transportation, keeps going up. And the cost of monitoring Muslims, their mosques, their madrasas, their stores and meeting-places, keeps going up.

What is the cost of this? One writer estimates that every additional Muslim in this country costs $100,000 a year, every year, to the taxpayers — the Infidel taxpayers. Suppose his figure is off? So what? There is some considerable amount, we all know, that everywhere in the Western world has to be spent, and will have to be spent in larger and larger amounts, merely to monitor the Muslim population. That is because of what is believed by that population, what, that is, is to be found in Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira.

Is it impossible for Infidels to take this in? And is it impossible for them to then construct an immigration policy that, taking that into account, will no longer make the great privilege of living in their own lands, lands whose art, whose science, whose political and legal structure, are all flatly contradicted by Islam, no longer available to those who, in calling themselves Muslims, tell us that we are justified in assuming, when they so call themselves, that they believe in what is contained in the texts, texts that we are free to investigate for ourselves, and discover their — for us, for our future — permanent and disturbing significance.

The elites in the Western world do not impress. They failed, they are still failing, to recognize the urgency of anthropogenic global warming. They failed, they are still failing, to recognize the collapse of public education, one not to be rectified by such making-a-silk-purse-out-of-a-sow’s-ears efforts such as that “no-child-left-behind” program that merely makes the best students into a persecuted minority, doomed to be kept back by the leveling tendencies apparent everywhere in American society (except, of course, when it comes to money, and then as far as differences go, the sky’s the limit).

The day of recognition, the day that fateful anagnorisis comes, is being delayed by those elites. They prate. Sarkozy prates about “integration” and “government-funded mosques.” Blair used to prate about “extremists” who “hijacked a peaceful religion” which he, Tony Blair, found truly inspirational (he kept a Qur’an in his pocket). They prate about this, they prate about that.

And so do our Presidential candidates. They prate and they blather. Meanwhile, Islam marches on.

To comment on this article, please click here.

To help New English Review continue to publish informative and thought provoking articles such as this one, please click here.

If you have enjoyed this article and want to read more by Hugh Fitzgerald, click here.

Hugh Fitzgerald contributes regularly to The Iconoclast, our Community Blog. Click here to see all his contributions, on which comments are welcome.