if we could just stop being so naive,
that would be terrific.
Last year I mentioned that the American Muslim activist Linda Sarsour stated a certain view on assimilation & integration. In the midst of a speech mentioning terms such as jihad and that Muslims need to remain "perpetually outraged" in contemporary America, her most disturbing statement for me was when she urged her fellow Muslims not to assimilate. I couldn't understand such a sentiment then and I cannot understand it now.
The first video below (just over a minute long) is a recent one featuring a young Muslim lady who happens to live in Germany - though while she lives in the West, by her own admission she is most definitely not of the West. Neither does she wish to be and she indicates that a large number of young Muslims of her acquaintance do not wish to become Westerners either.
Via Jihad Watch.
Video from Germany: Muslim spokesperson says “we don’t have to integrate”
This woman is a member of JUMA (Young, Muslim, Active), a Muslim activist group in Germany. She is saying that Muslims need not integrate into German society and adopt German values and mores. This is not surprising, since the Qur’an tells Muslims that they are the “best of people” (3:110), and that non-Muslims are “the most vile of created beings” (98:6). Why should the best of people, who “enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong” (3:110), adopt the values of the most vile of created beings? It will never happen. And that means that Germany, and the rest of Europe, is in for a future of civil strife, violence, and Sharia — courtesy of Angela Merkel.
Put simply: By golly we need right here and right now to stand up for our beliefs and insist on integration!
As imperfect as it is, we have a better way of life than pretty much any other culture in the world today. Hands up if you would you prefer to live under the Indian Caste system - and no cheating: not as a light skinned high Caste but how about as a lowly Dalit? Or under the Chinese with that government's brutal death sentences and a regime which bills the family of those it executes for the bullets it used? Or in countries where Sharia Law (or its remnants) mean that brutal, despotic treatment of minorities is an everyday reality? A moment's reflection will tell us that we have a lot to be proud of and a lot to protect.
However we are very unlikely to stand up for ourselves in this way. There are too many gentle & sensitive souls who insist on our not doing it, you see. And they are prepared to use nasty names and social isolation against those of us who would insist upon the integration of Muslims as foundational to the ongoing health of our societies.
We live in a world where the British government excuses violent, physical, permanently disfiguring child abuse as a "cultural problem" which we somehow have no right to have an opinion on, let alone prosecute as a crime (see this revealing 8 minute video interview with an ex-Muslim woman who was recently held up as an example of "hate" by London Mayor Saddiq Khan for seeking to stop FGM in the Muslim community).
We also live in a world where almost every avenue for news and social comment perceives the world as their gentle & sensitive friends do, which is enough to stop us getting a fair hearing.
If silencing or distorting our message & impugning our character doesn't work, governments themselves are willing to severely restrict freedom of expression and use their very considerable force to punish us. Those who are left feel badly mischaracterised & besieged and that we're "damned if we do & damned if we don't".
Perhaps we can get some insight from a Clinical Psychologist into the mentality of those who will not permit others to offer constructive criticism, but instead only hear bullies whenever we open our mouths.
I have decided to read Clinical Psychologist Jordan Peterson's new book 12 rules for life: An antidote to chaos along with one of my daughters and she & I are going to discuss the chapters as we go. Here's something useful on this whole topic I've gleaned from the first chapter. Yes I have had to copy it out laboriously, so if you wouldn't mind at least glancing at it - that would be terrific...
Rule 1: Stand up straight with your shoulders back, pp 23-24
"...just as often, people are bullied because they won't fight back. This happens not infrequently to people who are by temperament compassionate & self-sacrificing - particularly if they are also high in negative emotion, and make a lot of gratifying noises of suffering when someone sadistic confronts them (children who cry more easily, for example, are more frequently bullied) [Graeme: think of the Teddy Bears, candles and sentimental songs whenever there is a mass Jihad attack].
It also happens to people who have decided, for one reason or another, that all forms of aggression, including even feelings of anger, are morally wrong. I have seen people with a particularly acute sensitivity to petty tyranny and over-aggressive competitiveness restrict within themselves all the emotions that might give rise to such things. Often they are people whose fathers ... were aggressively angry or controlling [Graeme: perhaps this is more a matter of perception than reality as the changes made in the subject are the important thing. By extrapolation, if we, the "children" of perceived Western aggression, militarism and domination, perceive our collective fathers and our inherited culture to be overly aggressive mightn't we similarly react?].
Psychological forces are never unidimensional in their value, however, and the truly appalling potential of anger & aggression to produce cruelty & mayhem are balanced by the ability of those primordial forces to push back against oppression, speak truth, and motivate resolute movement forward in times of strife, uncertainty and danger.
With their capacity for aggression strait-jacketed within a too-narrow morality, those who are only or merely compassionate & self-sacrificing (and naive & exploitable) cannot call forth the gebuinely righteous & appropriately self-protective anger necessary to defend themselves [Graeme: please do watch the faces of those being criticised in this short clip - don't they seem to fit this description?]. If you can bite, you generally don't have to.
When skillfully integrated [Graeme: there's that word again], the ability to respond with aggression & violence decreases rather than increases the probability that actual aggression will become necessary. If you say no, early in the cycle of oppression, and you mean what you say (which means you state your refusal in no uncertain terms and stand behind it) then the scope for oppression on the part of oppressor will remain properly bounded and limited.
The forces of tyranny expand inexorably to fill the space made available for their existence. People who refuse to muster appropriately self-protective territorial responses are laid open to exploitation as much as those who genuinely can't stand up for their own rights because of a more essential inability or a true imbalance in power.
Naive, harmless people usually guide their perceptions & actions with a few simple axioms: people are basically good; no one really wants to hurt anyone else; the threat (and, certainly, the use) of force, physical or otherwise is wrong.
These axioms collapse, or worse, in the presence of individuals who are genuinely malevolent. Worse means that naive beliefs can become a positive invitation to abuse, because those who aim to harm have become specialised to prey on people who think precisely such things. Under such conditions, the axioms of harmlessness must be retooled [Graeme: as Douglas Murray has said 'what happens when a masochist meets a real sadist?']."
Dr Peterson's evaluation of the naive individual certainly seems to translate well to the naive collective does it not?
Now consider the following two items from France.
1) Video from Paris: Muslim migrants storm church, force cancellation of evening Mass
From Jihad Watch, a 1 minute clip.
"Muslim migrants invade the Basilica of Saint-Denis, which is in a heavily Muslim area of France. By the end of the video, police line the doorway to the church, preventing the Muslim migrants from entering. This is a glimpse into the future of France. Before too long, anytime a church service is going on, there will have to be a squadron of police lining the entrances."
Is it time to stop being naive yet?
And this warning from French intellectuals. I'd like to think we all took such a warning seriously. It certainly is not naive. Several ex-Muslims contributed to it. Do they understand their old religion or not? Is simple observation enough to change our trajectory or not? Will the naive decide the destiny of my country? Or will the astute finally get heard?
That would be terrific.
2) 100 French Intellectuals Issue A Warning About Islamic Totalitarianism
From Hugh Fitzgerald at Jihad Watch.
A group of 100 French intellectuals has just published in the newspaper Le Figaro (March 19, 2018), its denunciation of Islamic totalitarianism. Among the signatories are some of the most distinguished historians, philosophers, professors, jurists, and journalists, in France, known to all, and representing political leanings from Left to Right. Among them are some ex-Muslims. Not a group easy to dismiss.
The following is a translation of their statement made by Leslie Shaw, a contributor to the Clarion Project:
We are citizens of differing and often diametrically opposed views, who have found agreement in expressing our concern in the face of the rise of Islamism. We are united not by our affinities, but by the feeling of danger that threatens freedom in general and not just freedom of thought.
That which unites us today is more fundamental than that which will undoubtedly separate us tomorrow.
Islamist totalitarianism seeks to gain ground by every means possible and to represent itself as a victim of intolerance. This strategy was demonstrated some weeks ago when the SUD Education 93 teachers union proposed a training course that included workshops on state racism from which white people were barred.
Several of the facilitators were members or sympathizers of the CCIF (French Collective Against Islamophobia) or the Natives of the Republic party. Such examples have proliferated recently. We have thus learned that the best way to combat racism is to separate races. If this idea shocks us, it is because we are Republicans.
We also hear it said that because religions in France are trampled on by an institutionalized secularism, everything that is in a minority — in other words Islam — must be accorded a special place so that it can cease to be humiliated.
This same argument continues by asserting that in covering themselves with a hijab, women are protecting themselves from men and that keeping themselves apart is a means to emancipation.
What these proclamations have in common is the idea that the only way to defend the “dominated” (the term is that of SUD Education 93) is to set them apart and grant them privileges.
Not so long ago, apartheid reigned in South Africa. Based on the segregation of blacks, it sought to exonerate itself by creating bantustans (territories set aside for black South Africans) where blacks were granted false autonomy. Fortunately this system no longer exists.
Today, a new kind of apartheid is emerging in France, a segregation in reverse thanks to which the “dominated” seek to retain their dignity by sheltering themselves from the “dominators.”
But does this mean that a woman who casts off her hijab and goes out into the street becomes a potential victim? Does it mean that a “race” that mixes with others becomes humiliated? Does it mean that a religion that accepts being one among other religions loses face?
Does Islamism also seek to segregate French Muslims, whether believers or otherwise, who accept democracy and are willing to live with others? Who will decide for women who refuse to be locked away? As for others, who seemingly do not deserve to be protected, will they be held under lock and key in the camp of the “dominators”?
All of this runs counter to what has been done in France to guarantee civil peace. For centuries, the unity of the nation has been grounded in a detachment with respect to particularities that can be a source of conflict. What is known as Republican universalism does not consist in denying the existence of gender, race or religion but in defining civic space independently of them so that nobody feels excluded. How can one not see that secularism protects minority religions?
Jeopardizing secularism exposes us to a return to the wars of religion.
What purpose can this new sectarianism serve? Must it only allow the self-styled “dominated” to safeguard their purity by living amongst themselves? Is not its overall objective to assert secession from national unity, laws and mores? Is it not the expression of a real hatred towards our country and democracy?
For people to live according to the laws of their community or caste, in contempt of the laws of others, for people to be judged only by their own, is contrary to the spirit of the Republic. The French Republic was founded on the refusal to accept that private rights can be applied to specific categories of the population and on the abolition of privilege.
On the contrary, the Republic guarantees that the same law applies to each one of us. This is simply called justice.
This new separatism is advancing under concealment. It seeks to appear benign but is in reality a weapon of political and cultural conquest in the service of Islamism.
Islamism wants to set itself apart because it rejects others, including those Muslims who do not subscribe to its tenets. Islamism abhors democratic sovereignty, to which it refuses any kind of legitimacy. Islamism feels humiliated when it is not in a position of dominance.
Accepting this is out of the question. We want to live in a world where both sexes can look at each other with neither feeling insulted by the presence of the other. We want to live in a world where women are not deemed to be naturally inferior. We want to live in a world where people can live side by side without fearing each other. We want to live in a world where no religion lays down the law.
(The signatories are listed below the fold)