The Islamophobia of Western Leaders

A recent study entitled "No-go Zones", released in March of this year, identified over a thousand centers of Islamist entrenchment in Europe. These are areas in cities that are almost exclusively Muslim, where even police do not go, and where crime rates including murder, rape, theft, and assaults are often double that of the surrounding communities. Within these zones, European law is dismissed in favor of Sharia law in defiance of national authority.

To be clear, Islam is an ideology, just like Communism, Fascism, Socialism and other left wing ideologies

Western leaders have been importing millions of Islamic colonists into their countries for many years. Instead of assimilating, these settlers are working to make the host countries like the countries they came from. Rather than admit their error these "leaders" have been trying to get their citizens to accept the transformation of their own country, going so far as to often make objections illegal.

To be clear, Islam is an ideology, just like Communism, Fascism, Socialism and other left wing ideologies. The principal difference is that Islam is supposedly ordained by a god and has a religious component, while the others are devised by intellectuals and are athiestic.

An ideology is a way of organizing society according to a particular set of Utopian principles. Compliance with those principles is compulsory and often enforced with violence. The needs of society are always above the rights of the individual, unlike the ideals of Western civilizations where individual rights are supreme.

Under Islam, there is no separation of church and state--the church, in the form of Islam, is the state and Sharia law is the law of the land. Western law is built around the idea of individual rights, including individual freedom of choice, democratic selection of leaders, equal rights of men and women, rule of law, and many others that most take for granted. Those in the West have lived under these assumptions for so long that it is thought they are universal and will always endure. In reality, they can change almost overnight.

In Islam, the Ummah, or Islamic community, takes precedence over the individual. There is no freedom of choice since non-membership is not tolerated. Islam is like that hotel where one can check in, but can't check out. The prescribed penalty for leaving Islam is death. One is a Muslim or a slave or a special group of Christians and Jews--people of the Book--who are allowed to hold their beliefs provided they pay a special fee for the privilege.

In the UK muslim gangs have been engaged in "grooming" activities to rape and otherwise sexually exploit young girls

Women have few rights under Islam. Women must be under the authority of a male, whether a father, husband, brother or uncle, that male directs and controls the women under their authority. Any women not under control of a male is often considered a prostitute or fair game for exploitation. According to Islamic teachings, women were created as lesser beings to serve the needs of men, including procreation, sexual gratification, child rearing, cooking, housekeeping, and any other tasks. They are not property, per se, but their status is roughly that of a prized horse, goat, or sheep. Even in law, two women or more must testify to equal the testimony of one man.

Under Islam, if a woman allows herself to be raped, she has dishonored her family, and must be punished. Her value to the family has diminished to near zero--never mind that she may have been overpowered by one or more stronger males and resisted as much as she was able--the rape is still her fault.

In the UK muslim gangs have been engaged in "grooming" activities to rape and otherwise sexually exploit young girls. From the muslim perspective, if these young girls are immodestly dressed and are not under the obvious authority of a male, then they must be "wild lambs" available to anyone who would collect them. These gangs are merely doing what they are taught is their right when they harvest a few of these "stray lambs". After all, they have their needs, and are justifiably resentful and angry when anyone interferes with meeting those needs.

European scholars have observed that muslim immigrants do not assimilate, but rather continue to behave according to the practices of their home society. This has perplexed many liberal investigators. Nearly all of the intellectuals in Europe are atheist, or agnostic and generally view religious beliefs as superstitions that a more enlightened or well-educated person would dismiss. Consequently, these "experts" have little understanding of the power of belief in the lives of Christians, Jews, and especially muslims.

It took over seven hundred years and eight Crusades before the muslim invaders were finally driven from Western Europe

Islam, in particular, teaches that it is superior to all other religions, is the sole source of truth, and that its founder is the ideal person to be emulated. In this perspective, European society, its laws, and its practices is inferior. Why then, should they be expected to assimilate to an inferior system? That society should be forced to accept their superior model!

Moreover, Islam teaches that it is the obligation of inferior societies and peoples to support muslims--part of the reason slavery has been and continues to be so widespread in Islamic societies. Right now, in most European countries, and even in the Americas, muslims consume hugely disproportionate amounts of welfare and social services, while making little or no contribution. If they were to assimilate to a Western culture, then they would be expected to contribute to that culture and would no longer be entitled to social support. Yet another reason not to assimilate.

When there are no more kafir--unbelievers-- to exploit, the society devolves to a nation of takers and not makers. When the principal skills of the population are those of helping themselves to the labor and productivity of others, it leaves little recourse but migration to somewhere there is a new population of makers to exploit, such as Europe or the Americas.

Islam is supported by violence. This endorsement of violence in the service of religion is virtually unique to Islam. Who has heard of Christian terrorist organizations, or Buddhist suicide bombers? Muslims often speak of Crusaders as examples of violent Christians.

The previous Islamic expansion into Western Europe was stopped by Charles Martel--"The Hammer" in 732 AD. and the Eastern incursions ended when the second siege of Vienna was broken by Polish King Jan Sobieski in 1683, over fifty years after the Pilgrims landed in America. It took over seven hundred years and eight Crusades before the muslim invaders were finally driven from Western Europe.

The choice is clear, and time is short

The modern day equivalent of the Crusades would be the mobilization of the Christian Western nations of the US, Canada, England, Australia and others to respond to the Nazi invasion and expansion across Europe. Both the Crusades and the Allied Liberation were in opposition to the violent spread of authoritarian, totalitarian, and anti-individualistic ideologies.

So why don't Western leaders stop and reverse the migration? Don't they realize they are destroying their countries? Most, though, are politicians, and politicians are seldom known for their courage or integrity. Many fear they would be called racist or Islamophobic which could cause them to lose their careers and positions of power. In the worst case, it might even have more extreme consequences.

The lesson of Charlie Hebdo has not been lost on them. In 2015, 12 employees of the publishers of a French satire magazine were murdered by muslims for the forbidden act of publishing pictures considered insulting to Islam. Politicians who have spoken against Islam have been subjected to death threats against themselves and their families.

The response of many cowardly "leaders" has been to act like abused wives. "If only I don't complain, and act just right, I won't be beaten. It is my fault if I do something to trigger his violent acts." Rather than addressing the problems they brought on by promoting muslim immigration, they have sought to force their own people to accept the rapes, murders, and general abuse perpetrated in the name of Islam. These cowardly leaders have found it far easier and safer to restrict law abiding citizens of their countries who desire peaceful communities, than to confront violent, angry, entitled representatives of these alien enclaves. Better a live coward than a dead hero!

Western leaders know what needs to be done, but most lack the courage to act. It is the obligation of their peoples to encourage them, to stiffen their spines, and to force them to do what Charles Martel and Jan Sobieski, and Pope Urban II did not so many years ago. Those who will not should be replaced by those who will act. It is time to screw their courage to the sticking place. The choice is clear, and time is short.