Saturday, November 24, 2007

Those for whom Vlaams Belang is the last stop!

Islam in Europe: Book Review: Undercover in Little Morocco
Esther, at the excellent Islam in Europe blog, reports on the book by journalist Hind Fraihi on the Moroccans of Belgium. The active support in this community for violent Jihad, killing Jews, and control of the local Muslims, especially women, according to fundamentalist Islamic dictates, may come as no surprise. In any case, it is a reminder of what the Flemings rightly fear in their midst. But what may surprise some readers is the support for the Vlaams Belang among the moderate Muslims:
She meets more people like Jamal, but she feels they're fighting a losing battle against the fundamentalists. She says that the moderate Muslims are walking a tightrope, between the Muslim fundamentalists and the right-wing (ie, nationalist) Flemish extremists. I had trouble understanding what she meant, but she later brings example of Muslims who vote for Vlaams Belang. I doubt most Muslims are in danger of becoming nationalist extremists, though. As Fraihi says, if they vote for Vlaams Belang, they do it out of protest, fear and disillusionment.

As one example she brings Fatima, a Moroccan immigrant in her 60s. She doesn't see herself as integrated and doesn't think she acts any different in Belgium then she did in Morocco. She came in 1968, got a hearty welcome, worked with Belgians and generally enjoyed herself. She followed up on her kids - went to PTA meetings and made sure she knew where they were going at all times. A friend of hers complains that her son lives off benefits, even though he could work. There is discrimination, she says, but the 2nd and 3rd generation don't want to work and just use it as an excuse. These youth are coddled by multicultural and integration organizations, all in the name of tolerance.

According to Fatima the problem-youth are problematic because they have become fully Flemish. She suffers from the extremist Muslims who demand that she wear a headscarf, soemthing that she'd never done in morocco. The moderate Muslims are the first victims of Muslim extremism, but nobody takes care of them. She supports the Vlaams Belang program: stopping immigration, reducing marriage immigration and cutting off the integration sectors. She sees Vlaams Belang as the only party which is upset at Muslim extremism, who wants to treat immigrants strictly but justly. Moderate Muslims are fed up and feel that they've been left on their own. Fatima wants to vote for a more moderate party, but only after the danger from Muslim extremism is dealt with.

She meets a worker at a youth center who tells her he blames the parents, imams and Belgian authorities for the Islamization of the youth. The parents blindly follow the Moroccan imams, who preach that almost everything is a crime, though many of them are former criminals themselves who have become 'born again' Muslims. Some have traveled to Afghanistan and are therefore barred from going back to Morocco, and yet the Belgian authorities don't seem to care. The parents were also not that religious when they were kids, but they expect much more from their children. Not only that, the parents had realized their dreams, but their children don't reach as far, don't get anywhere and are therefore easy prey for terrorist recruiters.

As she repeats in her interview, she feels the 'integration' sector has no reason to actually solve the problem, since that would take away their reason for being.
The Flemish nationalists may sometimes be heard preaching "white Europe", but it seems the implicit multiculturalist-Jihadi alliance is not a more appealing option for some Moroccan-Belgians. Perhaps for the infamous "moderate Muslim", the only hope lies in a Flemish nationalism that may one day acknowledge and support Moroccan-Belgian allies. If the only hope for such people is the renewal of a responsible nationhood that makes real demands of youth, etc., maybe you have to start with the least bad option, the one closest to the mark (however problematic) and work from there. Or maybe it's just a great delusion. Maybe it's supporting those who will one day kick you out of the country, or worse. The thing is, no one can know in advance. It all depends on the exercise of human political freedom, and the learning process that only the interaction of strange bedfellows can bring. There is a point at which desperation and good faith meet, the point where all new religion starts...


Dag said...

It's the rare American who actually understands the rest of the world from a native point of view or even from the long-term resident-foreigner's point of view. Too many Americans live in foreign nations without ever moving from the bubble into the local people's culture, and hence they live without understanding that in the case of Europe, the place is a closed shop to Americans, not to mention others. One cannot simple be "Polish" if one is not Polish, for example. One cannot be Polish any more than one can be Zulu just by living among the people and wishing it to be so. Europe is not America, not a traditional and made-for immigrant nation. It's the place of the locals, and those who come from elsewhere are always and forever foreigners, even the Dutch and Danes who live in Britain from centuries past, the Irish who live in the Isle of Man, and so on. Yes, one might be accepted at a personal level by friends and locals who know the person on a long-time daily basis but it doesn't go deep. That's the way it is. Generations of intermarriage changes it, and changing ones name in time works too. But coming and demanding and threatening and killing, this is not a plan for success. Yes, it does indeed work in much of Europe today, but that won't continue.

Immigrants must adapt, if they wish, over generations, and then even then, it will always be a matter of fighting to fit in. That's how it is in the world of people. Europe is not America. Those Americans who think it is or that it should be should stay in America and stay silent. They should not condemn Europeans as neo-Nazis. Stupid and disgusting. To refer to Europeans as Hitlerian because they are nationalistic, chauvinistic, xenophobic, it's all delusional. Europeans, like all other Old World people,are clannish. It is not a sign of genocidal intention to wish to be with ones own mates from birth. And if immigrants to Europe wish to remain, they will have to accept tht they are no more natural citizens there than are Americans or Brazilians or anyone else not of the place.

The Leftist idiocy that "we are all one," "a brotherhood of man," that "love see no color," and that those who don't view people as such are racists and neo-Nazis is a stupid and dangerous mindlessness. Only if we deal with what is and go on to establish businesses and buy homes of our own are we naturally committed to the community and accepted as such-- if we marry the local, if we speak the language without accents, if we share the religion and customs of the locals. anything else is a lie.

When de Winter claims he means a "White Europe" as a metaphor, what part is a mystery? Only the truth of it. If an immigrant chooses to live in Europe he must be White in the mind. In Western Europe Eastern Europeans don't qualify as a rule. It is because they are not White in the mind. It's pretty simple for anyone who cares to grasp the obvious, and it is impossible for the idiot or the grief leech who cares only for a chance to pose and show of his Leftist training.

Few if any would reject Moroccans on the basis of their looks, they being physically attractive as a rule. But in the mind? It's too much hope for many of them. And none at all if they are rewarded for hostility and violence. Those who wish to be European in the mind have a few generations to go before there is hope of acceptance. It's the price one pays for being an outsider in a close-knit world. There is no getting around it. And if one is determined to skew reality in favor of ideology and day-dreams we'll have a nightmare on our doorsteps.

Anonymous said...

Muslims seem to have an arrogant sense of entitlement, that the kuffars owe them a living.

We see this with the Mullahs who come uninvited into Britain to draw the dole, whose multiple wives and vast families are housed at public expense while all the time they are spewing venomous hatred at their benefactors. They are like loathsome parasitic worms excreting toxins into the body of their host.

Litigation jihad is another form of parasitism. Muslims sue employers who turn them down for jobs, and even when they are employed they demand special treatment and refuse to carry out certain parts of their work, then sue for discrimination when the employer complains.

But of course they are only following the example of their 'prophet', the worthless parasite Mohammed. Muslims regard Mohammed as the 'Perfect Man' whose example they try to follow in everthing.

Mohammed began his career as a toyboy kept by a rich widow. When the money ran out he took up looting, pillaging, highway robbery, slave-trading and extortion. He tortured people whom he captured in his ambushes to make them reveal the whereabouts of their hidden treasures.

In Islamic countries the Muslims have traditionally tried to avoid work. Until recently large numbers of slaves have been kept. Another source of income for the parasites is 'jizya', where kuffars pay the taxes and the muslims live off the benefits (sound familiar?).

In Malaysia, the "jizya" is disguised. It is called the "Bumiputra" ("Sons of the Soil"). By its terms, those who are Chinese or Hindus (i.e., non-Muslims) must include in all of their economic undertakings, as equal partners, Malaysian Muslims. So, for example, if two Malaysian Chinese were to open, say, an architectural office, they would have to take on as a full partner a Malaysian Muslim, who would receive a share even if he contributed little or nothing to the enterprise.

The Islamic religion is itself a parasite or mind-virus (the 'rabies of religions'). Islam draws on other religions to establish its credibility, yet violates the principles of its host religions. Thus Jesus is regarded as a prophet, but a second-rate one who brought an incomplete and corrupted message from Allah. Mohammed is the final 'seal of the prophets' who brought the correct and complete message in the form of the Koran.

Remember how Jesus effectively forbade stoning ("Let him who is without sin cast the first stone") ? Well Jesus, being an imperfect prophet was WRONG. Mohammed set things right when he reintroduced stoning and made it the major spectator sport in places like Iran that it continues to be till today.

The cult parasitizes the natural instincts of its followers by repressing their sexual urges and chanelling them into rage, fury and fanatical aggression.