What is the purpose of this massive, earth shaking upheaval of humans across Europe? Last year, the Western world debated the notion of multiculturalism. Barbara Spectre, an American who has leveraged a position of power for herself in Sweden through her organization Paideia, announced that “Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were…Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make… They are now going into a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented for our leading role.“ I had no idea that when she said “now” she meant, like, right now.
The ostensible purpose of multiculturalism is that we have so much to learn from other cultures, and that when we get that learning opportunity, it would be wrong of us to ask them to give up any of their culture in order to live within ours. But it goes deeper than that; multiculturalism has asserted that many of us have no culture, that our nations are simply a history of migrations, that we are nations of immigrants. This idea reached its culmination at a recent conference called “Sweden Together”, attended by PM Stefan Lofven, where Ingrid Lomfors concluded that there is no indigenous Swedish culture. Canadians were dealt that blow in 1976, and Americans figured it out for themselves in the 90’s after a positively exuberant decade of patriotism and happy coexistence. The message gets more and more simplified as the soup thickens.
Something else is happening now. As the manhunt for Charlie Hebdo killers was still on, Sean Hannity used the word “multiculturalism” and asked if, in the wake of this atrocity, could it still be seen as a desirable goal. It was a buzzword for a while as people became aware of multiculturalism’s history. All of that is absurd, now. All talk of acceptance and understanding and cultural hand-holding is obviously absurd. At this point it’s just a stage prop for the last few activist spirits who still believe in majic, to keep them shouting down their countrymen and fanning the separatist flames. Well, except for Open Borders folk heroes like Julius G. for whom any emotion other than sadness would rip the very fabric of reality. For most of those directly affected, it is clear that most “refugees” want nothing from Europe but their own space.
After protests in Germany, Martin Dulig, the Social Democratic Party leader in Saxony posted to Facebook, “The blind hatred and rejection towards asylum seekers fleeing war, poverty and persecution shocked me. This racism and xenophobia witnessed yesterday will not be tolerated. The incidents are simply shameful. This is something we will not accept in this country.” Fast forward to this month. In the country of “blind hatred”, one German farm town of 100 residents has been forced to take in 400 immigrants. There is nothing for the new people to do, nowhere to go, no jobs to be had. Some families have lived in this town for 400 years, and now they are being told that if they don’t like it, they are free to leave. They still have freedom, and they can use it to run away.
Another town of 3,000 residents is told the same as 4,000 immigrants head their way. Similar stories abound in city and countryside. It is painfully ironic that in all of these countries, the quality of living is so diminished, and there are no places left on earth where these Germans could go to experience the lives they once knew. The rape crisis in Sweden has climbed over 1400% since the country was flooded with immigrants. That means one out of four women can expect to be raped; that means that if you go to work or get groceries or a have a day out with your family, there is no reason to expect that today is your lucky day. In most cases, rapists are not prosecuted, or acquitted, and not deported on the grounds that they will pose a danger to the women of the countries they have “fled”. It is impossible to believe that these policies are about protecting anyone. Who is being protected, and why, and at what cost?
This is not blind hatred, it is direct experience. Refugees have rejected food aid on the grounds that it is not halal, that it is not spicy enough, or (my personal favorite) that it is only fit for a woman. They have refused to enter gymnasiums, saying they want apartments (they were told there would be apartments). They complain about slow internet, lack of sex, bad service, no money for cigarettes, and long lines at hospitals. What are we protecting, exactly? What is a refugee? What really is the purpose of all this?
What will happen in our country? Residents of Dearborn, Michigan have been told that if they don’t approve of the new Sharia law, that they are free to leave. Our numbers are not yet catastrophic, but our policies are setting us up for catastrophe. Our rhetoric is the same as in Europe — that we are a nation of racists, that our culture is either evil or non-existent, that masculinity is toxic, and that love of country is supremacy.
Women in Western countries are first class citizens, but many of our rights and cultural attitudes have been fought for. What a grave disservice we will do to ourselves if we speak for Sharia on the grounds of personal freedoms. It is inconsistent with everything democratic societies value. To say one can value personal freedoms while allowing those “freedoms” to infringe upon the personal safety of others is hypocritical and nonsensical.
A favorite point of open borders ideologies is that Islamist extremists are a small percentage of the mass of immigrants and of Muslims in general. While this is true, it is this extremism that is currently holding power. Think of all the religious Muslims who thought they were about to land in the safe cradle of Democracy, only to find themselves again at the mercy of rogue Sharia courts. What an absolute nightmare. And what a despicable failure on the part of these democratic nations for allowing it. I imagine some of those women in their burqas, now able to look across the street at free women, but no closer to freedom themselves.
And worse, the woman in the burqa can easily imagine that those women they are looking at will not be free for much longer. “Sharia patrols” approach non-Muslims in European countries to inform them that their behavior or clothing is not Sharia-compliant. Sometimes they sound like missionaries, other times their “advice” sounds harassing or even threatening. In one video, a “patrol” shouts to an English woman in England, “You can’t dress like that in a Muslim area!” In an interview with one of the infamous Islam 4UK’s evangelical Islamists, known simply as Ramesa says,
Ultimately, I want to see every single woman in this country covered from head to toe. I want to see the hand of the thief cut. I want to see the adulteress stoned to death. I want to see Sharia Law in Europe and I want to see it in America as well. I believe our patrols are a means to an end.
In many communities affected by mass immigration, women are being asked or told by by their own communities to cover themselves in order not to offend Muslim values, or to protect themselves from rape or violence. How would capitulating affect our hard won sexual equality? What would be the message to our husbands, daughters, boyfriends? And what would come next?