Tag Archives: Islam

Sweden’s New Government Censorship, by Judith Bergman

Sweden’s government is falling all over itself to prevent unapproved views of Islamic immigration and integration from leaking into the popular discourse. From Judith Bergman at gatestoneinstitute.org:

  • In the report, placing the word “refugees” in quotation marks, as well as “unaccompanied children,” is supposedly an expression of “hate”. (Many, if not most, migrants classified as “unaccompanied children” have turned out to be grown men).
  • Government agencies are going out of their way to protect the “integrity” of possible jihadists out of concern for a “democratic society” — the society that these jihadists want to subvert and destroy — and are using their government platform to smear non-mainstream media for matters as small as the use of quotation marks. What about the “integrity” of Swedish citizens and their right to not be blown up?
  • Why is a municipality sponsoring an organization that supports terrorists and even awarding it prizes? It appears that glorifying terrorism is acceptable in Sweden, so long as its victims are the Israeli children. Far from countering “hate”, Sweden appears to be doing all it can to strengthen Muslim extremism.

The Swedish government is now officially questioning free speech. A government agency has declared so-called Swedish “new media” — news outlets that refuse to subscribe to the politically correct orthodoxies of the mainstream media — a possible threat to democracy. In a government report, tellingly called “The White Hatred” written by Totalförsvarets forskningsinstitut (Total Defense Research Institute), a government agency under the Swedish Ministry of Defense, Swedish new media such as Samhällsnytt (formerly known as Avpixlat), Nyheter Idag and Nya Tider are lumped together with neo-Nazi media such as Nordfront.

“Hate” is defined broadly to include violent extremism, “hateful expressions”, jokes, internet trolling and even the use of certain quotation marks. For instance, in the report, placing the word “refugees” in quotation marks, as well as “unaccompanied children,” is supposedly an expression of “hate”. (Many, if not most, migrants classified as “unaccompanied children” have turned out to be grown men).

“One might find,” according to the report’s conclusion, “that pluralism of information sources… is a positive addition in a democratic society where freedom of speech is an important foundation”, but “the new media… stretch the limits of free speech,” which “threatens other democratic values”. The report further alleges that society risks becoming tolerant of the intolerant. That is rather rich coming from the authorities of a European country that has accepted Islamic intolerance to an astounding degree. There is even a proposal from a government minister to reintegrate returning ISIS fighters, who might still wish to destroy the tolerant society that houses them.

To continue reading: Sweden’s New Government Censorship

Advertisements

The EU Lectures Journalists about PC Reporting, by Bruce Bawer

Another nail in the coffin of European civil liberties. From Bruce Bawer at gatestoneinstitute.org:

  • Nor, we are told, should we associate “terms such as ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islam’… with particular acts,” because to do that is to “stigmatize.” What exactly does this mean? That when a man shouts “Allahu Akbar” after having gunned down, run over with a truck, or blown to bits dozens of innocent pedestrians or concertgoers, we are supposed to ignore that little detail?
  • But that is what this document is all about: advising reporters just how to misrepresent reality in EU-approved fashion.
  • It is interesting to note that while many people fulminate over President Trump’s complaints about “fake news,” they are silent when an instrument of the EU superstate presumes to tell the media exactly what kind of language should and should not be used when reporting on the most important issue of the day.

“Respect Words: Ethical Journalism Against Hate Speech” is a collaborative project that has been undertaken by media organizations in eight European countries – Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Slovenia, and Spain. Supported by the Rights and Citizenship Programme of the European Union, it seeks, according to its website, to help journalists, in this era of growing “Islamophobia,” to “rethink” the way they address “issues related to migratory processes, ethnic and religious minorities.” It sounds benign enough: “rethink.” But do not kid yourself: when these EU-funded activists call for “rethinking,” what they are really doing is endorsing self-censorship.

In September, “Respect Words” issued a 39-page document entitled Reporting on Migration & Minorities: Approach and Guidelines. Media outlets, it instructs, “should not give time or space to extremist views simply for the sake of ‘showing the other side.'” But which views count as “extremist”? The report does not say – not explicitly, anyway. “Sensationalist or overly simplistic reporting on migration,” we read, “can enflame existing societal prejudices” and thus “endanger migrants’ safety.” Again, what counts as “sensationalist” or “overly simplistic”? That is not spelled out, either. Nor, we are told, should we associate “terms such as ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islam’… with particular acts,” because to do that is to “stigmatize.” What exactly does this mean? That when a man shouts “Allahu Akbar” after having gunned down, run over with a truck, or blown to bits dozens of innocent pedestrians or concertgoers, we are supposed to ignore that little detail?

To continue reading: The EU Lectures Journalists about PC Reporting

Europe’s Lost Testicles, by Robert Gore

Disarmed and docile Europeans pose no meaningful threat to their governments’ depredations.

All sorts of reasons have been advanced for declining birthrates. SLL spotlights Europe as an advanced case and offers a hypothesis: its testicles have gone missing.

What does it do to a continent when a country 3,000 miles and an ocean away strikes the decisive blows in two of its cataclysmic wars? What does it do to that continent when that distant power assumes control over much of its defense? At a primal level, the very essence of manhood is the ability to defend one’s self and loved ones. Perhaps ceding responsibility for doing so is not emasculation, but it made Europe the little brother who must rely on big brother to fight his battles.

Naturally, big brother calls the tune. During the Cold War, that meant accepting one’s place under the US defense umbrella and toeing the US line on the Soviet Union. Only French President Charles de Gaulle challenged US domination, and that was more show than substance. With a nuclear arsenal and geographic proximity, the Soviet Union posed an existential threat to Europe, even more than it did to the US. If the Soviet Union had invaded during the de Gaulle era, France would have quickly rejoined a US-led alliance.

European politicians had another reason for accepting US domination. They were erecting the world’s most generous welfare states. Money saved on defense spending was spent on benefits. With little protest Europeans also swallowed high and steeply progressive tax rates in return for state-provided largess.

The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 posed an existential threat to the US military-industrial-intelligence complex. NATO could have been disbanded and responsibility for Europe’s defense handed back to Europe. The US could have significantly cut military spending. It took ten years and 9/11, but the complex overcame the threat and preserved the status quo. It ginned up a story that Islamic extremism posed a danger to the West of the same magnitude as the former Soviet Union.

Islam has historically been riven with sectarian strife, notably the Sunni-Shia schism. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were living in caves when the US and United Kingdom invaded Afghanistan in 2001. Not one Islamic nation, and certainly none of the Islamic non-state groups, had any appreciable industrial capacity. Only one Islamic government, Pakistan’s, had nuclear weapons, and its arsenal was tiny compared to the West’s and Israel’s. To rate the Islamic “threat” as anything but minuscule compared to that posed by the Soviet Union was absurd

The only way the West could lose to Islam was if it defeated itself (see “How to Defeat Your Enemies,” SLL). To their credit, the governments of Germany, France, and New Zealand refused to swallow the US’s concocted rationales for the 2003 Iraq invasion—that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was fomenting terrorism—or support it. Globally an estimated 36 million people protested the invasion. The Guinness Book of Records lists a protest by three million in Rome as the largest ever antiwar rally.

We’ll see what happens if the US reneges on the Iran Nuclear Agreement, but to date 2003 remains the highpoint of European opposition to big brother. If they had known the consequences of US incursions into the Middle East and Northern Africa, they would have protested even more vociferously. The US has made a complete hash of it. The war against terror creates more terrorists, and turning the area into a hodgepodge of hell holes has prompted millions to flee, often to Europe.

They find a continent that economically has seen better days. The welfare state guarantees everything but the opportunity to work hard, keep what you earn, and make a better life for yourself. State favored companies use regulation to squelch smaller, less-connected competitors and stop innovative startups before they get started. The European Union is a bureaucratic, centralizing engine run amuck, creating more daunting obstacles to companies and entrepreneurs. There’s the usual corruption that comes with centralized bureaucracies. Monetary authorities are all-in on debt monetization and interest rate suppression policies that discourage honest savings and productive investment but encourage stock, bond, property, and derivatives speculation.

No surprise then that the European economy hasn’t grown much, if it all, the last few decades. Nor that it’s eating America and Asia’s dust in high-tech. It’s not even a surprise that this state of affairs evokes little protest among Europeans. When the government provides cradle-to-grave, you shut up and get with the program. Even if means you live with your parents into you’re thirties or forties, never have a real job or meaningful occupation, never marry or start a family, and nobody can remember one memorable thing you’ve done at your state-provided funeral.

Instead of taking an honest look at why Europeans are not having babies, politicians and other well-credentialed idiots have decreed that immigration is just the trick for declining birth rates and aging populations. They’ve been lucky; big brother America’s interventionist policies have created all sorts of refugees.

Islamic immigration is a focal point for all that ails Europe. Since 2003, there’s been no real opposition to the US’s refugee-creating policies. The refugees have found not just refuge, but state-provided benefits. Europe’s so-called leaders, apparatchiks, and media assure the population that Muslims bear no animus towards Europe. The fable goes that they will readily assimilate and become part of the taxpaying work force, forestalling the impending insolvency of the welfare state.

Only actual facts and a few alternative media outlets challenge this codswallop, for the most part Europeans have bought it. Are they fooled or neutered? The continent responsible for much of Western Civilization probably didn’t get stupid in a generation, which argues for the latter.

The isolated sparks of opposition are met with opprobrium, threats, fines and criminal sentences. Not a month goes by in which a prominent European politician doesn’t call for restrictions on the internet, the one forum that’s not completely cowed (or is it steered?). A few Eastern European nations are the resistance, pariahs. It wouldn’t be the worst thing for them if Angela Merkel-led “proper Europe” cut them off entirely.

One has to wonder if Europe’s preening politicians would be quite so obliviously oppressive (having old ladies beat up to stop them from voting and the like), if Europe’s population would be so docilely delusional, and if its Islamic immigrants would be better behaved if guns were as available as they are in the US. Pseudo-intellectuals smirk that guns are “potent phallic symbols.” True perhaps, but as noted, defending one’s self and loved ones is the first responsibility of the phallically endowed. Guns are a lot more effective than Tasers, knives, baseball bats, or calling the police.

There have been odious incidents of European women being groped, stripped, and sexually assaulted by Islamic criminals in public venues, unchallenged by what passes for European manhood. Just as odious is the pressure brought to bear on those seeking to publicize such incidents. In the US, your “intellectual” credentials aren’t in order unless you hail Europe as a “model.” It’s a model all right, for what happens when governments have no fear of their citizens. Europe’s emasculation is a potent argument for full firearms freedom in the United States.

Alt-Classic

Amazon

Kindle

Nook

How Women are Treated by Islam, by Denis MacEoin

This is a difficult article to read. Which means, as SLL always says about difficult articles, that this is one you should make sure you read. From Denis MacEoin at gatestoneinstitute.org:

  • “No one wants to demonise a particular community but the fact that this is happening again and again in the same circumstances and communities is a fact we cannot ignore. I think there needs to be a national approach…” — Greg Stone, Liberal Democrat party.
  • If we look at a list of 265 convictions for grooming gangs and individuals in the UK between November 1997 and January 2017 (and if we add on another 18 for the recent Newcastle gang), we will note that more than 99% are for Muslim men, mainly young men in their 20s and 30s.
  • It is, however, not just white (that is, non-Muslim) women whom Muslim men hold in such contempt. This abuse starts at home in Islamic countries in the treatment of Muslim women. Its roots lie in aspects of Islamic law and doctrine that are retained in the 21st century, despite having been formulated in the 7thcentury and later.
  • The idea that a man is not responsible for rape or other sexual assault and that women bear the blame for such a crime goes far to help explain why Muslim men in Britain and elsewhere may feel themselves justified in grooming and sexually abusing young women and girls far less well covered.

Newcastle upon Tyne is a small city in the North-East of England which, in 2017, was acclaimed the best city in the UK in which to raise children (London was the worst). Imagine, then, the shock when the city again became national news on August 9 when a trial at the Crown Court ended in the conviction of 18 people for the sexual grooming of children. Juries “found the men guilty of a catalogue of nearly 100 offences – including rape, human trafficking, conspiracy to incite prostitution and drug supply – between 2011 and 2014.”

Of the 18, one was a white British woman. The rest were males of Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian, Iraqi, Turkish and Iranian backgrounds, all with Muslim names.

 

 

From Lady Zones to Sharia Zones, by Baron Bodissey

This question comes up in Europe, and will soon in the US: should a man leap to the defense of strident feminists proclaiming their hatred of men, but their “tolerance” of Islam, when they are groped or worse by Muslims in the man’s presence? From Baron Bodissey at gatesofviena.net:

This post is the latest in an occasional series about why we at Gates of Vienna (and those in the larger movement) decided to enlist in the information war. What makes us don our virtual helmets, pick up our digital rifles, and jump over the parapet into the barbed wire and shell holes of no man’s land?

The answer naturally varies from individual to individual. Mine varies from day to day, depending on which aspect of Western Civilization I happen to be contemplating at any given moment. There is so much treasure here inside the walls of our citadel for the enemy to plunder or destroy. So much that will be lost when we are finally overrun, as Alexandria was overrun in 641 A.D. — libraries turned to ashes, churches in ruins, monasteries sacked, survivors enslaved…

This essay has been a long time in gestation. It was conceived in January 2016, just after the Groping Jihad in Cologne on New Year’s Eve. Back then I wrote a post about what happenedthat included the following sentence:

Islam understands something that we Westerners seem to have forgotten: A society that refuses to defend its women will defend nothing.

What I said seemed so obvious to me that I was taken aback by the bitter, angry response in the comments from some of our male readers. Their general sentiment, from which they could not be shaken, was that women deserved what happened to them at the Hauptbahnhof. Because of feminism, because of the War Against Men, because of all the humiliation and insults they’d had to endure at the hands of the Cultural Marxists and Feminists who now dominate Western societies.

To continue reading: From Lady Zones to Sharia Zones

Eastern Europe Chooses to Keep Western Civilization, by Giulio Meotti

Eastern Europe just isn’t getting with the EU/Angela Merkel program. From Giulio Meotti at gatestoneinstitute.org:

  • “The greatest difference is that in Europe, politics and religion have been separated from one another, but in the case of Islam it is religion that determines politics” — Zoltan Balog, Hungary’s Minister for Human Resources.
  • It is no coincidence that President Donald Trump chose Poland, a country that fought both Nazism and Communism, to call on the West to show a little willingness in its existential fight against the new totalitarianism: radical Islam.
  • “Possessing weapons is one thing, and possessing the will to use them is another thing altogether”. — Professor William Kilpatrick, Boston College.

In a historic speech to an enthusiastic Polish crowd before the meeting of the G20 Summit leaders, US President Donald Trump described the West’s battle against “radical Islamic terrorism” as the way to protect “our civilization and our way of life”. Trump asked if the West had the will to survive:

“Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?”

Trump’s question might find an answer in Eastern Europe, where he chose to deliver his powerful speech.

President Donald Trump gives a speech in Warsaw, Poland, in front of the monument commemorating the 1944 Warsaw Uprising against the Germans, on July 6, 2017. (Image source: The White House)

After an Islamist suicide-bomber murdered 22 concert-goers in Manchester, including two Poles, Poland’s prime minister, Beata Szydło, said that Poland would not be “blackmailed” into accepting thousands of refugees under the European Union’s quota system. She urged Polish lawmakers to safeguard the country and Europe from the scourges of Islamist terrorism and cultural suicide:

“Where are you headed, Europe? Rise from your knees and from your lethargy, or you will be crying over your children every day”.

A few days later, the European Union announced that it would begin proceedings to punish Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic for their refusal to accept migrants as the European Commission had decided under a 2015 scheme it created.

To continue reading: Eastern Europe Chooses to Keep Western Civilization

Germany’s Quest for ‘Liberal’ Islam, by Vijeta Uniyal

Muslims willing to stand up for peace and tolerance are few and far between. From Vijeta Uniyal at gatestoneinstitute.org:

  • However, the media-driven PR campaign backfired as the news of the opening of the Berlin ‘liberal mosque’ reached Muslim communities in Germany and abroad. The liberal utopian dream quickly turned into an Islamist nightmare.
  • Why do Muslim organizations in Germany fail to mobilize within their communities and denounce Islamist terrorism? Because, if there really is a belief that “international terrorism should not be depicted as a problem belonging to Muslims alone” this view seems to indicate that, in general, Muslims do not see it as their problem.

The newly unveiled ‘liberal mosque’ in Berlin was supposed to showcase a ‘gentler’ Islam. An Islam that could be reformed and modernized while it emerges as the dominant demographic force in Europe. German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle touted the opening of the mosque as a “world event in the heart of Berlin.”

“Everyone is welcome at Berlin’s Ibn Rushd-Goethe Mosque,” Deutsche Welle wrote, announcing the grand opening last month. “Women and men shall pray together and preach together at the mosque, while the Koran is to be interpreted ‘historically and critically.'”

German reporters and press photographers, eager to give glowing coverage, thronged to witness the mosque’s opening on July 16 and easily outnumbered the handful of Muslim worshipers. Deutsche Welle reported: “fervent enthusiasm in the media and political realm.”

“For me there is no contradiction in being a Muslim and a feminist at the same time,” Seyran Ates, the mosque’s female imam told the German reporters.

“With Islam against Islamism,” wrote Germany’s leading weekly Der Spiegel. “Society in general will lionize [Imam Ates] as the long-awaited voice of Muslims that speaks clearly against Islamist terror,” prophesied another German weekly, Die Zeit.

The Washington Post, not to be outdone by German newspapers, hailed the mosque’s female founder Ates for “staging a feminist revolution of the Muslim faith.”

In what can only be described as one-way multiculturalism, a Protestant church in Berlin’s Moabit district had vacated its prayer hall to make way for this new mosque.

To continue reading: Germany’s Quest for ‘Liberal’ Islam