ANYONE looking honestly at the effects of mass immigration from the Muslim world to Western countries over the past several decades has to concede that there are now security threats and negative cultural trends with which we previously didn’t have to contend.
This is why politicians and media who have championed mass immigration go to extra lengths to obscure, downplay and even cover up such realities.
Prior to Western elites embracing mass immigration from the wider Muslim world, there was no ongoing jihadi terror threat. Britain didn’t have a decades-long Pakistani Muslim rape gang scandal. Female genital mutilation and forced marriage didn’t exist within our societies.
French satirical journalists could have poked fun at Islam without worrying that a significant portion of their fellow citizens would be sympathetic to killing them .
And secondary school teachers in Yorkshire could have had a discussion about Islamic blasphemy laws without having to go into hiding.
It is perfectly possible to acknowledge all of this without accusing all Muslims of being jihadists, or believing that all Muslims are incompatible with life in liberal democracies.
However, our elites are reluctant to have these conversations. The recent Islamist attack on the author Salman Rushdie that has left him blinded in one eye and without the use of one hand has had very little media focus.
Last year’s murder of the MP David Amess by a Muslim asylum seeker led to the media and political establishment trying to gaslight the public that the cause of the murder was due to people being rude on Twitter.
As discussed by Mark Steyn on GB News , after two gay men were beheaded by a young Muslim man in the west of Ireland earlier this year, instead of focusing on the Islamic zeal that motivated the murderer, the media and political class discussed how Ireland, having once been a devoutly Catholic country, was somehow to blame. We are now going back in time to invent lies about the Catholic Church to cover up Islamist terrorism in the here and now.
Instead of an honest conversation about the effects of mass Islamic immigration and the complex nuances and differences between Muslims themselves, much of our media and political establishment prefer to smear people as Far Right for noticing facts that are right in front of their eyes.
In October this year, the Conservative-led Staffordshire County Council agreed to remove the name and ethnicity of the 2019 London Bridge terror attacker Usman Khan from a report in case it led to an increase in hate crime.
Noticing the ethnicity and religious motivations of those who want to murder you, or are involved in mass rape gangs, now means that you are the problem. In a sane society, the council would be more focused on the source of Khan’s hatred that led to his murderous rampage rather than worrying about people noticing that he was a Muslim.
Similarly, the police, social services and media, instead of having ignored the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs that targeted young white girls for decades, should have been uncovering not just the crimes themselves, but also asking what motivated the sexualised race hatred towards white British girls? This is the same media that will discuss ad nauseam an almost non-existent Far Fight threat.
However, our betters in the media and political class don’t want you focusing on Islam at all, because when you start to examine the nature and extent of Islamism the dividing line between who is a moderate and who is an extremist isn’t always so clear-cut. And acknowledging this fact isn’t the greatest advertisement for open borders and the ‘diversity is our strength’ brigade.
How do I know this, you might ask? Well, simply from having conversations with many Muslims and ex-Muslims. Take for instance the conversation I had with a polite Muslim couple in Manchester. The wife, who has a degree in Science, spoke with a middle-class Dublin accent and her husband was a Scouser. They were quick to condemn Isis and suicide attacks as the deeds of savages.
However, they openly admitted to me, when I pressed them, that in the Sharia-compliant society they would like the West to embrace, while they wouldn’t want to be directly involved in killing anyone, they couldn’t object to extermination camps for gay people because – as they reiterated – Islam does call for the death penalty for homosexuality.
In the industry in which I am currently employed, I work with a fair few Muslims. There are some that on a personal and professional level I am very fond of, and one or two of these I know to be genuinely moderate and tolerant. I also share some of their values regarding self-restraint, social responsibility and the importance of family.
Some of the others, while I have no concerns they might go on a decapitating spree at this year’s staff Christmas party, have openly expressed alarming views. For instance, one day in the staff room, I raised the issue of an ex-Muslim activist friend who fled Pakistan for his life after a fatwah was placed on him for blasphemy by a senior imam.
I affected complete ignorance about the issue in order to gauge the response of my Pakistani Muslim colleagues, all of whom at various times had brought up the topic of Isis in order to let me know they were opposed to violent jihad.
Anyway, in this particular instance, I started the conversation with something along the lines of: ‘Is my Pakistani friend telling the truth that he is in fear for his life for having offended other Muslims?’ One colleague, usually very affable and relaxed, became defensive and asked: ‘Is your friend an Ahmadi? They are disrespectful about the Prophet and cause a lot of trouble.’
I pretended I knew nothing about the Ahmadis, who are a genuinely peaceful sect widely persecuted within Pakistan. The extent of the trouble they cause extends to believing there was one prophet after Mohammed.
One such ‘troublemaker’ was the well-respected Glasgow shopkeeper Asad Shah, who in 2016 was stabbed to death outside his shop by the extremist Tanveer Ahmed – who had travelled from Yorkshire after watching an online video in which Shah urged religious toleration.
When I informed my Pakistani Muslim colleagues that my friend was an ex-Muslim and not an Ahmadi, one of them remarked: ‘Well, he probably said something he shouldn’t have said. Free speech comes with consequences.’
To anyone who is concerned about the maintenance of free speech in Britain and other Western societies, it should send a chill down your spine that a very many adherents of the fastest-growing religion in the UK and many other Western countries either fully support or are sympathetic to Islamic blasphemy laws that call for the death sentence of so-called blasphemers and apostates.
I personally know other ex-Muslims across the British Isles who have either been physically attacked for being open about their apostasy, or who conceal their apostasy for fear of being ostracised by their families or violently attacked by more extreme elements within their communities.
My adoptive father’s hometown in the west of Ireland has had a large Pakistani Muslim population for many decades, some of whom are relatively integrated into the community. However, with the arrival of Syrian refugees in recent years, new tensions have emerged.
On a visit there last year, I got talking to a local Irish businesswoman who was quick to let me know she had no time for racism and that overall various immigrant groups and the locals in the town get on well. However, she informed me that not everyone in the town embraces the ethos of diversity and inclusion and that a Syrian Muslim shopkeeper in the town had told her that most of his community – while grateful to the Irish government for taking them in – had no interest in mixing with or integrating with Irish society or any non-Muslim groups, as they wished to preserve their own culture and religion.
Compare and contrast the almost total media silence on the prevalence of such exclusionary attitudes within much of the Muslim community with the smearing of the indigenous peoples of these islands as ‘Far Right’ when we express moderately civic nationalist views that emphasise preserving our indigenous culture while still welcoming a manageable number of immigrants from culturally compatible countries.
Western countries such as Hungary and Poland that have eschewed mass Islamic immigration don’t have an ongoing jihadi terror threat, or the other aforementioned problems associated with mass Islamic immigration.
Wanting to keep their citizens safe and to ensure that their own culture remains dominant within their own countries has seen Poland and Hungary labelled as ‘Far Right’ by many in the media and political establishment. Italy has now joined Poland and Hungary on the ‘Far Right’ naughty step for having dared to elect a leader who believes Italy’s best interests are served by remaining Italian and that Italy can do quite well without an open border with the Islamic world.
Of course, there are those wishful thinkers who will dismiss my claims as being based on incidental anecdotes that reflect only fringe opinions within Western Muslim communities and the wider Muslim world.
However, reputable surveys show that many Muslims, a majority in many Islamic countries, will openly express a range of extreme views that are incompatible with the values that underpin Western liberal democracy and which questions the wisdom of mass immigration from such countries. Terrifyingly, there are also those progressives who are well aware of the prevalence of extremism within the Muslim community, but believe it’s a sacrifice worth making to live in a multicultural society.
Research from a tiny number of brave investigative journalists has revealed that the Islamist threat and extreme views are prevalent across the British Isles. In 2016, the former head of Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips, conducted a survey that showed a large minority of British Muslims held extreme views.
In the Republic of Ireland, the situation is even more alarming in that the country’s largest mosque in Dublin has links to the extremist Muslim Brotherhood. It is the headquarters of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, which was chaired for quite a few years by the now-deceased radical cleric Yusuf Al Qaradawi, who supported murdering gays, ex-Muslims and Israeli civilians.
Whenever anyone highlights what many Muslims themselves openly admit, they are attacked and smeared by those who support mass Islamic immigration. This is because open border enthusiasts see those of us who dissent as blaspheming against the progressive, globalist article of faith that all peoples are interchangeable.
They simply cannot cope with being presented with the reality that diversity, equity and inclusion are not universally-held values and therefore immigration, especially from non-Western countries, should be highly regulated.
Informing progressives of this reality is akin to the Italian Catholic scientist Galileo Galilei standing in the Vatican in the 17th century trying to convince the cultural establishment of the era that the Earth rotated around the Sun.
As many of us have been finding out over recent years, it’s not enough for progressives to deny or ignore these inconvenient truths. They also want to silence those of us who utter them.
However, none of these inconvenient truths about Islam is going to go away. In fact, they are only going to get worse as the Muslim population of Europe is set to increase dramatically, according to Pew research.
None of this in any way justifies discriminating against or mistreating law-abiding individual Muslims, who are the majority in many Western countries. Sadly though, you can’t have mass Islamic immigration without importing varying degrees of extremism and all the pathologies that exist in the Islamic world.
The two go hand-in-hand. As the Lebanese-American author Brigitte Gabriel has pointed out, it doesn’t matter if the majority of Muslims are peaceful and law-abiding, because it’s the sizeable number of radicals, both violent and non-violent, who will set the agenda. And, as the late Christopher Hitchens pointed out, our own multiculturalists are only too happy to assist them.
