Written by GOV
The Islamization of Europe was a (perhaps inadvertent) byproduct of the need to import foreign labor to the continent in the decades after the Second World War. The process fed on itself, as liberal immigration laws and “family reunification” policies brought ever-increasing numbers of unassimilable foreigners, most of them Muslims, into Western Europe. The official state policy of Multiculturalism allowed newcomers to disappear into ever-growing enclaves, where they could live and function as if they were in their native countries, without any requirement that they integrate into the host population.
These new urban ghettos put Muslims into direct conflict with native working-class and lower-middle-class people, who were their immediate neighbors. As immigrants and their descendants became more and more dependent on state benefits — which they drew far in excess of their proportion of the population — their seeming parasitism exacerbated the hostility between the indigenes and the newcomers.
To make matters worse, Muslim immigrants were far more likely than the natives to commit violent crimes, and an overwhelming number of their victims were indigenous Europeans. This disproportionate criminality was especially evident where the crime of rape was concerned. Muslim immigrants were apprehended and prosecuted for rape in overwhelming numbers. Over a five-year period in Oslo, every single stranger-rape in which the perpetrator could be identified was committed by a non-Norwegian Muslim.
The correlation between Islamic ideology and this disparity in criminal propensities is open to dispute. However, the statistics are telling: rape is an overwhelmingly Muslim crime in Western Europe. Its most brutal and barbaric form, gang rape, is almost entirely a Muslim phenomenon.
The wealthier and more privileged social groups have been mostly insulated from the worst of these phenomena through residential isolation in well-protected neighborhoods, and by their access to private schooling for their children. The brunt of immigrant lawlessness has been borne by the lower and lower-middle classes, who are subjected to harassment and violence on an almost daily basis.
Given these ominous trends, it hardly comes as a surprise that the resistance to immigration and Islamization originated mainly with the working class.
This issue has thrown ordinary citizens of modest means into serious conflict with the elite governing class. The latter do not experience Islamization in the same way as their less fortunate neighbors, and they continue to place their faith in Multiculturalism, “tolerance”, and the ever-elusive process of “integration”.
The class disparity is deepened by the political establishment’s dependence on and commitment to mass immigration and Multiculturalism. Immigrants now form an all but unified bloc of voters which national and local politicians must assiduously court. There is no going back: any attempt to put the brakes on Muslim expansion would threaten the political, social, and economic order.
Thus the only option for the establishment is to “double down”: more immigration, renewed Multiculturalism, and increased “tolerance”. This places the political class on a collision course with their own people.
The inevitable resistance by the working-class native population — along with parts of the literate middle class — prompted repeated attempts on the part of Western governments, the EU, and the UN to suppress what is variously known as “racism”, “xenophobia”, and “Islamophobia”.
As time went on, and gentler forms of suppression failed to have the desired effect, official efforts to eliminate the Counterjihad have become more overt. Harassment, public demonization, shunning, removal of police protection, loss of employment, withdrawal of public benefits, and legal prosecution: these are just a few of the methods that have been used over the last few years in an attempt to shut down the opposition to sharia and Islamization.
Five years ago the victims of official government repression could be counted on the fingers of one hand. As of November 2011, however, there are too many examples to enumerate. Below is just a small sample from across the Western world of people who have been legally harassed, prosecuted, or threatened with prosecution:
|Zoka F. (a.k.a. Mohammed Rasoel)
|Norway:||Fjordman (Peder Jensen)
|Sweden:||Carl P. Herslow|
|Switzerland:||Avi Lipkin (alias Victor Mordecai)
|UK:||Paul Ray (alias Lionheart)|
|Tommy Robinson (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon)|
|Many other members of the English Defence League
|Dr. Nabeel Qureshi|
|Dr. David Wood|
|Pastor Mark Holick|
Official oppression is clearly a response to the “mainstreaming” of the Counterjihad. The political establishment is threatened by the growing public prominence of resistance to Islamization, and is attempting to suppress it through legal means.
This blatant totalitarian behavior can only serve to reinforce the need for volunteer groups that specialize in the legal defense of citizens whose civil liberties have been infringed.
Next: Part VI. Unofficial Opposition to the Counterjihad