Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald asks a series of pointed questions about the enormous, and yet almost completely ignored, immigration problem in the West:
We have a right to know: what is the INS doing about Muslim immigrants? Is it doing anything? Have any policies changed since 9/11/2001? What about since the seizure of the theatre in Moscow or the school in Beslan, with nearly 400 dead children and teachers? Have there been any changes since the killing, in Holland, of Pim Fortuyn? Of Theo van Gogh? Since the threats to kill Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders? What changes have been made in our immigration policies since the threats to the head of a Christian political party in Norway? Since the threats to a newspaper in Denmark? Since the virtual takeover of much of Malmo, Sweden, as a no-go for non-Muslims area? What changes in immigration policy have resulted from plans to bomb the Strasbourg Christmas market, or the Vatican, were foiled? What changes in immigration policy have followed upon the bombing of the subway in Madrid? The underground in London? What changes in immigration policy followed the three weeks of Muslim riots, in which a dozen churches were attacked and set ablaze, and tens of thousands of cars set on fire, and a Frenchman beaten to death, and others critically wounded, and cries of Allahu Akbar were heard all over the land?
Any changes? Any?
Will someone in Congress please do something to protect us, to make us safer? Will someone please make sure that the mistakes that the Europeans made in their own immigration policy are not repeated here? Will someone please make sure that we do not repeat the mistakes that the Province of Quebec made when it encouraged immigration by “francophones” — including Muslim maghrebins, who have become a permanent security problem not only for the government, but for all sorts of inoffensive Canadians: the Jews, the Hindus, and the Maronites in Quebec who regard with horror that what they tried to escape has been allowed to follow them right to l’Amerique septentrionale.
We want to know who is learning about Islam, who is studying what Islam tells its Believers to think of Infidels, and what, over 1350 years, the historical evidence for these teachings being taken seriously, and put in to practice, reveals.
This isn’t a matter for emptily respectful treatment of a belief-system that, because it contains rituals of worship, is called, just a bit too quickly, a “religion.” This isn’t the time to invoke, without any evidence, the notion that Islam stands for “peace” and “tolerance.” The “peace” is the peace that follows upon Islamic conquest — the peace that follows when war to spread Islam is no longer necessary. The “tolerance” is the tolerance, extended only to fellow monotheists, of the dhimmi system, a system which condemns non-Muslims to a status of permanent humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity.
This is not a joke. This is not rhetoric. Our government’s legitimacy comes primarily from its ability to protect us. If it will not, or cannot protect us — its first duty — it loses all legitimacy.
What is being done?
When there are outbreaks of Mad Cow Disease, tens of millions of cattle are affected — the meat from those tens of millions completely quarantined for fear of the results. When travellers, originating in a land known to have an outbreak of a communicable and deadly disease — typhus, tuberculosis, avian flu, for example, try to enter this or that country, they are often turned away.
If you knew that out of every 100 Muslim immigrants, 1 out of 10, at the very least, the absolute minimum, would be either a participant in terrorist acts or would do nothing to prevent, by warning the police, of such acts — well, what would you, as an Infidel, like your government to adopt as a sensible policy of minimum self-protection?
And if you agree with me, and with a great many of the defectors from Islam who know best what Islam is all about, and how Muslims think, and what they say, behind the backs of Infidels, then you will be convinced that the real number is not 1 out of 10, not 2 out of 10, not 3 out of 10, but far higher.
Is anyone in the governments of the Western world listening?
No — almost unanimously, no. Because this is a “right-wing” issue. Yet what makes Geert Wilders “right-wing”? Would he be “right-wing” in a way that is different from Pim Fortuyn, who had nothing “right wing” about him, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali (ditto)? Unless, of course, being alarmed by what is contained in Qur’an, Hadith and sira, and those who take their worldview and guidance from what is contained in those same texts, and having been so alarmed, wish to sound the alarm for others, constitutes being “right wing.”
During the Lebanese Civil War, the Christians of Lebanon, including modest farmers in Christian villages, were always described, formulaically, with Homeric epithets, as “right-wing.” This was in Le Monde and in The New Duranty Times and everywhere: “Right-wing Christians.” No one could, then or now, explain what made Lebanese Christians “right-wing.” It is an all-purpose epithet, designed to shut off thought, to prevent all thought. Only “right-wingers” are alarmed about Islam.
Nonsense. Just one more bit of the stupidity that can become, that already is, suicidal. To slightly alter Houseman — “An air that kills/From yon far country blows.” That far country, from which comes that air that kills, is actually not far but near, right here within the Lands of the Infidels, within the minds of the Infidels themselves who will not see, and refuse to find out.
If only those who remain so silly and so complacent were the only ones to suffer from that silliness and complacency. But the rest of us will suffer as well. And we don’t deserve it.