James A. George
” Barbarians shouted “ficki ficki” (f***y f***y), called women “sluts,” yanked their hair, and stripped women bare as they sexually assaulted them and laughed through it all. In many cases, women were attacked by large gangs, making it difficult for victims to positively identify the perpetrators to the police.”
“… up to 1,000 heavily intoxicated men of “Arab or North African” origin flooded the city’s famous square between its central train station and Gothic cathedral. Aged between 15 and 35, the crowd began throwing firecrackers and shooting fireworks as the new year arrived.” “Muslim mass sexual assaults in Germany on New Year’s Eve”, American Thinker, January 5, 1916
I am driven to write this due to a concern that this virulent virus combined with the equally ruthless virus of political correctness may well change our beloved Nation forever, just as it is doing so in Europe, as so dramatically and graphically illustrated by what happened in Cologne on New Year’s Eve and all accross Europe as well.
I will send this collection of thoughts and studies to my elected Representatives and Senators asking them to please, please, please give their most important voice to these concerns and to stand up and call this horrific violence exactly what it is, RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM, and say it over and over again, as so many of us in their public want them to do instead of parroting the PC party line that “Islam has nothing to do with it” and other such inanities.
I also hope that more of our citizens will become more fully informed of these atrocities by seeing to it that these thoughts, for what they might be worth, are as widely distributed as my limited technological resources may permit.
As of this morning’s most recent reports (this is being written on January 13, 2016), the number of cases reported in Cologne alone has now passed 500 and is climbing by the hour. Nearly half the reports are for sexual assault. A similar scene in Berlin was described as “like a war zone”, with explosives going off, hordes of Muslim men shooting guns in all directions and German citizens darting through the chaos trying to get to safety. There were also 133 reports from Hamburg and in Bielefeld 500 Muslim men tried to storm a nightclub. This same article notes that recently another club instituted a policy that banned refugees from the premises to protect the club’s female patrons from “predatory migrant men” who did such things as follow women to the ladies room and hurl verbal instults at them; the owners of the club were labeled “racists” (of course!) and “Nazi pigs” for trying to protect non-Muslim women who committed the “sin”, in the eyes of the Muslim men, of exercising their freedom to go out in public “uncovered”.
Chancellor Angela Merkel, the author of this madness, with her policy of inviting a million such migrants into her country in 2015 with another million expected to be invited in 2016, has chastised her own citizens with the statement that “We/Germans must accept that immigrants are more criminal”, a truly astonishing thing to say to people who have just been raped, sodomized, stabbed, brutalized, attacked, threatened in every possible way, had firecrackers exploded down their blouses, etc., etc., but where have we heard that kind of inane blather before? Our own President, while it pains me to have to write that phrase the fact remains for another 12 very frightening months, issues these kinds of totally unmoored from reality statements every day of his life. As in: “combat”, in which American military heroes are being murdered and tortured and slaughtered is, if you just wave enough pixie dust over it, not “combat”, although he and his merry band of followers never quite get around to saying what it actually is.
More about some of the far-left fantasies later, but first we need to examine some of the basics about the way these animals have quite literally bitten the hand which only a few months ago was welcoming them at the Munich main train station with teddy bears and water bottles and why continuing to let them pour into Germany, or any country, like the United States, which undoubtedly will be their next target, is simply sheer lunacy.
Considering the fact that all reports indicate that all of these attacks have been perpetrated by Muslim men, it is appropriate to examine the tenets of their faith they are claiming to act upon when committing this criminal violence against non-Muslim women. This type of analysis is even more important in light of the continuing statements on the part of Chancellor Merkel, our own public officials, such as our own President, the leading contender for the Democratic nomination for President and most recently, the Mayor of Philadelphia, to the effect that “Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with any of these acts”, in the face of all the evidence (screaming “Allahu Akhbar”, publicly stating, as in the Philadelphia attempted police assasination, that the attacker did it in the name of Islamic State, etc., etc.) It is noteworthy that at the press briefing yesterday morning, the President’s Press Secretary stated, in the teeth of evidence that every person with a sentient mind can interpret as that of an act of radical Islamic terrorism, that the White House was still “wondering” whether it “might be’ an act of terrorism. You can’t make this stuff up!
This analysis starts with some basic statements of Islamic belief.
The textual directives found in the Quaran are rather clear, despite all efforts to make them “vague” or “subject to interpretation” and, as one writer noted only a few days ago:
“Of course, it’s no surprise that devout Muslims sometimes get confused about what is acceptable to Islam. That’s probably because ‘devout’ Muslims by definition read the Quaran and find such commands as this: ‘Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are ruthless against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves.’ (Quaran 48:29)
“Or this: ‘When the sacred months are over, slay the idolators wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them’ (Quaran 9:5)”
“There are plenty of such verses lauding believers to slay the infidels, take their women captive, and establish Islam as the only true religion, so it is no wonder that some Muslims get confused and actually try to live the life ordered by Muhammad.”
The mindset of these Muslim attackers was most cogently analyzed by the distinguished Welsh sociologist Christie Davies in a study published months before the New Year’s Eve rape jihad accross Europe in these terms:
“It is not difficult to trawl through the Koran, the Hadith and the statements of noted Muslim clerics to find religious justifications for the exploitation of non-Muslim women or sex with under-age girls but it is doubtful whether many of the criminals were sufficiently literate to know these sources. What they did know is that under Islam women are inferior beings who should be denied autonomy—particularly over their own bodies—sexual property, the property of their male relatives. If Muslim women step out of line, they are liable to be the victims of an honour killing. If they suffer a sexual assault, they are forced to say nothing, lest disgrace fall on their families, even when they themselves are entirely innocent.”
“For Muslims, non-Muslims are in every way inferior and the freedom enjoyed by their womenfolk is the worst aspect of that inferiority. In consequence non-Muslim women may be attacked and exploited without compunction. There is a direct link between the insistence on the wearing of a hijab for those within the fold and the raping of those outside, between an obsession with modesty for those women who are family property and the utter disregard for the rights of those women who are free. They are the two sides of the same Islamic coin.”
An author discussing Mr. Davies’ study noted that these Muslim attackers were driven not solely by lust but also by “a particular contempt for non-Muslim girls.” In this article, the author discussed the truly unimaginable atrocities committed against young to very young British girls in the city of Rotherham (among others, sadly) in which prosecutions were delayed for years due to the despicable disease of political correctness so prevalent today and what happened there defies belief by anyone accustomed to living in a reasonably ordered society:
“But the most disturbing effects occur when the Muslim sense of superiority over non-Muslims combines with the Muslim males’ sense of superiority over women. Last year that combination produced the scandal in Rotherham, in which no fewer than 1,400 young women, most of them white, working-class “Christian” girls, were raped, tortured, beaten, abused, prostituted, passed from hand to hand, and abused in almost every conceivable way by gangs of Muslim men of Pakistani background who despised their victims as sluts and “worthless.” Their story, which is heart-rending, is told here. But the same basic narrative, varying only in the details, was replayed in Oxford, Birmingham, Oldham, and about 20 more medium-size English provincial towns in the last decade.”
“The shame of such widespread sexual abuse is not confined to its Muslim male perpetrators. It is shared by the police, by local councilors, by social workers who were supposedly caring for some of the victims, by MPs who didn’t want to know what was happening, by the negligent media, and by local Muslim leaders. These different “facilitators,” however, were driven by different motives. The police, the local authorities, the child-protection agencies, and the media turned blind eyes to the scandal (even when distressed girls directly sought their help) from fear of being accused of racism and Islamophobia; local Muslim leaders employed that fear to deter investigations and to protect the good name of their community.”
As a column in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal by the esteemed Bret Stephens noted, as Denis MacShane, “Rotherham’s former Labour MP and self-declared ‘Guardian-reading liberal leftie’ put it, it was a matter of “not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat.”
Mr. Stephens continues his analysis of Fantasy Islam, as Andrew McCarthy refers to it, by noting the following:
“Typically liberals have elided this incoherence by pretending, as President Obama often does, that Western cultures are no better than non-Western cultures in respecting human rights, or by demanding radical liberalism inside the West while supinely accepting violent anti-liberalism outside it.
But the events in Cologne make a nonsense of this. What was outside the West is now inside. In the spirit of Christian charity, Angela Merkel and other European leaders have imported a culture of Muslim misogyny. In the name of humanity, the benefactors are asked to close their eyes to the brutishness of so many of their beneficiaries.”
He concludes by making a statement proving he has far more legitimacy to speak on issues relating to immigration than all the moral pretenders on the scene today:
“As the son of a displaced person who arrived with her mother in the United States after World War II with seven dollars, I’m sympathetic to immigrants, particularly the lowliest among them. Whether their papers are in order doesn’t matter to me. It’s their intentions that count.”
No amount of vetting is going to find all the bad apples in the new wave of Middle Eastern refugees. So here’s my modest proposal, for Mr. Obama and Ms. Merkel. Let’s open our doors wide to women, young children and the elderly. And let’s close it shut to the men. They have a mess to clean up in their own countries. And much to prove in the horrifying wake of Cologne.”
As Mr. Stephens has put forward what he terms “a modest proposal”, I am sure tongue-in-cheek to Mr. Swift, and with particular reference to the current political scene with the emergence of the much-reviled-by-the-Beltway-Establishment Donald Trump, the editor at large of National Review has submitted a most timely question for all our “moral Elite betters” to answer. I know it’s a fool’s errand to even have a passing thought that they may actually seriously consider it for more than one or two nanoseconds, but it’s worth our time to examine, as mere subjects of “The Anointed” in flyover country:
“Which brings me finally to Donald Trump. His policy of simply halting Muslim immigration has been denounced all around. It is, of course, discriminatory and thus a mortal sin in today’s politics. Fine. Let’s rule it out. But if his critics don’t want a blanket moratorium on all immigration — which I assume they don’t — and if they don’t want to repeat the experiences of France and Germany in 30 years’ time — which I also assume they don’t — shouldn’t they tell us what they will do?”
“And, for once, that’s not a rhetorical question.”
As one who has resisted, to the best of his ability, the affliction brought about by the application of too much pixie dust, a malady all too prevalent “inside the Beltway”, I am not naive enough to believe that the current President will ever change his “contemptible display of political correctness and moral relativism”, to adopt Mr. Davies’ phrase, and so it is left to us to wait patiently, and prayerfully, for another year to pass in the devout hope, a word which used to have actual meaning, that the next administration will bring back “Morning in America”, that beautiful expression used by our last real President.