In the face of what we’ve seen on our nightly news across the world I’ve often wondered what it is about, not only France, but other European countries like Germany and leaders like Angel Merkel, who seem determined to bring about an end to Europe. They seem to be under a spell. Totally transfixed, mesmerised or hypnotised and quite happy to bend and acquiesce to the demands of the hypnotist and the forces of Jihad.
This piece goes some way to explaining what’s going on….
“….Bruce Bawer, an astute observer of the European scene, wonders how “Marine Le Pen lost in a landslide” given all the jihadist assaults against the French people and the very culture of France. Bawer offers four possibilities that include:
European guilt about past imperial histories and a “need to atone.”
the postmodern belief that “no culture is better than any other – and it’s racist to say otherwise.”
the influence of the mainstream media, which routinely “soft pedals the Islamic roots of terror”
the fact that “some people don’t want to learn the truth”
In the Autumn 2004 issue of the Wilson Quarterly, Christopher Clausen writes that “for many Europeans in the past 20 years, now-distant memories of both world wars have hardened into a self-righteous conviction that peace outweighs any value that might conflict with it, almost regardless of the threat or provocation.”
Consequently, there is an exquisite disregard in deliberately ignoring the “grim possibility that their children and grandchildren might end up by living under shariah law, if, in fact, they are allowed to live at all.” Consider that London presently has 100 sharia courts that are “based on the rejection of the inviolability of human rights: the values of freedom and equality that are the basis of English Common Law.” Moreover, “a third of UK Muslims do not feel ‘part of British culture.'”
As Nonie Darwish has pointed out, 64% of the Quran is devoted to denigrating commentary about kafirs, or non-Muslims.
And yet, while the above quoted words of the Quran should “forever silence any fantasies regarding Islam’s peaceful disposition toward the non-Muslim,” the West continues to avoid the obvious. But as Ayn Rand has noted, “[y]ou can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.”
Hence, France continues to decompose in front of our eyes. Yves Mamou writes that “everything that represents state institutions … is now subjected to violence based on essentially sectarian and sometimes ethnic excesses, fueled by an incredible hatred of our country[.]” Ultimately, France “and all of European society must assimilate Islamic social norms, not the other way around.”
Bruce Thornton asks, “[H]ow much worse will the destruction and death have to be to wake us up?” These “indulgences of naive idealism,” dangerous delusions, and jihad denial still paralyze the West. Ayn Rand reminds us that “there are two sides to every issue. One side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.”
Until we can incorporate the idea that “nothing is creepier than Islam” and begin to “challenge Islamic racism, misogyny, genocide,” as Edward Cline exhorts, how can decent people not fall prey to Linda Sarsour’s “stealth jihad in a hijab”?
Amazingly, the more obvious the facts, “the more fiercely do people resist them.” Bawer explains that “as skilled propagandists [continue to] represent Muslims as the mother of all victim groups, many Westerners [are] quick to buy into it all.” This is aided by the “media’s cheery ignorance about Islam’s hostile ideology,” as revealed by A.Z. Mohamed.
This is the most puzzling aspect of the media’s capitulation. After all, Islam brooks no dissent, and freedom of press and speech is eventually obliterated. But Ayn Rand explains that “to act rationally means to act in accordance with the acts of reality. Emotions are not tools of cognition. What you feel tells you nothing about the facts; it merely tells you something about your estimate of the facts…” Ayn Rand, Altruism, and Jihad