Tuesday, November 29, 2011

A Brief History of the Transatlantic Counterjihad, Part V

Islam over Europe, seen from orbit

This is the sixth of an eight-part history of the Transatlantic Counterjihad. Links to the first five parts are at the bottom of this post.

A big thank-you to the Counterjihad Collective for undertaking this project.

A Brief History of the Transatlantic Counterjihad
by the Counterjihad Collective

V. Official Opposition to the Transatlantic Counterjihad

The Origins of Anti-Islamic Sentiment

The Islamization of Europe was a (perhaps inadvertent) byproduct of the need to import foreign labor to the continent in the decades after the Second World War. The process fed on itself, as liberal immigration laws and “family reunification” policies brought ever-increasing numbers of unassimilable foreigners, most of them Muslims, into Western Europe. The official state policy of Multiculturalism allowed newcomers to disappear into ever-growing enclaves, where they could live and function as if they were in their native countries, without any requirement that they integrate into the host population.

These new urban ghettos put Muslims into direct conflict with native working-class and lower-middle-class people, who were their immediate neighbors. As immigrants and their descendants became more and more dependent on state benefits — which they drew far in excess of their proportion of the population — their seeming parasitism exacerbated the hostility between the indigenes and the newcomers.

To make matters worse, Muslim immigrants were far more likely than the natives to commit violent crimes, and an overwhelming number of their victims were indigenous Europeans. This disproportionate criminality was especially evident where the crime of rape was concerned. Muslim immigrants were apprehended and prosecuted for rape in overwhelming numbers. Over a five-year period in Oslo, every single stranger-rape in which the perpetrator could be identified was committed by a non-Norwegian Muslim.

The correlation between Islamic ideology and this disparity in criminal propensities is open to dispute. However, the statistics are telling: rape is an overwhelmingly Muslim crime in Western Europe. Its most brutal and barbaric form, gang rape, is almost entirely a Muslim phenomenon.

The wealthier and more privileged social groups have been mostly insulated from the worst of these phenomena through residential isolation in well-protected neighborhoods, and by their access to private schooling for their children. The brunt of immigrant lawlessness has been borne by the lower and lower-middle classes, who are subjected to harassment and violence on an almost daily basis.

Given these ominous trends, it hardly comes as a surprise that the resistance to immigration and Islamization originated mainly with the working class.

This issue has thrown ordinary citizens of modest means into serious conflict with the elite governing class. The latter do not experience Islamization in the same way as their less fortunate neighbors, and they continue to place their faith in Multiculturalism, “tolerance”, and the ever-elusive process of “integration”.

The class disparity is deepened by the political establishment’s dependence on and commitment to mass immigration and Multiculturalism. Immigrants now form an all but unified bloc of voters which national and local politicians must assiduously court. There is no going back: any attempt to put the brakes on Muslim expansion would threaten the political, social, and economic order.

Thus the only option for the establishment is to “double down”: more immigration, renewed Multiculturalism, and increased “tolerance”. This places the political class on a collision course with their own people.

Official Repression of the Counterjihad

The inevitable resistance by the working-class native population — along with parts of the literate middle class — prompted repeated attempts on the part of Western governments, the EU, and the UN to suppress what is variously known as “racism”, “xenophobia”, and “Islamophobia”.

As time went on, and gentler forms of suppression failed to have the desired effect, official efforts to eliminate the Counterjihad have become more overt. Harassment, public demonization, shunning, removal of police protection, loss of employment, withdrawal of public benefits, and legal prosecution: these are just a few of the methods that have been used over the last few years in an attempt to shut down the opposition to sharia and Islamization.

Five years ago the victims of official government repression could be counted on the fingers of one hand. As of November 2011, however, there are too many examples to enumerate. Below is just a small sample from across the Western world of people who have been legally harassed, prosecuted, or threatened with prosecution:

Australia: Andrew Bolt
  Martin Brennan
  Danny Nalliah
  Daniel Scot
Austria: Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
Belgium: Bart Debie
Canada: Ezra Levant
  Mark Harding
  Damian Goddard
  Mark Steyn
Denmark: Lars Hedegaard
Finland: Jussi Halla-aho
France: Philippe Val
Netherlands: Gregorius Nekschot
  Geert Wilders
  Zoka F. (a.k.a. Mohammed Rasoel)
Norway: Fjordman (Peder Jensen)
Sweden: Carl P. Herslow
  Dahn Pettersson
Switzerland: Avi Lipkin (alias Victor Mordecai)
UK: Paul Ray (alias Lionheart)
  Tommy Robinson (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon)
  Kevin Carroll
  Many other members of the English Defence League
USA: Derek Fenton
  Negreen Mayel
  Dr. Nabeel Qureshi
  Paul Rezkalla
  Dr. David Wood
  Pastor Mark Holick

Official oppression is clearly a response to the “mainstreaming” of the Counterjihad. The political establishment is threatened by the growing public prominence of resistance to Islamization, and is attempting to suppress it through legal means.

This blatant totalitarian behavior can only serve to reinforce the need for volunteer groups that specialize in the legal defense of citizens whose civil liberties have been infringed.

Next: Part VI. Unofficial Opposition to the Counterjihad


2011 Nov 24 Part I, Introduction
    25 Part II, Conferences
    26 Part III(a), The Transatlantic Counterjihad at the OSCE
    27 Part III(b), The Transatlantic Counterjihad at the OSCE (cont.)
    28 Part IV, The Rosetta Stone Projects


gsw said...

You missed Susanne Winter, Austria:

The trial ended in a conviction: a fine of 24,000€ and a conditional three month sentence
for incitement and degradation of religious doctrines.

Anonymous said...

"This blatant totalitarian behavier" ALSO "reinforces the need" for civil disobediance--at first.
If that doesn't succeed--it's going to be 'ballet box or bullet box' in the end.
Lock and load, boys and girls--it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

Anonymous said...

I think that a better way to draw the distinction is to say that these cases are "High-profile" rather than "Official" opposition to the Counter-Jihad. There are now countless examples of direct police action against those protesting the advance of Jihad and the simply impossible to count cases of people being denied protection, social benefits, or other goods to which they are nominally entitled as citizens.

These are no less official forms of oppression...indeed, given that they reflect ongoing policy they could be considered more official.

The truly unofficial suppression of resistance to Jihad would have to be associated with the criminal actions of the members of the Islamic community which are not actually acting as recognized officials of the government. These acts of Jihad have to be understood as a separate category from official actions of the state.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

I think there is an even bigger issue here. Your analysis rather moderately suggests that the importation of muslims was kind of inadvertent. I believe it was conscious (and in that analysis, it accords with the Eurabia argument [I don't call it a hypothesis, because Bat Ye'or demonstrates the project using official EU documentation).

I believe it was a deliberate policy of importing muslims into Britain, Spain, Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria, etc.

The PRINCIPLE of the EU was that there was to be a SINGLE MARKET in goods and LABOUR, i.e. labour deficiencies in one part of the area was to be made up by the movement of labour from other areas.

European governments claim that people are unwilling to move across europe to take up jobs. BUT the UK government (for example) diminishes the impact of immigration by talking about net immigration i.e. there are almost as many Britons leaving the country as there are foreigners moving into the country. That shows that workers are prepared to move -- they are prepared to move away from their home country to get away from the immigrants.

Muslim immigration has been a deliberate policy of importing people who will (mostly) not work, who will (mostly) not integrate, and there is a purpose behind this. They are known to be a luxury i.e. they cost money to keep. Therefore, follow the money. Why would governments continue (at increased rates) to import these costly foreigners? The only explanation I can think of, is that the muslim immigrants are effectively being paid to be here in order to destroy national identities, in order to make the United States of Europe come about more easily.

I've lived in London for 20 years. But when I travel to Seville or Estonia I feel I have more in common with the Spanish or the Estonaians (despite a language barrier) than I do with muslims born and bred in London.

That is a sign of the success of the power elite's destruction of national identities in Europe.

Henrik R Clausen said...

As for pressure against individual activists, don't forget the many that have been fired, squeezed out from their jobs or simply chosen to be the most appropriate 'redundant' person when someone had to go. That is a major silent factor as well.

Anonymous said...

By saying that the violence of immigrants whose presence in the country can hardly be for any other reason than to oppress and intimidate the existing population is not "official" repression, I do not wish to categorize it as not being a form of oppression by the government. It is unofficial in the sense that, while the actions of the government have clearly led to it, it is not directly imposed by actual officials of the government.

Thus it is still government oppression, just not "official" in the technical sense of being carried out by those holding government office as a defined part of their duties.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

goethechosemercy said...

I've lived in London for 20 years. But when I travel to Seville or Estonia I feel I have more in common with the Spanish or the Estonaians (despite a language barrier) than I do with muslims born and bred in London.

That is a sign of the success of the power elite's destruction of national identities in Europe.

Or it's a sign of the multiculturalists abject unrealism and FAILURE.
To say that non-discrimination is the greatest evil is to fail to see humanity itself clearly. You will always favor the Westerner, the person who looks like you and comes from the same cultural milieu.
No matter how Londonistani London becomes, the Muslims there will continue to feel alienated by everything that surrounds them.
Their only solution will be to lash out time and time and time again.