Do you remember the jihadist terror campaign that ravaged Malmo, Sweden’s third largest city? Do you recall the bombings, the suicide-hijackings, and the random assassinations that finally coerced the city to surrender to Islamization?
No? Funny, I don’t remember them either. Yet there is no question that Malmo has surrendered. Large enclaves of the city, like similar enclaves throughout Western Europe, have earned the dread label “no-go zone.” They are unsafe for non-Muslims, particularly women who do not conform to Islamist conventions of dress and social interaction. They are especially perilous for police, firefighters, and emergency-medical technicians.
Advertisement
Why would a community discourage the so-called first-responders? After all, the top priority of law-enforcement officers is to assist crime victims. In an Islamic enclave, a high percentage of these will be Muslims. And obviously, the fire department and the ambulances are dispatched to save lives — here, Muslim lives. Yet, the community is hostile. The police and other emergency personnel are viewed as agents of the non-Muslim state. Their presumptuousness in entering the Islamic enclave and acting under the color of Swedish law is taken as an affront to Islamic sovereignty.
An Islamic enclave in the West may as well be the West Bank, and the authorities the IDF. They are regarded no differently. That is why, as Soeren Kern of the Madrid-based Strategic Studies Group notes, “Fire and emergency workers . . . refuse to enter Malmo’s mostly Muslim Rosengaard district without police escorts.” And sensibly so: When firefighters attempted to extinguish a blaze at the city’s main mosque, local Muslims pelted them with stones.
There is a simple reason why this has happened to Malmo, and why it is happening in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, etc. The European Union forced on its member states the same approach to their swelling Muslim populations that the Obama administration is now trying to strong-arm American cities and states into adopting. It is a suicide theory, holding that the only threat to our security is “violent extremism.”
Violent extremism, the theory goes, is wanton and irrational. Therefore, it is mere coincidence that today’s violent extremists are almost uniformly Muslims. Indeed, the big thinkers settled on the antiseptic term “violent extremism” specifically to avoid the word “terrorism,” which, owing to the inconvenience that Islamic scripture adjures Muslims to “strike terror into the hearts” of their perceived enemies, would give violent extremism an Islamic connotation that is to be studiously avoided, no matter how accurate it may be.
With violent extremism as their guide, policymakers instruct security agencies that there is no need to scrutinize any strain of Islamic ideology for the purpose of divining what Islamists want. In fact, the theory continues, because violence is wanton, while Islam is peaceful, violence must perforce be anti-Islamic, and thus Islamists must be just as offended by it as anyone else. Consequently, since by some strange quirk of fate the violent extremists seem to be coming out of the Islamic community, the best strategy is to befriend Islamist leaders and consult them about how we can conduct investigations without causing offense.
Naturally, police veterans fully appreciate that this is nonsense on stilts. They know that violence is often barbaric in the execution but almost never irrational in the application. Understanding motivation is the key to solving most crimes. But, hey, if the suits want it to be “violent extremism,” then violent extremism it is.
Cops, like most of us, want to get promoted up the ranks. Today, the people deciding who gets promoted up the ranks are progressives. You may remember their visionary criminal-justice theories from the 1960s and 1970s, as well as the explosion of crime that resulted from them. Back then, it was all about excusing the savagery and punishing the police for failing to understand the root causes. Today, it is about infantilizing the savages and warning the police not to look for the root causes.
So what is your solution to the "invasion" of Malmo? Unleashing a thousand Anders Breiviks to murder everyone in the city, including non-Muslims? Are you happy first when Sweden gets their own Timothy McVeigh, bombing and killing hundreds in downtown Malmo? Do you want to commit ethnic cleansing on Malmo? What is your proposed solution, other than a "final solution"?
V: What a nice name for you... That answer to your question is easy. Assimilate the Muslims in the community so their children become Swedish and their parents become more Swedish than they currently are. Don't encourage them to separate and build a parallel culture based on Muslim principles. This can easily be done with out violence. The State of Pennsylvania in the 18th and early 19th took in huge numbers of German immigrants. These immigrants maintained their German Culture for a while and in alliance with the Quakers ran the State Government. This in fact encouraged the Quaker ruling class to encourage immigration of Germans. However by the third generation, grandchildren of the original immigrants, the German's were becoming American and while they richly added to American culture, technology and husbandry they, the Germans, became Americans. That is a successful multicultural society.
If the Swedes are not helping the Muslim immigrants become Swedes or at least more Swedish they are making a huge mistake and one they will pay a rising price for as time goes on.
Unfortunately there's a difference between many muslim immigrants and immigrant Germans, Italians, Irish, and even immigrants from India. The latter (yes, even the Indians) all come from a background of Western Civilization. The muslims do not, and for many of them assimilation is not a desired goal. Again the, what is the answer? Perhaps in addition to continuing to work toward assimilation, we must be much more restrictive of immigration in general, picking and choosing who we want in our country to sustain it as free.
The answer is to do what we no longer have the courage to do: expel the muslims from the west. Islam is incompatible with freedom and liberty. We need Charles Martel, and what we have are quislings.
Longplay: I think the main problem is actually the fact that the Muslims are purposefully trying not to assimilate and modern technology makes constant contact with their mother culture practical. This combined with the Western PC crazy that does not allow us to assert Western Civilization norms on the immigrants stops the assimilation process.
As a counter example I would point to the successful assimilation of many Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese and Cambodian, just to name a few, immigrants. All of them came from totally non western backgrounds and cultures but successfully integrated and assimilated into the West.
Muslims could easily do the same but as Andrew points out there are forces out there actively seeking to keep them apart from their host culture.
Allow me please to point out that there is no such thing as a 'successful multicultural society'.
Surely, the whole point and beauty of America is that it provided its founders with freedom from the religious and class persecutions of Europe and elsewhere.
The US Constitution did not allow for one group or another to be more or less equal.
Note the use of the past tense. The advance of socialism and the existence of so-called special interests against Constitutional citizen protections, has led to the US enabling precisely those persecutions from which its first settlers fled.
Some might call that progress, others multiculturism, but it really is that most banal of all illusions, socialism. Deprive erstwhile free citizens of their freedom, destroy their national identity and traditions, pass so many laws against soft (law-abiding) targets that everyone is a criminal, empower only those interests that are anti-thetical to an ordered society, and look at what you get: today's UK. Coming soon to an enclave near you.
This line of thinking is unfortunately what has led to the current state of affairs. As the author indicates, this is a group of people whom actively are against assimilation, and whose leaders and even religion decry it. Unfortunately as it is for the liberal ideology that has been imposed upon the west, it is simply not the case that all people are interchangeable.
Plenty of polls and studies show that across the West, the citizenry of each country is against the "peaceful" invasion and conquest of their countries, and they need to demand that fairness and the will of the majority be obeyed.
Reginald C. Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I do not think people are inter changeable. For instance there would be extreme problems if say a large number of people from Alabama say ended up living in New York city. both of these groups of people manage to live in the same country and get along, nationally, fine. Drop a New Yorker and a guy from Mobile into Tehran and they both will realize exactly how American they are.
Rather my point is if you going to allow immigrants in or if you have allowed many immigrants in to your country you must aggressively assimilate them. Do not accommodate foreign enclaves to be established, require the people learn your language, do not give foreign embassies carte blanche to give services to their former citizens. That kind of thing. Whether the immigration itself was useful and productive to the country in the first instance is a different question. I am focused on the reality of the Muslim immigrants being there.
Immediately cease paying any social benefits or paying for any provisions of services for these enclaves.
Make it clear they may leave the enclave and be distributed into the poopulation to be assimilated. Opyionally they will receive a plane ticket to return whence they came.
If they choose to break out of their self induced enclave with violence then a plan called Plan St. Bartholomew and the population will be dealt with as being in rebellion, suppressed and deported.
Of course you may choose to surrender to the Moslem's and become Dimmi. I'd rather die.
Unfortunately, with regards to Malmo, the research in this article is flawed. As a Malmo citizen and Swede I can say that there is no part of the city where it is unsafe for non-Muslims. There have been incidents where rocks have been thrown at first-responder vehicles, those throwing rocks, to my knowledge, have never been arrested - thereby nulling any idea that they may have come from any particular religion. These incidents most likely come from a public mistrust of the police who use the Swedish constitution as a "guideline" rather than inviolable law. Malmo hasn't lost, we are still an open democracy with a multicultural society that, for the most part, works as good as any other.
DrJohnandersson: I assume that you are not a Jew or are you perhaps a Muslim otherwise your testimony about Malmo is hard to square with these reports:
Funny thing isn't it? Every single time there is an article similar to Andrew's, no matter where it's published, no matter which European town or country it's about, up spring supposed natives of the subject city or country to object and deny.
I assume these people get paid by the EU to patrol the internet and post these routine denials!
Or it could be just what it looks like, his analysis is just insane and locals like me and the good Doctor are aghast to se the sheer stupidity of the description of our town. Sure Malmö has problems its, but still only a fifth of the average murder rate of the USA. Also interesting to note that me and the doctor, who you accuse of being a paid propagandist, write with our own names, but you who prop up this crock don't.
Let me see if I understand your logic, sir. Crimes are committed in your city, but they are not investigated. Because they are not investigated, no official motive is ever formally assigned to them, even though the criminals themselves make no secret about it. And because no motive is formally assigned, the default assumption is that these crimes are nothing more than random, isolated cases involving random, isolated perpetrators. Finally, because this is the default assumption, it follows that there is no real need to investigate the motives behind these crimes, or any others that might resemble them. So they are not investigated. What a perfectly circular line of thought you've constructed.
If these are your standards for civil life and rule of law in an "open democracy" with a "multicultural society," then those standards aren't very high.
As for the notion that the Swedish constitution should be "inviolable law" throughout Sweden, it would appear that this is exactly what Mr. McCarthy is calling for--and exactly what the rock throwers and their enablers among Europe's politically correct establishment are so determined to thwart.
It's ironic that this invading Islamic "civilization" is a parasite that depends upon the Western host that it despises for its sustenance. When the host has been defeated, what does it intend to do? For some reason, I don't envision seeing fires being put out by men in long robes who grew up starting them.
This article should be required reading for anyone who cares about preserving Western society. If this problem is not dealt with by Western governments in a reasonable and coherent fashion soon, it will end up being dealt with in the the old fashioned "European" style (not so old fashioned actually). I fear it may already be too late.
Peaceful assimilation doesn't work when the objects of assimilation resist. They have to believe or be lured into the process. Virulent Islamists will be immune to efforts to assimilate them.
The only answer is choosy and restrictive immigration policies which allow the problem to be avoided all together.
