In January of this year, British Prime Minister Theresa May said in a speech that “[W]e should always be careful to distinguish between this extreme and hateful ideology and the peaceful religion of Islam.”
This is the sort of boilerplate oratory Western leaders have been employing for the last 16 years to distinguish between Islamic militants and rank-and-file Muslims.
After a terrorist attack near Parliament in March that left four people dead, May again leaped to Islam’s defense, stating, “[I]t is wrong to describe this as Islamic terrorism. It is Islamist terrorism. It is a perversion of a great faith.” In a face-to-face interview with the U.K.’s Muslim News on June 2, May said, “Islamophobia has no place in our society.”
After the third major Islamic terrorist attack in Britain this year in which seven perished and multiple people were injured, May finally said that Britain was “too tolerant” of Islamic extremism, but again qualified this (and effectively negated her first statement) by reiterating that Islamic militancy and terrorism is a “perversion of Islam.”
For decades, Western leaders have engaged in the wanton importation of Muslims into their nations; this was a much more vigorous program in Europe and Scandinavia than in the U.S., although it was certainly stepped-up during the Obama administration. Thus, President Donald Trump’s consideration of travel bans and cutting ties with Islamic nations that sponsor terrorism are decidedly prudent moves.
There’s a cognitive dissonance created in the minds of many in the West when they are admonished by liberals to accept the importation of Muslims into their countries. This is in part due to the fact that it has become quite clear based upon their rhetoric that emerging Muslim populations in Western nations intend to make third class citizens out of native populations (women typically being the second class in Islamic nations), and that many liberals themselves (namely gays, feminists, etc.) would be swiftly killed off should Western nations become predominantly Muslim.
In Islam, a dhimmi is a non-Muslim who has been relegated to living in a predominantly Muslim society. Such unfortunates usually suffer third-class citizen status and are often saddled with various forms of oppression. One reason Muslims don’t necessarily kill off all non-Muslims in an area when they come to power, whether through military conquest or attrition, is because the economic extortion of non-Muslims presents the potential to swell government coffers, and of course abusing non-Muslims in various ways has been a national pastime in Islamic countries for centuries.
Lately, the term dhimmi has been adapted to include those in Western nations whose sympathies regarding Muslims threaten to give rise to their own societies becoming predominantly Muslim, thereby rendering all non-Muslims therein as dhimmis.
Using this definition, modern liberals comprise the dhimmis of our day. Rank-and-file liberals who have subscribed to the notion that Islam is a “religion of peace” have been deluded over time by rhetoric like Theresa May’s. Like their American counterparts who’ve been railing against President Donald Trump’s proposed travel ban, the dhimmi citizenry of Europe and Scandinavia continue to defend Islam despite the fact that decades of Muslim immigration are rapidly transforming those regions into massive “no-go” zones.
Who would want to be consigned to third-class citizen status within their own country? Well, as with many of the policies set out by progressive political leaders, liberal voters are being deceived as to the true objectives in play. They don’t believe they will actually be disenfranchised.
I have previously stated that this influx of Muslims into Western nations was intended to accomplish two things:
1. Expand the scope of social programs, which would cement émigrés’ loyalty to leftist politicos.
2. Facilitate just the sort of militancy we have seen in recent years from emerging Muslim populations; this would ostensibly justify the implementation of draconian surveillance and police-state policies.
In their unbridled hubris, Western leaders still believe they will somehow be able to manage the militant factions within these Muslim populations. One only need look to Europe to see that it seldom works out that way.
The conventional wisdom advanced by international socialist power players holds that only 2 percent of the world’s Muslims have been radicalized. Given that there are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, that represents around 36 million individuals. That is the approximate population of Canada. It represents a nation.
It only took 19 Muslims to kill nearly 3,000 Americans one morning in September of 2001. That’s about 158 victims for each of the 9/11 hijackers. Using that math, the percentage of radicalized Muslims could conceivably dispatch 5.7 billion non-Muslim “infidels,” which is in the neighborhood of four-fifths of the planet’s population. One can only guess what the ratio of Muslim to non-Muslim survivors of this holocaust would be in such a scenario, since jihadis seem to have no reservations with regard to other Muslims being collateral damage in their campaigns.
Say each jihadi only racked up a third of the deaths their brethren accounted for on 9/11. Well, that would effectively adjust the planet’s ratio of Muslims to non-Muslims from 2 in 6 to 2 out of 5. Cutting the casualty tolls in half, with just under 3 billion survivors, we wind up with a population (of the Earth, not the U.S.) that is half Muslim.
If America suddenly found herself at war with Canada but our leaders failed to acknowledge the threat and take appropriate measures, we could actually lose. Excepting the Trump administration’s recent overtures toward bolstering security, that’s precisely the deportment we’ve displayed with regard to Islamic militants.
Article posted with permission from Erik RushDon't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.