Seneste opdatering: 28/6-14 kl. 1459
13 kommentarer - Tryk for at kommentere!

It is dismissed as a “crazy conspiracy theory” if one suggests that Western political elites actively support the Islamization of Europe and the Western world. Yet one might argue that this is not a conspiracy theory — or even a theory — merely an observation.

The more Muslims and people who champion Islamic ideas imported into a society, the more Islamic influence there will be in that society. This is basic logic: if you import large numbers of Muslims to a country, you get more Islamization. It’s pretty simple, really.

So let us ask a simple question: Do Western governments allow large numbers of Muslims to settle in Western countries? Yes or no? The answer is obviously yes, as we can easily observe all around us. Western authorities have for decades been in the process of importing large numbers of Muslims to our countries. Since more Muslims means more Islam, this implies that Western authorities actively support the gradual Islamization of our countries.

If you find this to be a provocative observation, then ask yourself the following question: If Western political elites, ruling authorities and mass media really and truly object to the growing Islamic presence in our societies, then exactly what are they doing to curb this growth, apart from some mostly symbolic gestures?

As long as they are not doing anything substantial to halt or even slow down Muslim immigration, they are in fact supporting the continued, gradual Islamization of our countries. There is no other way to put it.

What can be done?

A hard-line option might be to say explicitly that Islamic culture is incompatible with our culture. Therefore, Muslim immigration to all European and Western nations will be immediately and permanently halted. This will probably be seen as too provocative by many people, however.

A more plausible alternative might be to say that while many Muslims might be fine people as individuals, much of the Islamic world is currently in such a state of unrest and turmoil that we need to protect our own societies as much as we can from this. We are therefore sad to announce that we must, for an indefinite time period, suspend any immigration from this part of the world.

An even more moderate solution might be not to say anything about Muslims or Islam at all. Western governments could simply state that our share of the world’s population keeps dropping rapidly. Moreover, we have plenty of problems of our own to deal with. The unemployment rate in several southern European countries is above 20%, with youth unemployment exceeding 40% in some places. It does not make sense in this situation to import millions of more people when we cannot provide work to those who are already here.

With social problems and debt to take care of, we need to put our own house in order first. While we harbor no ill will towards other peoples and nations, we therefore regret to announce that we will have to suspend large-scale immigration from any part of the world until we have put our own house back in order again.

It is possible to understand why, for pragmatic reasons, Western authorities do not choose the confrontational approach and state openly that Islamic culture is incompatible with our culture. However, it is much more difficult to understand and accept why Western governments cannot choose one of the two other options.

They can simply state that due to the turmoil that exists in many parts of the Middle East and the Islamic world, we need to take steps to protect our borders more firmly. If we need to withdraw from certain naïve human rights conventions in order to reestablish effective control over our national borders, then we must do so.

Furthermore, the percentage that Western societies constitute of the global population and the global economy keeps shrinking fast. We are not all-powerful. Moreover, we have distinct national cultures that we would like to preserve, too. Our countries are the homelands of distinct peoples with a shared history, not empty bowls only to be filled by shopping and human rights.

As of today, this has also become an urgent security issue. Britain will feel the repercussions of the civil war in Syria and the rise of Islamic extremism within its own borders for “many years” to come, a top counter-terrorism expert stated in June 2014. At the same time, the former MI6 director of global counter-terrorism Richard Barrett told the BBC that it was “out of the question” for the security services to follow all of the Muslims who had fought abroad in conflict zones such as Syria when they return. There are quite simply too many of them now.

Similar warnings may be heard from the security services in Germany, France and other nations. Thousands of Muslims who are European citizens, from countries as different as Italy and Denmark, are currently believed to be Jihadist fighters in Syria, Iraq, Somalia and elsewhere. Some of them die there. Those who return, however, will often be more militant and deadly than they were before.

While not all of the returning Jihadist fighters will automatically turn into domestic terrorists in Western countries, it is highly likely that some of them will. Some militant Muslims return battle-hardened and with greater knowledge of how to kill those whom they consider infidels. It is all but inevitable that a few of them will decide to target us with deadly attacks. This process has already begun.

Yet despite all of this, large-scale Muslim immigration continues to Western Europe and North America as if nothing has changed. This is completely unacceptable. Even uneducated truck drivers I have talked to see clearly that we cannot continue to import many potential Muslim Jihadists from foreign conflict zones.

One has to expect that supposedly intelligent and well-informed people in positions of power should be able to see this, too. Are they remarkably stupid, or have they blinded themselves by fanatical adherence to an ideology of open borders, mass immigration and the dissolution of nation-states? Whatever the reason, the result is unacceptable.

It constitutes a massive betrayal of Western citizens to continue these failed immigration policies. In fact, harsher terms than “betrayal” could be used.

Yes, considerable damage has already been done due to decades of idiotic policies, but that is no excuse for doing nothing. When the fire brigades come to a house that is on fire, they do not conclude that they will do nothing and just let the entire city catch fire. They try to limit the damage as much as possible.

If damage limitation is the only thing we can do now, then let us at the very least do that. Every single step we take today to reduce the continued inflow of Islam-related problems means fewer or smaller problems for our descendants to deal with in the future. We owe them to do whatever we can.

We cannot base the future of our freedom, security and prosperity on wishful thinking. I am on the record as stating that I do not think Islam can be reformed, at least not if by “reformed” you mean something that is peaceful, based on secular laws, respects freedom of speech and coexists on equal terms with other religions. I would be very happy to be proven wrong in this regard. Sadly, there is little to indicate such an outcome at the moment.

Despite the talk about an “Euro-Islam,” there are few signs of any Europeanization of Islam, but plenty of signs of a gradual Islamization of Europe. There is no convincing indication of a general liberalization of the Islamic world, either. On the contrary, more repressive and aggressive versions of Islam are on the ascendancy from Malaysia to Turkey. Non-Muslims are being put under increasing pressure in many Muslim-majority countries. In a number of cases, they are in the process of being virtually wiped out by violent means. Meanwhile, unrest in parts of the Islamic world is spilling over into other regions.

It is deeply irresponsible of Western political leaders in such a situation to continue large-scale immigration from unstable Muslim societies. Our cities should not be turned into battlegrounds for clashing Middle Eastern tribes.

Serious steps must immediately be taken to halt the continued influx of radical Muslims and potential Jihadist fighters. If Western governments and political leaders fail to do this, then they fail to protect their countries and uphold their basic duties to their citizens. They should be held accountable for that failure.

Co-published with Gates of Vienna.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Donér engangsbeløb?Kan du forpligte dig til fast betaling?

Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Crass Børsting
Crass Børsting
7 years ago

“We cannot base the future of our freedom, security and prosperity on wishful thinking.”

Well spoken, Mr. Fjordman, once again.

7 years ago

Atommaktene Frankrike og UK blir muslimske stater, atombomber vil gå av i USA, men sivilisasjonen unngår i det lengste å svare med atomvåpen. Ender i 3. verdenskrig og milliarder av døde, der USA sannsynligvis vil seire.

Da Capo
Da Capo
7 years ago

“Med folk som ham [Choudhary], de syriske frivillige og islam i almindelighed går England en spændende fremtid i møde, for ikke at tale om resten af Europa” skriver signaturen Santor i en kommentar 27 June 2014 – 23:10, och tillägger; “Jeg har købt popkorn og fadøl og venter kun på at kampen begynder.” Vi andra sitter inte opåverkade i elfenbenstorn och tittar på TV. Är Santor övertygad om att det inte blir någon kamp i DK? Finns det verklingen ingen klarsynt och analytisk realist som vågar intressera sig för verkligheten och den kommande muslimiseringen och dess följder. I Sverige gör… Read more »

Da Capo
Da Capo
7 years ago

Fjordman, föreslå en lösning – definiera inte enbar problemet! Det är ett förräderi. Ett oreparabelt sådant. Situationen är lik den i Tyskland för 80 år sedan, men värre. Mohammadanerna är/blir dock och med rätta ännu mera illa omtyckta. Finns det då någon lösning på muslimfrågan? Nej. Inga anständiga, traditionella och rationella lösningar står till förfogande. Byråkratisk utvisning? Varthän? – Till grannländerna? Repatriering? Deportering? Varthän? – Varken med våld eller betald sådn är möjlig. Inget land vill ta emot dem. Kan man med vapenmakt tvinga Saudi, Jemen och Gulfstaterna att ta emot? Kan muslimerna samfält av EU förflyttas till Madagaskar? Genocid?… Read more »

Peter Christensen
Peter Christensen
7 years ago
Reply to  Da Capo

Kan du ikke læse? Fjordman angiver jo netop en løsning: totalt stop for indvandring af muslimer. dette vil ikke løse problemerne, men er en forudsætning for at begrænse sskaderne. Hvis ikke vi stopper indvandringen, vil vores samfund falde fra hinanden. Stop for indvandring. Hvis de vil familiesammenføres må det ske i oprindelseslandet. Opfordre til repatriering ved at tilbyde en stor pose penge hvis de flyttet tilbage. Tving dem til at lære sproget og deres børn til at lære sproget, med trussel om at de ellers ikke vil få offentlige midler. Forbyd islamistiske foreninger. Forbyd ekstremistiske imamer indrejse. Der er masser… Read more »

7 years ago

Om man først skal forsøke å forstå hvorfor vestlige politikere og nærinslivselite rent faktisk legger til rette for en islamisering av Europa så bør man gå tilbake til begynnelsen og se på hvilke motiver og drivkrefter som gjorde seg gjeldende den gangen dette begynte. Da fremstår det som rimelig klart at dette øverste skiktet i siste instans nettopp vil foretrekke å gjøre hele den europeiske befolkningen til muslimer krypende mot Mekka om alternativet skulle være noen sosial(istisk) revolusjon. Der ligger den grunnleggende affiniteten mellom på den ene siden de vestlige politikere som satte denne prosessen igang og deres mer eller… Read more »

7 years ago

Vestens magteliter ønsker ikke reelt islamisering. Der er imidlertid det de får, men jeg tror ikke det er hvad de ønsker sig. De søger uafbrudt at forme islam i deres egen ønsketænknings billede og dermed at ødelægge islams egentlige kerne, for at kunne “integrere” muslimerne ind i deres post-moderne globalistiske utopi. Deres strategi er således at elske islam ihjel. Det de ønsker sig er nemlig det universelle samfund, funderet på den hellige menneskeret. Et samfund hvor “menneskeheden” er folket og hvor alle etniske og kulturelle identiteter er nedbrudt til fordel for et nyt globalt fællesskab. Det er en model som… Read more »

Peter Andersen
7 years ago
Reply to  Prudentius

Det universielle samfund, det globale fællesskab, baseret på frihed, lighed og vestlige værdier. Det findes allerede. Bare hiv islam ud af ligningen, så går den sådan set op.

Men hvem tør sige det højt? Ja, Lars Hedegaard og Anjem Choudary tør godt. Og Putin tør også. Så meget har de tre til fælles. Men se om en Krasnik vil godkende det. Eller Ellemann/Lykketoft.

Det går lidt langsomt for de blåøjede…

7 years ago
Reply to  Peter Andersen

Mjaaah, den er jeg ikke sikker på Peter.

Du har selvfølgelig ret i at europæiske oplysnings-ideer/idealer er spredt verden over i forskellig grad.

Men det er ikke kun en eller anden etisk konsensus, som globalismen og dens tilhængere sigter efter. Og som jeg heller ikke mener eksistere i nogen fuldstændig form.

Derimod er det en universel politisk, juridisk, økonomisk, ideologisk og social enhed de har i tankerne, og som de arbejder for at realisere.

Med katastrofale konsekvenser til følge.

7 years ago

Sorry Fjordmann, det var Jagland som vant valget!

Anna C
7 years ago

The worlds ruling elite is not stupid or ignorant. The destruction of the middle class in West is a necessary step. Decades of indoctrination has turned the political classes in all our countries to useful fools.

7 years ago

Takk, Fjordman. Så sant, så sant.

7 years ago

Demografisk folkemord, men Riksadvokaten er ikke å se.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x