Thursday, September 17, 2009

This isn't Holland anymore

It's being called the capital of "Eurabia" these days. It used to be known as Rotterdam, Holland's most important port city. When former professor and writer Pim Fortuyn, leader of a newly formed political party, took steps to organize around the issue of the masses of Muslim immigrants coming from the Middle East, who were beginning to overwhelm the city, he was denounced by the good, white folks of Holland as a racist and a xenophobe. He was author of the book, Against the Islamisation of Our Culture. After his murder in 2002, and as the Muslim invasion continued unabated, some of those good, white folks began to look around them, to discover that Fortuyn had been more a saint than a devil.

This year, even the fiercely politically correct Economist magazine is speaking of Rotterdam as a "Eurabian nightmare." Burkas and chadors fill the streets, and endless numbers of mosques, of taller and taller construction, dominate the city's skyline.

As Muslims enter politics, they join City Councils and even become Mayors of cities, as has happened in Rotterdam. In this way, traditional Western customs and laws are abridged or revamped. Muslim sharia law is intruded into the court system and other institutions. This seems incredulous, but it is true.

The Dutch have long been proud of their tolerance and acceptance of all forms of "cultural diversity." Yet, who could have imagined, just a decade ago, that citizens of a free European nation would face a mortal threat to their own distinctive culture and identity?

In 2004, after film director Theo Van Gogh was knifed and shot to death on a street in Amsterdam, it was learned that certain politicians, who had voiced criticism against the activities of particular mosques, also had been targeted for death. Among them was Parliament member, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the woman who had written the script for Van Gogh's critical film on Islam and a "heretic" who had renounced the religion. She faced so many death threats, that she finally fled the country.

Sandro Magister of Chiesa News says of Rotterdam: "Here, entire neighborhoods look as if they have been lifted from the Middle East." In an article, "In the Casbah of Rotterdam," Giulio Meotti quotes newspaper columnist Bart Jan Spruyt,

"We have ended up creating a parallel society. The Muslims are in the majority in many neighborhoods, and are asking for sharia. This isn't Holland anymore. Our use of freedom has turned back against us, it is a process of self-Islamization."

Some of the native population are coping with the social changes in a predictable manner, by adapting to the ways of the foreigners. No longer expecting Muslims to adapt to their country's customs, dedicated white multiculturalists rationalize reasons to capitulate to these people who have come to plant their civilization, even to the official acceptance of sharia law.

For centuries, Europeans had a visceral understanding of the fundamental fact that when Islam comes, it comes to supplant, to put down its own roots, its unique system of discipline and laws. It does not come to be absorbed into foreign civilizations.

What happens to a Western country's secular law system, to which all citizens are bound, when you allow multiple legal systems, for the sake of a religious minority, to operate behind closed doors? What happens when what was once permitted to operate in an informal manner is declared official and acceptable to the established government? And what, indeed, happens to those Muslims who were hoping for a diminution in sharia's reach, those who fled Muslim societies to escape its grim and austere injunctions?

Meotti tells of the exasperation of journalist Sylvain Ephimenco, a resident of Rotterdam:

I, who used to be on the left but am no longer anything, I say we've reached the limit. I feel the ideals of the Enlightenment have been betrayed with this voluntary apartheid, in my heart I feel the death of the ideals of the equality of men and women, and freedom of expression. Here the left is conformist, and the right has the better answer to insane multiculturalism."

Holland is the land of the intrepid Geert Wilders, head of the conservative Dutch Freedom Party and a member of Parliament, who came close to being prosecuted in Dutch courts for making "anti-Islamic" statements, and for producing a film (entitled Fitna), which depicts the violent side of Islam.

For years, Wilders has had to live under police protection, and has probably received more death threats than any other Dutch citizen. In June, he publicly directed a set of questions to Holland's central government. Among the eight questions were these:

Do you share our view that sharia law does not coincide with our democratic values and freedoms ... ?

Are there in the Netherlands any conflicts being settled, by imams or others in or outside mosques, based on sharia law?

How do you feel about the fact that Dutch law is being undermined by Muslims ... ?

In typical fashion, the good multiculturalists castigated Wilders for his "provocative" action.

Holland's story echoes throughout Europe. In some cases, violence is not confined to the murder of a targeted prominent figure. Sometimes, violence between native residents and Muslim immigrants reaches the streets. In Denmark, for example, over the past couple of years, Danish bikers have clashed with immigrant groups, with growing frequency. The typical result of a street battle is heavy-handed punishment by the police of the Danes, as opposed to a lighter touch when dealing with Muslim lawbreakers. An account by a blogger explains why:

A government and EU strategy puts great restrictions on the police when dealing with immigrants and immigrant gangs. There always are the accusations of "racism," and the muslim gangs are also feared much more than the bikers, when it comes to their threats to harm individual police officers or their families. Many policemen whose identities are known by the immigrant gangs, would rather not have their house torched or their loved ones attacked by the invaders who have taken their extremely violent mentality with them straight from the Middle East.

Even the police live in fear, an emotion that guides how the Danish authorities deal with these masses. High officials strive not to have to rule on cases involving strife with Muslims, for fear of their families' safety.

And, of course, the mainstream media, as it does throughout Europe and in the United States, reinforces the benign image of the "oppressed" immigrant, condemning belligerent Danes as "hatemongers" and bigots.

And England? What's there to say about England other than report that, as of a couple of months ago, there were 85 Muslim sharia courts ruling on the tight little island. Read about it for yourself, here and here. England is lost.

No, this isn't Holland anymore. And it isn't Belgium anymore. And it certainly isn't Sweden anymore.

America, meet your future.


"A few hardline [Muslim] leaders would like it [sharia law] to be taken even further. One told me that Britain should adopt sharia punishments such as stoning and the chopping off of hands to reduce violent crime." - Read the story here

The Queen is not amused. - Read the story


John Sobieski said...

In the US, the Democratic Party has chosen to ally with Muslims. So be it; it is a loser alliance. But while they are in power and promoting Islam and attacking any who point out the dangers of Islam, they can do great damage. But the Republicans under Bush weren't much better. How many times did Bush glorify Islam, the 'great' 'religion of peace'; one of the three Abrahamic faiths. What hogwash. The Republican party should write off Muslims and not pander to them. The political parties that face the truth about Islam will be the winners in the end. It will take years to tear down mulicult brainwashing and propaganda. Until we recognize Islam as a violent ideology with a veneer of monotheism, we will continue to fail.

Luke Fisher said...

You have to admit, the Islamic code is very conservative. They are very tough on crime, do not tolerate pornography, divorce, stealing, etc. These are very appealing to christian conservatives in the US who want to do something similar.

Elizabeth Wright said...

Luke Fisher wrote:
You have to admit, the Islamic code is very conservative. They are very tough on crime, do not tolerate pornography, divorce, stealing, etc. These are very appealing to christian conservatives in the US who want to do something similar.

As a matter of fact, what you say was true at one time, and not so many years ago. Before the unscrupulous neocons highjacked the government and this country began full-time meddling in Muslim societies, there was a rapport going on between American evangelical types and Muslims. In the 1980s, Phyllis Schlafly led a delegation abroad to a women's conference, where her pro-lifers and others in their camp voted together with Muslim women on certain issues. They expressed agreement on many social topics.

At one time, before the Schlafly/Dobson camp became Bush worshippers, willing to follow him to the ends of the earth, many Americans were so appalled by the deteriorating moral standards in this country that they were understandably willing to make common cause with traditionalists of any faiths. It was really a sensible turn of events.

But then came 9/11, and the insanity broke out, not only to destroy Iraq, but to undermine Muslim culture in general, in its own territories. So, what might have been a union or sorts, of equals, was thrown to the winds. Once you meddle in another man's society, with the intent of undoing him, you can expect nothing but hostility.

Cooperation between two separate cultures is quite different from allowing masses of people of another civilization to attain power within your territory. In this instance, the native population is bound to lose control over just how far it wishes to cooperate with the foreigner. Westerners are quickly losing this control within their own countries. And they have no one to blame except themselves.

Luke Fisher said...

I do agree.

I sometimes wonder about the ideal "western" culture? We have been in a somewhat ideal situation in the past 60 years or so in the US.
Chattel slavery has been abolished, MOST oppressive laws have been overturned. Many diseases have been cured. We are a somewhat free country, compared to many others.

Unfortunately we now have a massive Welfare / Warfare State, a ridiculous tax burden, a misguided War on Some Drugs. All these things are pushing us to some type of Theo-Con Police state, in my opinion.

I guess I'm at a loss at trying to explain what is it we are looking for.

A secular westernized culture is ideal compared to an Hardline Islamic State but I would like to see more folks pushing for more freedom.

Anonymous said...

"All these things are pushing us to some type of Theo-Con Police state, in my opinion."

I hear this a lot from liberals who think that electing a Republican to their local school board will cause Roe v. Wade to be overturned. I don't know how you mean it, but I don't see how any rational person could think that religiosity, especially among Christians, is a real threat to the US at this point. George W Bush cut off federal funding for some lines of stem cell research... that's a far cry from theocracy.

The real theocracy we should be concerned about is the ascendant religion of politically-correct Greenism. These people have absolutely no compunction about forcing their belief system on the rest of us and prosecuting heretical thinkers.

Elizabeth Wright said...

Anonymous said:
These people have absolutely no compunction about forcing their belief system on the rest of us and prosecuting heretical thinkers.

Sure, this is what everybody says about the other guy's belief system. "They want to force it down our throats!" I agree that "greenism" is a form of religion, just as intolerant as most theistic religions. I say keep them all out. The "religiously correct" have also been known to prosecute heretical thinkers.

Anonymous said...

My point was that the new politically-correct Greenists do not view themselves through the same lens as traditionalist Christians. Christians recognize that their deity is faith-based, while politically-correct Greenists think that their viewpoint is validated by science - and therefore, anyone who disagrees with them is anti-science and anti-intellectual.

The problem I see is that this new pseudo-religion is not constrained by the bounds of secularism, because they do not acknowledge that their environmentalist and blank-slatist beliefs are faith-based. There are a tiny minority of scientists who actually understand the basis for this line of thought, but for most of its proponents the scientific evidence is tertiary to the cause of propagating anti-Western, anti-Christian ideology.

As I mentioned, George W Bush's "Christian right" influences merely led him to cut off federal funding for a small portion of genetic medicine research. How can this compare to the new Greenist regime's attempts to pass "Cap & Trade" legislation which will hurt the standard of living for all but the richest Americans?

Personally, I don't subscribe to any religion and like you I say "keep them all out". But based on recent history I see these emergent pseudo-religions as a much greater threat than Christianity, which has coexisted with our secular government since its inception. I've never felt like Christianity was being shoved down my throat, but at this moment I feel that political correctness and Greenism are indeed being foist upon me.

Thank you for your blog and for responding to me. I only visit from time to time, but Issues & Views always brightens my day.