Tuesday, March 31, 2020

DENMARK SURRENDERS TO THE MUSLIM MENACE

Denmark’s Race to the Bottom

The prospect of an Islamic takeover of Denmark becomes a real possibility.
 
Lars Hedegaard

Lars Hedegaard is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.      
During a discussion in May 2004, Amir Taheri noted that Islam is incompatible with democracy for the simple reason that democracy is based on one fundamental principle, namely equality. This is unacceptable to Islam, according to which a non-believer cannot be the equal of a believer. To be sure, Jews and Christians, labeled “people of the Book”, are accorded human status and some protection by their Muslim masters (at least in principle) provided they agree to submit to a form of apartheid known as dhimmitude, which has been exhaustibly chronicled by writers such as Bat Ye’or and Andrew Bostom.
The very concept of democracy is anathema in Islam, according to which power belongs only to God. The man exercising that authority on Earth is known as the khalif and holds all religious, political and military power.
In Islam the people cannot have any say over legislation because Allah revealed his eternal law to his prophet 1400 years ago, wherefore it would be blasphemous for men to change a single word.
Almost all Muslim states have man-made laws, but the true believers regard these laws as an affront to their religion and the regimes upholding them as illegitimate imposters. Which goes a long way towards explaining the constant instability and occasional bloodshed throughout the Muslim world.
But surely, such medieval ideas cannot long survive a confrontation with the enlightened West? Regrettably they can.
Take Denmark as an example – a country that just a few decades ago was seen as progressive, humane, egalitarian and having one of the world’s most generous and all-encompassing welfare systems. The Danes were the world’s happiest people benefitting from a healthy dose of “social capital”, i.e. trust in each other. An iconic poster from these glorious times eminently illustrated how Danes saw themselves and hoped to be seen by others. It depicted a warm-hearted policeman stopping all traffic to allow a mother duck to safely cross the street with her numerous ducklings in tow.
When the Muslim immigration picked up speed in the 1970s followed by the world’s most generous immigration law in 1983, almost everyone took it for granted that the newcomers would eventually assimilate or at least integrate and thus blend into the native population as had happened with previous waves of immigrants. By the 1970s, the vast majority of Danes of all political persuasions, the entire media, the academic experts and the cultural establishment didn’t hesitate to call a tiny band of vociferous immigration skeptics “racists”, “xenophobes” or even “fascists”. Many of the less than enthusiastic supporters of the government’s immigration policy were permanently ostracized from polite company, prevented from writing in the press or hit by others sorts of berufsverbot.
Alas, despite the high hopes and an untold number of billions forked over to entice the growing Muslim ummah to become Danes, the past 50 years have been marred by one disappointment after another. It has gradually dawned on a great number of Danes that the sine qua non for integration to take place is a willingness by the new arrivals to become integrated. And what would be the incentive as long as the state – at the latest count – provides a yearly net outlay of 36 billion kroner to maintain a foreign population that show few signs of gratitude but constantly complain about how ill they are being treated.
Nor should this state of affairs come as surprise. As Amir Taheri remarked during a speech in Copenhagen some years back: An indubitable way to guarantee that integration does not take place is to pay people for integrating thereby ensuring that they have no incentive do so.
The enormous sums wasted on integration have a further pernicious consequence in the shape of what I have termed “the immigration-industrial complex”. It refers to a sprawling number of public employees, academic experts, integration consultants, and members of state-supported NGOs eager to assist people from far away lands. The majority of these thousands of people would be out of a job, if they actually succeeded in their laudable endeavors.
But their jobs should be reasonably secure as there is no indication that Muslim integration is taking place. In fact quite the opposite is happening.
poll published in October 2015 showed that 77% of Muslims living in Denmark believed that the Koran should be followed to the letter – up from 62% a decade earlier. As it turns out, each new Muslim generation is more “religious” than their parents and grandparents – if religious is the proper term for what is essentially a political ideology.
What could account for this significant jump in Islamic devotion? The usual commentators came up with the usual explanations: Muslims were being vilified and marginalized to such an extent that they had no option but to seek solace in the Koran. A professor of Koranic Studies at Copenhagen University didn’t think that this greater devotion to the Koran’s blood-curdling pronouncements necessarily presented a threat to democracy. 
A Muslim commentator noted: “When somebody tried to tear off my veil or spat at me in the street, that only made me tie my veil even tighter.” Of course there is little proof that such events had ever taken place.
A sociologist specializing in “intercultural studies” at Roskilde University was in no way alarmed by this heavy dose of religiosity. In fact she thought it might be beneficial to young Muslims’ integration into Danish society though she failed to explain precisely how that might come about.
Unless Muslim gangs rape and brutalize Danes in the streets – as happens every other day – it is hard to imagine any Muslim behavior that the academia will not interpret as advantageous to the country’s social harmony.
Gradually, however, some politicians are beginning to come clean and admit that it might nor have been such a great idea to import the 375,000 Muslims that are now estimated to be living in the country thus constituting a bit over 6% of the population – a figure that is expected to double over a few decades.
Even former Prime Minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen – previously a staunch supporter of open borders – admitted in his October 2015 opening speech to the Folketing (the Danish Parliament) that integration had failed:
[Of] all immigrants from non-Western countries, not even half are working despite the fact that many have been here for 10, 20 or 30 years. That is worrying.
Rich words from a prime minister who only a month before had refused to close the Danish-German border and so allowing tens of thousands of migrants to march through the country totally unchecked.
By now the image of the cop and the duck family has faded from memory and been replaced by a photo of a little migrant girl playing with a policeman on the freeway that could no longer be used for traffic because it had been taken over by marching Muslims.
Following the great march many Danes lost confidence in the politicians’ willingness to protect the country from foreign invasion, which was one reason why Mr. Rasmussen lost the 2019 parliamentary elections and had to resign. His parliamentary supporters in the hitherto immigration- and Islam-critical Danish People’s Party went from 21,1 % of the vote in 2015 to 8,7% and has still not risen from that debacle, which was mainly caused by the DPP’s refusal to topple the government and so force Anders Fogh Rasmussen to call new elections.
Leading up to the 2019 election, the leader of the Social-Democratic Party and new Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, had promised a “firm but fair” immigration policy. That was soon forgotten, as one of her first actions was to substantially increase the monthly handouts for immigrants with children.
Nobody really has an idea of how to reverse a social reality where the Muslim population is mainly concentrated in ghettoes in and around the big cities, Copenhagen, Odense, Aarhus and Aalborg setting up Sharia zones and administering justice the Koran way.
BLOG: DOES THE FOLLOWING REMIND YOU OF MEXIFORNIA?
These enclaves may aptly be described as areas ceded to a foreign power and have little in common with the rest of the country – except for their willingness to receive billions from the Danish taxpayers, who they despise.
Back to the question: What happened between 2006 and 2017 that might account for the sudden jump in Islamic devotion? If we understand that Islam’s essence is conquest until Allah’s religion reigns supreme in all corners of the Earth, it is not that difficult to explain. By the early decades of this century, Islam had become so well entrenched and the Muslims so numerous that the prospect of an Islamic takeover of Denmark suddenly appeared as a distinct possibility. And as history shows, it is always a good idea to join the winning side.
The Danes have but a few years to wake up to this new reality. If not, Mohammed will have his way.
March 8, 2020

A French intellectual warns that France will have a Muslim future

Because of its relationship with Algeria, France has a 50-year history of Muslim immigration, pre-dating Angela Merkel’s 2015 welcome mat. Last month, Michel Gurfinkiel, a French intellectual who founded the Jean-Jacques Rousseau Institution, participated in a radio interview with Gregg Roman of the Middle East Forum. During the interview, he warned that French demographic changes predict a future in which Islam is ascendant:
Domestically, the past fifty years of steady immigration from Islamic countries into France is “transforming the fabric of French society” from within. Demographic and sociological surveys indicate that 10-15% of the French population is now of Muslim origin, including 20-30% of French citizens or residents under the age of 25. Some integrate successfully, but many align with the most radical and militant expression of the religion. Their rejection of France’s secular constitution is matched by resentment of the French military’s fight against global jihadism in Africa and the Middle East, seen as a “deliberate assault ... on Islam.”
Meanwhile, French people, as is true for most Europeans, have lost faith in their institutions. Christianity is declining and the French are no longer marrying or having children. Free speech is also dying in France:
In January, a 16-year old identified only as “Mila’ criticized Islam as a “religion of hate” on her Instagram account in response to online harassment from a homophobic Muslim troll. The resulting online threats of bodily harm led to Mila and her family being placed under police protection. The French custom of satirizing or criticizing religion does not extend to Islam, “and the main reason ... is, of course, fear,” said Gurfinkiel. “It’s a fact that Muslims don’t react peacefully to these kinds of [speech] as ... Christians [do], and everybody ... remember[s] ... the humorists of Charlie Hebdo ... slaughtered by a Muslim commando a few years ago.”
Another sign that Islam is ascendant in a land that was once considered the cradle of European Christianity is that churches in France are routinely desecrated.
Dr. Peter Hammond, in his early 21st-century book about Christian genocide in Muslim lands, Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat, produced a rough rule of thumb about the threat to a dominant culture from Islamic immigration:
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States — Muslim 0..6%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1.8%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. In Russia, grade-schools were attacked. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, beheadings, stoning, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
France’s Muslim population has substantially increased since Hammond wrote those words. The tipping point is near.

France Not Enforcing Lockdowns in Muslim No-Go-Zones

March 30, 2020 
Daniel Greenfield

They do call them no-go zones for a reason.
But let's not kid ourselves. There are neighborhoods in New York City and LA where the police won't be asking crowds to go indoors and that the media would never dream of shaming and which won't go viral on social media. This is the same thing except it's a symptom of a much worse problem. There are people who follow the rules and those who don't, and those who expect others to follow their rules.
While it has just increased the sanctions against those who do not respect confinement repeatedly, the government decides to be more conciliatory with offenders in the suburbs. A double standard which outrage the police.
It is not a priority to enforce closings in certain neighborhoods and to stop gatherings in certain neighborhoods." The sentence, which unequivocally scandalizes the police and their representatives, is signed by the Secretary of State to the Minister of the Interior.
In a videoconference connecting Beauvau to the prefects of the defense zones, Laurent Nunez expressed this concern on March 18 to see the cities, on the verge of implosion , ignite if confinement was applied there too strictly.
You get the idea. It's last stage colonialism. Except the colonies are in France.
As long as the authorities don't try to exert too much local control, but put on a show for the country as a whole, there's not much of a problem. If they insist on trying to control the situation on the ground, there will be a violent pushback.
Meanwhile the black market in, among other things, masks, goes on, covertly approved of by the French government.

Katie Hopkins Video: French Jews in Paris Under Attack

The police tell them they can no longer protect them.
March 24, 2020 
Frontpagemag.com
Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Twitter: @JamieGlazov.
This new Glazov Gang episode features Katie HopkinsU.K.’s freedom fighter.
Katie sheds disturbing light on French Jews in Paris Under Attack, unveiling how the police are telling the Jewish Parisians that they can no longer protect them.
Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch Katie share: They Plotted to Behead Me, where she discusses: When a female Jihadi wants your head as a wedding present.

Follow us on Twitter: @JamieGlazov.

American Historians Present Jihadi Terrorists as Western Allies

Considering that Muslims have at times allied with Europeans, sometimes even against fellow Muslims, why present Muslim attacks on Europe throughout history as ideologically driven — as jihads ("holy wars") against the infidel?  Why not see them all as generic wars?
This is the main point of an apologia being leveled against my book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West.  Thus, weeks before my recent lecture at the U.S. Army War College, another speaker was brought in to present an "alternative view." That speaker was John Voll,* professor emeritus of Islamic history and past associate director of the Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.  (This center was "gifted" 20 million dollars from Prince Alwaleed — a Wahhabi who suggested that the 9/11 attacks were based on America's position "toward the Palestinian cause" — for the express purpose of improving Islam's image in the West.)
According to the War College's advertisement:
In contrast with the well-known story of Muslim-Christian military conflict, less well-known is the long history of Muslim-Christian alliances and cooperation, even in times of conflict.  Voll will address risk of misunderstanding when the history of clashes between Islam and the West is viewed in broad generalizations.  Voll will focus his discussion on alliances and conflicts in the modern era[.]
Voll reasserted these themes weeks after he presented in a less than honest Army Times report that depicted him as "a more mainstream speaker ... who[m] CAIR-Philadelphia did not object to" (as opposed to me):
Voll does not agree with Ibrahim's view that Christians and Muslims are almost inevitably at odds.  Extreme advocates of this "Clash of Civilizations" hypothesis tend to deal with only half of the historical record of relations between the West and Islam, he said in an email.
"While the history includes many wars and conflicts, that history also includes many experiences of cooperation and alliances," Voll explained.  "To ignore the history of Muslim-Christian cooperations and only emphasize the conflicts is to present a misleading narrative that opens the way for dangerous misunderstandings of world history in general and current global affairs in particular."
Is this true?  Yes and no.  Yes, Muslims have (infrequently) allied with non-Muslims — in this case, Europeans.  No, this does not prove that the exponentially greater, perennial attacks on every corner of Europe were not ideologically driven by jihad.  It merely proves that Muslims are pragmatic — which Islam endorses — and willing to ally with whoever best serves their interest.
For instance, in its announcement, the Army War College noted that "Voll will focus his discussion on alliances and conflicts in the modern era, to include the history of the Anglo-Egyptian relationship, and the enemy-ally transitions of the Sanusiyyah and the Angle-American powers of World War II and the Cold War."
Why the "modern era"?  Could it be that, as opposed to the twelve centuries of Islamic raids on Europe (circa. 634–1830, when Barbary was subdued), Muslims have been remarkably weak vis-à-vis infidel Europe beginning in the late modern era and therefore had much to gain by allying with the infidels?
Relying on the late modern era — the last two centuries, which Voll bizarrely claims represent "half of the historical record of relations between the West and Islam" — to explain the totality of Islamic-European relations (nearly fourteen centuries) is one of the oldest tricks relied on by Islamophilic academics: presenting rare exceptions (alliances with non-Muslims) to the rule (jihad against infidels) as the rule itself.
This is well epitomized by the recent book Crusade and JihadThe Thousand-Year War between the Muslim World and the Global North, by William Polk, a retired professor of history at Harvard (my complete review here).  Despite its ambitious subtitle, only some 30 of its 550 pages deal with the first millennium (when jihad was the norm); 95 percent is devoted to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries — the "modern era."  As with Voll, this lopsided approach allows Polk to present Muslims as not just occasional allies of the West, but its eternal victims as well.
But as much more balanced historians such as Bernard Lewis put it:
We tend nowadays to forget that for approximately a thousand years, from the advent of Islam in the seventh century until the second siege of Vienna in 1683, Christian Europe was under constant threat from Islam, the double threat of conquest and conversion.  Most of the new Muslim domains were wrested from Christendom.  Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and North Africa were all Christian countries, no less, indeed rather more, than Spain and Sicily.  All this left a deep sense of loss and a deep fear.
"We tend nowadays to forget" these troubling facts precisely because those most charged with reminding us — the professional historians of Islam, the Volls and Polks of Western academia — go out of their way to suppress them.
Moreover, Islam's modus operandi has always relied on circumstances.  When Muhammad was weak and outnumbered in his early Meccan period, he preached peace and made pacts with infidels; when he became strong in his Medinan period, he preached war and went on the offensive.  This dichotomy — preach peace when weak, wage war when strong — has been instructive to Muslims throughout the centuries.
Indeed, when it comes to making life easy for Muslims, particularly vis-à-vis infidels, Islamic law (shari'a) is remarkably lenient, via the doctrine of taysir (ease).  It is why millions of Muslims — who under strict shari'a are banned from willingly relocating to infidel nations — are flooding the prosperous West: it is beneficial to them, even if they hate and occasionally abuse their hosts (which, for some clerics, validates their presence as a form of jihad).
At any rate, ignoring the first millennium of Muslim-European history — when Islam was as strong if not stronger than Europe, therefore regularly waging jihads on it — and focusing only on the last two centuries — when Islam has been much weaker than the West and therefore in need of dissembling its true feelings for the infidel — is truly what "present[s] a misleading narrative that opens the way for dangerous misunderstandings of world history in general and current global affairs in particular," to quote Voll, though in reverse.
*As an amusing side note, I actually sat in on one of Voll's classes at Georgetown University nearly two decades ago.  An apparently especially contentious question and observation I made concerning what he was saying ended, I distinctly recall, with a curt response and an especially dirty look — and my deciding not to sign up for his class.
Raymond Ibrahim, author of Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, is Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Judith Friedman Rosen Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and distinguished senior fellow at the


No comments: