What are the advantages Muslim societies have in dealing with others? This is how it is explained by John O’Sullivan: Europeans Studiously Ignore Muslim Mobs, but most importantly, what he shows is the effect of Islam on the subjection of women and the state of mind it creates. His final para, though, is the one that matters. It is the one that everyone migrates to if they are thinking about the preservation of our Western way of life.
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?
He, of course, does not mean let us rule it out. He means, if you are serious about an end, you must be serious about finding the means. And to understand either, you have to have some idea of what you are up against. This is what we are up against.
If we exclude divine favor as an explanation of this long advance, as Christians and post-Christian secularists presumably should, the rules that explain it include capital punishment for leaving Islam (a.k.a. apostasy), which is presumably a disincentive to doing so; strict rules for regular public prayer, which strengthen group solidarity; a privileged position for men over women, amounting in practice to ownership of them as either wives or concubines; a hierarchical structure within Islamic society that places Muslims in a position above non-Muslims in law, government, and social life; and a religious orthodoxy that endows Muslims with a general superiority (and sense of superiority) over others in non-Islamic societies.
Taken together, these rules help to shape a Muslim community that is cohesive, conscious of its separation from the rest of society, resistant to influences likely to undermine its cohesion, self-policing through its male members, and — because its sense of superiority is not reflected in its actual status either locally or globally — prey to resentment and hostility toward those whom it blames for its unjust subordination. . . .
The minority that supports aggressive jihadism (or is simply contemptuous of non-Muslim society) is not just larger but, as opinion polls show, far larger than similar tendencies in other religions and ideologies. That minority seeks to impose its rules both on fellow Muslims and on the wider society. And it has had remarkable success in areas where Muslims predominate locally, making U.K. state schools conform to Islamic teaching and practices, including the separation of the sexes; establishing “no-go areas” of European cities where police go only by agreement and where in their absence Muslim rules on alcohol and modest female dress are enforced by violence; and turning local governments into reliable Muslim fiefdoms through levels of voter fraud not known in England since the mid-19th century. 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.
This is why Jamie Briggs and Chris Gayle stories are such evasions of the genuine issue that confronts us. The left is full of excuses and refuses to recognise a problem. So does much of the right. This is where Donald Trump comes in. There may be a million problems that come with him as president, but if he is the only one that gets the one big thing right, then he will be president and everything else will just have to take care of itself.
UPDATE: This is Roger Simon on the same subject: In Your Heart, You Know He’s Right: Trump and Muslim Immigration. This is the conclusion:
The doctrines of Islam are virtually entirely inconsistent with the founding principles of our county. And yet, per Pew, we are not-so-gradually being inundated with its adherents. Unchecked, the character of the USA will change, possibly to the extent of being unrecognizable, I doubt this is what the majority of Americans want. But it is happening nevertheless — and we have a living, breathing illustration of the results just across the Pond. (Illustrative of how self-immolating European elites have become was the advice the female mayor of Cologne gave women of her city for dealing with the sexual assaults — they should stand further away.)
And then, from National Review, Is the Left Even on America’s Side Any More? where we find:
Leftists and Democrats have also joined the Islamist propaganda campaign to represent Muslims — whose co-religionists have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents since 9/11 in the name of their religion — as victims of anti-Muslim prejudice, denouncing critics of Islamist terror and proponents of security measures as “Islamophobes” and bigots. But in truth, 60 percent of religious hate crimes are directed at Jews, with a small minority directed a Muslims.
Exploiting the myth of Muslim persecution, progressives oppose scrutiny of the Muslim community, including terror-promoting imams and mosques. They immediately denounce proposals to screen Muslim immigrants as religious bigotry, and thus close off any rational discussion of the problem. Led by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Democrats have enabled the Islamist assault on free speech, which is a central component of the Islamist campaign to create a worldwide religious theocracy.
Most notoriously the president and his operatives cynically spread the lie that an obscure Internet video about Mohammed was behind the Benghazi terror attack. Speaking like an ayatollah before the U.N. General Assembly, shortly after the attack, Obama declared: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” What an American president should have said is: “The future must not belong to those who murder in the name of Islam.”
FURTHER UPDATE: This thing seems to be catching on: To Save Europe, Stop All ‘Migrants,’ Says Hungary’s Orban.
Law of Markets 