A Glimmer of Hope for Europe
by Srdja Trifkovic
In spite of some decades of relentless multiculturalist indoctrination and
"Religion of Peace" propaganda, an "overwhelming majority" of Europeans
believe immigration from Islamic countries is a threat to their traditional
way of life, a major new survey revealed on January 23.
Prepared for the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in
collaboration with Georgetown University, "Islam and the West: Annual Report
on the State of Dialogue" was-according to the official press release-a
pioneering attempt "to provide a systematic and thorough overview of how
Muslim and Western societies perceive and relate to each other at the
political, social, economic and cultural levels." In spire of their evident
bias in favor of intensified dialogue, interaction, mutual understanding
etc, the report's authors admit that
majorities in populations around the world . . . share a great deal of
pessimism about the state of the relationship. Among both Muslim majority
and non-Muslim majority nations, the proportion who say they think the
'other side' is committed to better relations rarely rises above a minority
of 30%.
The poll reported that "a severe deficit of trust is found between the
Western and Muslim communities," with most non-Muslims wanting as little to
do with the Muslim world as possible. Specifically referring to Britain, the
study showed that political leaders who preach the benefits of open
immigration were "dangerously out of touch with the public." It reports "a
growing fear among Europeans of a perceived Islamic threat to their cultural
identities, driven in part by immigration from predominantly Muslim nations
. . . An overwhelming majority of the surveyed populations in Europe believe
greater interaction between Islam and the West is a threat."
It is noteworthy that Muslim immigration is said to breed "a growing
fear"-which implies an irrational, emotional response to a "perceived"
threat, rather than a normal response stemming from experiential learning.
It is on par with reporting, 75 years ago, "a growing fear among Jews of a
perceived Nazi threat to their cultural identity." The authoritative and
presumably well-paid analysts advising the Davos "community" refrain from
assessing the validity of this perception. They also pass no judgment on the
fact that Europeans "believe" that interaction is undesirable. They choose,
yet again, to present this "belief" as irrational: most Europeans reject
"interaction" (a word with positive connotations) because they see it as a
"threat" (a word with negative connotations denoting an emotional response).
It takes a brave man, in today's Britain dominated by three
social-democratic parties (Labour, Conservative, and Lib-Dems), to draw the
obvious conclusion. Tory MP David Davies-who is now even more certain to go
on lingering on the back benches-is one of them. He told the Sunday Express:
"I am not surprised by these findings. People are fed up with
multiculturalism and being told they have to give up their way of life. Most
people in Britain expect anyone who comes here to be willing to learn our
language and fit in with us." Mr Davies, who serves on the Commons Home
Affairs Committee, added:
People do get annoyed when they see millions spent on translating documents
and legal aid being given to people fighting for the right to wear a
head-to-toe covering at school. A lot of people are very uncomfortable with
the changes being caused by immigration and politicians have been too slow
to wake up to that.
The report says people have little enthusiasm for "greater understanding
with Islam." That is a sure sign that they are gaining greater understanding
OF Islam. "Understanding with Islam" may happen only in those societies
fortunate enough not to have any interaction with Islam.
The report also says that attempts to improve relations between Muslims
living in Europe and the non-Muslim majority have been "disappointing." That
was entirely predictable, however. It is utterly impossible ab initio for
pious Muslims to have normal, harmonious relations with non-Muslims,
relations based on mutual respect and the acceptance of the legitimacy of
non-Muslim beliefs, lifestyles, and institutions. Most Muslims in Europe
live in a parallel universe that has very little to do with the host
country. Overwhelmingly they feel nothing but contempt for the liberal
concept of "tolerance" and "diversity." If not overtly hostile, their
attitude to the host-society is disdainful and filled with contempt.
The Muslim response to the Davos report was a mixture of lies and
distortions-the good, old taqiyya. Baroness Haleh Afshar, OBE, of York
University, blamed media "hysteria" for the findings. She admitted that
there is an absence of trust towards Muslims, but that is
very much driven by an uninformed media. To blame immigration is much harder
because the current influx of immigrants from eastern Europe are
by-and-large not Muslim. The danger is that when people are fearful of
people born and bred in this country it is likely that discrimination may
follow.
Presumably it would betray a discriminatory mindset to point out to the good
Baroness of Heslington that all four "Yorkshire lads" who blew up themselves
and 52 other people on the London Underground on July 7, 2005, were Muslims
"born and bred in this country" [i.e. Britain]. But translated from
taqiyya-speak into plain English, Dr. Afshar said the following:
"Absence of trust towards Muslims" should be recognized as not only abnormal
but also inherently discriminatory and therefore illegal response of
non-Muslims to the Jihadist threat. Accordingly, "absence of trust" needs to
be rectified by (a) an even more relentless "Religion of Peace"
indoctrination; and (b) legislative criminalization.
As a first step, further legal restraints should be imposed on media
reporting of Islamic terrorism and Jihad activism, so as to counter
anti-Muslim "hysteria" and turn "an uninformed media" into "well-informed,"
i.e. Sharia-compliant media.
There is no Muslim problem, but there is prejudice against immigration per
se-which is equally reprehensible, and therefore worthy of .
One task of the reformed media will be to teach the native public that
Muhammads, Yusufs and Sabahuddins listening to their favorite imams in
Leicester and Leeds on Friday nights are no more a threat to their way of
life, or to their life itself, than Polish plumbers, Russian tycoons, or
Moldovan prostitutes.
It is a sure bet that the European union nomenklatura in Brussels and its
subsidiary organs in the member-countries' nominal capitals will take Dr.
Afshar's recommendations to heart. They don't need any prodding, having
spent close to seven years since 9-11 indoctrinating their
subject-populations into believing that the migration of tens of millions of
Muslims into Europe and the Old Continent's subsequent demographic shift in
favor of Islamic aliens is actually a blessing that enriches the natives'
culturally deprived and morally unsustainable societies.
The elite class has a number of mandatory political documents and
enforcement tools to guide the enforcers, starting with the European
Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation N° 1162 (19 September 1991) on "the
contribution of the Islamic civilization to European culture." A giant step
forward was made a decade later, in the "General policy recommendation n° 5:
Combating intolerance and discrimination against Muslims" issued by the
European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. This "recommendation"
could have been written by Baroness Afshar:
It emphasized "Islam's positive contribution to the continuing development
of European societies, of which it is an integral part."
It expressed concern that "religious intolerance towards Islam" was still
strong in Europe.
It expressed strong regret "that Islam is sometimes portrayed inaccurately
[as] a threat."
It warned that "this prejudice may manifest itself in different guises, in
particular through negative general attitudes."
The E.U. Commission Against Racism and Intolerance then came to the point,
and called on the Union's member states to adopt legally binding measures
that would counter such negative tendencies. These measures, if and when
applied, will effectively outlaw any serious debate about Islam and
introduce pro-Muslim "affirmative action" that would far exceed some of the
worst excesses of similar programs in the United States. The E.U. body call
on the member countries:
To impose sanctions in cases of discrimination on grounds of religion [i.e.
to prosecute those who "inaccurately" claim that Islam may be a threat];
To remove "unnecessary legal or administrative obstacles [i.e. planning and
zoning permits, local authority and neighborhood approvals] to the
construction of sufficient numbers of appropriate places of worship for the
practice of Islam" [i.e. as many mosques as Muslims want, where they want
them, of whatever size, shape, or form];
To ensure that public institutions make provision in their everyday practice
for cultural and other requirements of the Muslim community [i.e.
taxpayer-funded prayer rooms facing Mecca and foot baths in state schools,
public offices, hospitals, prisons, barracks . . . ];
To prevent discrimination on religious grounds regarding access to
citizenship [i.e. to speed up naturalization of Muslims resident in Europe
regardless of an EU country's formal requirements, such as taking an oath of
allegiance odious to Muslims];
To eliminate any discrimination on grounds religion in access to education
[i.e. allow hijabs and burqas in taxpayer-funded classrooms . . . where
crosses are banned];
To legislate against religious discrimination in employment and at the
workplace [i.e. set aside a quota of positions that will be filled by
Muslims regardless of ability or of the availability of better qualified
non-Muslim candidates];
To encourage employers to devise and implement "codes of conduct" to combat
religious discrimination and "to work towards the goal of workplaces
representative of the diversity of the society in question" [i.e. fire or
demote non-Muslim employees who see Islam as a threat, and introduce
"affirmative action" programs for Muslims];
To prevent "discrimination of Muslims connected with social exclusion"
[which means inviting them to company picnics, and instructing employees to
bring them to parties and social events, provided-of course-that no alcohol
or pork are served, and that men and women are rigorously segregated];
To pay special attention to the situation of Muslim women "who may suffer
both from discrimination against women in general and that against Muslims"
[but paying attention to their Kuranically-mandated abuse by their husbands
is verboten];
To modify curricula to prevent "distorted interpretations of religious and
cultural history" and "portrayal of Islam on perceptions of hostility and
menace" [which is already happening in Britain, with Muslim activists
approving state school textbooks dealing with Islam];
To ensure that religious instruction in schools respects cultural pluralism
and make provision for teacher training to this effect;
To raise awareness among the population of those areas where particular care
is needed to avoid social and cultural conflict [i.e. more vigorous
indoctrination];
To encourage debate in the media on the image which they convey of Islam and
on their responsibility to avoid perpetuating prejudice and bias [again,
pure Dr. Afshar];
To provide for the monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of all
measures to combat intolerance and discrimination against Muslims [Orwell].
The diligence with which individual E.U. member countries translate this
appalling list into national legislation, and the instances of
"Islamophobia" all over the Union, are being tracked by the Vienna-based
European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. The Centre
routinely refers to "institutional Islamophobia" as an inherent social and
cultural sickness of most European societies that needs to be rooted out by
education, re-education, and legislation. The rampant insanity emanating
from Brussels grows more unrestrained with each new terrorist plot or
attack, resulting in calls for more understanding of the "underlying causes"
of terrorism (racism, Iraq, poverty, "fear," discrimination, etc, etc etc.)
and the insistence on greater inclusiveness and more stringent
anti-Islamophobic legislation.
An ideological commitment to neoliberal globalization has turned
multiculturalism and effectively open-ended Third World (overwhelmingly
Muslim) immigration into two inviolable Euro-dogmas. The result is the
inherent inability of Brussels and its post-national subsidiaries to defend
Europe from the threat of Jihad. Cynically defeatist, self-absorbed and
unaccountable to anyone but their own corrupt class, the Eurocrats are just
as bad as jihad's fellow-travelers; they are its active abettors and
facilitators.
"Islam and the West: Annual Report on the State of Dialogue" indicates that
their job is far from done, which is excellent news. They preach death, and
it is up to the millions of normal people in the Western world to stop the
madness. The traitor class wants them to share its death wish, to
self-annihilate as people with a historical memory and a cultural identity,
and to make room for the monistic Utopia spearheaded by the Jihadist fifth
column. That crime can and must be stopped. The founders of the Old Republic
overthrew their colonial rulers for offenses far lighter than those of which
the Jihad-enabling traitor class is guilty.
Share This
Srdja Trifkovic :: Feb.05.2008 :: Islam, News & Views :: 17 Comments ť
Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new
Yahoo! Mail: http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/
[
Serbian News Network - SNN
[email protected]
http://www.antic.org/
