Monday, 17 December 2007

How best to handle the Islamic challenge?

It seems to me that two schools of thought are emerging around this issue. Three if you count the Total Surrender option, which says that we take a supine position, allow them impose their will and have their way in all ‘trivial’ matters such as wearing hijabs in school, taking food off the menu during Ramadan etc.

Let’s call this the Swedish Option, and its rationale, god help us, is that if we keep giving in they’ll be happy and settle down beside us and we all live as happy neighbours for ever more. Believe it or not, a Swedish Minister (must locate a link) has said in effect that ‘if we’re nice to them now they’ll be nice to us when they’re in the majority’. This is stunning in that he assumes and accepts that Swedes will end up a minority in their own country. (Question: Is this treason?).

But as I said there seems to be two main Options. Let’s call the first the US Option. This is the Swedish Option but with a very string security dimension added. In effect this says that you can do all the Swedish Option bits, but we’re going to come down really hard on anyone flirting with terrorism, even if it only involves supporting questionable charities. Various civil liberties have been curtailed under this approach.

The third we might call the Danish (“When Hippies Go Bad”) Option. There’s an old aphorism that says a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged. In many ways the Danes are Swedes who’ve been mugged – but, unlike the Swedes, they know it. Danes are now the New Realists. Accordingly they have aggressively fought back on the trivial bits (see this post), and are also much heavier now on security – in a very un-Danish way.

So which is better? My view is the US approach is probably ok for that country. Muslims are a tiny minority there and most seem to have left their cultural baggage behind – I think! Europe is obviously quite different. We have an exploding Islamic population, under instructions from the Islamic Council of Europe (see this). As you can see from this post, the ICE has issued very clear takeover instructions, and the Danes now realise this. The takeover involves gradually and continually pushing the envelop so that you create mini (and not so mini) Islamic republics throughout the country. England is full of these, as are France, Holland and Sweden.

So for Europe, my view is clear. Fight them at every turn. Refuse planning for mosques, no special treatment at all – drink is served if WE want to serve it, if you want to work in a store you handle all produce, if you drive a taxi you take people carrying drink – the list is endless.

Will this make Muslims resentful? You bet. But do you seriously think they’re not resentful at the moment? What this method will do is force the issue into the open. Muslims will be given the same option we’d be given in a Muslim country. Conform or ship out. Faced with this they might begin to appreciate the benefits of living in the West, and give up on the takeover.


Anonymous said...

You really think antagonizing them at every hands turn will help?

SAVANT said...

I think making clear that they're in the West at our discretion will focus their minds. There may be - will be - a lot of initial opposition, but in time they'll see that the choice is either stop forcing Islam on us or else go back to Dar Al Islam

Anonymous said...

I still say you're not going to convince them by rubbing their noses in it.

SAVANT said...

When will the penny drop with YOU? You're not going to convince them anyway. We just have to show that they're here at our behest and must conform to ur laws, just as we must do in their countries. Can you imagine convincing someone who believe sthat teacher in the Sudan shouldbe killed?

Anonymous said...

"conform of ship out"? Doesnt sound like a liberal democracy to me, sorry.

SAVANT said...

I think you're being a bit disingenuous here. By conform I mean, and i think you know that, that everyone conforms to liberal democratic standards. In other words, no tolerance for intolerance whereby Muslims force their views onto the rest of us.

SAVANT said...

Joe - great comment but Blogger has lost it after i moderated it. Can you resend?

Anonymous said...

It was attached to another thread I think... I can repost it here as it is relevant to this thread too.

Anonymous said...

Western concepts such Freedom and Equality exist within a framework. The prerequisite that underlies this - the meta-value - is a general belief in democracy and human rights: i.e. the shared Western cultural framework.

Islam (and some Muslims) dispute this very basis on which consensus is based.

The rule that had been implicitly understood and now made explicit is that all people who wish to partake in liberal democracy must agree to the idea of liberal democracy.

(Note: this is merely making explicit what was implicit. For example, a requirement of becoming a citizen of Ireland is that one swears loyalty to the State. I.e. anyone who wishes to import Sharia cannot truthfully swear loyalty to the State and can therefore technically not become an Irish citizen)

I suggest you learn some jurisprudence and concepts of Natural Law (as understjavascript:void(0)
Publish Your Commentood in European legal theory). In particular pay attention to development of the concepts of democracy and the rights of man in the 18th century. You might learn something.

Anonymous said...

A few thoughts

The contradiction at the core of liberalism is intolerance of intolerance.

Culture must have genetic roots. Otherwise, how can the persistence of Islam be explained? European culture probably takes European genes. I don't think Arabs, MEs, and Africans are genetically capable of adopting European culture wholesale. There isn't a shred of evidence to indicate they are, and I don't think its worth taking the chance that they are capable. I think Europeans should throw all non-Europeans out.

I wish we had a Pope with the nads to preach crusade!

Anonymous said...

I agree with your proposition, but dont agree with crusade. Separation is the answer. Shift tem out one way or another, carry on trade etc. but they cannot ever form 'normal citizens.

Anonymous said...

Crusade was, perhaps, the wrong word. I wish the Pope would preach separation, forcible, if necessary. And, to be clear, separation meaning geographical distance.

SAVANT said...


Anonymous said...

well yes I agree, but the problem is as savant has said in previous posts, we are much too PC whipped to implement what he advocates.

Firstly, here is what I see as a fundamental mistake. Who in the PC west wants to go after a religion? Nobody. We believe in the seperation of church and state, and that a persons religion is his own affair, (which it is - unless it enspouses jihad and that makes things a lot different). So what we have is all the allah come latelys in to the country, saying Islam is our religion and we should be allowed to practice it as you practice yours. This is very emotive stuff for post-Christian Europe. No one in this day and age wants religious persecution. Jesus didn't we see enough of it in this country. Do the Irish, or Danes, or Germanic peoples want to be accused of any sort of religious persecution

This is a fundamental problem. This religion of peace is not a religion in the sense that we understand it, since it has political aims that threaten the very civilisation we have come to know. Unless the message of its true meaning gets out to the ordinary citizen - no one is going to do anything about it due to what savant calls being too PC whipped to do anything about it.

In post-christian europe we have seperation of church and state, now its time for seperation of mosque and state. If we don't insist on that - then we will get sharia law by default.

SAVANT said...

This is a very good point. The troublem is that inIreland at least we allow faith schools and the state pays for them all. It's going to be difficult (I still think we should do it) to say you can have faith schools, but not of the muslim faith.

Can you just see our PC-whipped politicians and the immigration industry going for that?