Speaking out in Europe

Paul Belien, the editor of the Brussels Journal, has written an op-ed describing the battle in the front lines in Europe — and the Europeans are not only losing, their handing their weapons over to the Islamic hardliners, with instructions about how to shoot. The heroine of his story is Marij Uijt den Bogaard, a 49 year old Belgian government employee who started getting an eye into what the radical Salafists were doing in the community, and how they were alternately bullying and cajoling the moderate Muslims around them to “get on board.” The description of the radicals’ conduct is ho-hum, because we’ve heard it all before, again and again. What’s shocking is the insight into how the Brussels’ government responds to the cancer in its midst:

Worried immigrants told Ms. Uijt den Bogaard what was happening. On the basis of their accounts and her own experiences she wrote (confidential) reports for the city authorities about the growing radicalization. This brought her into conflict, both with the Islamists and her bosses in the city.

The city warned her that her reports were unacceptable, that they read like “Vlaams Belang tracts” (the Vlaams Belang is Antwerp’s anti-immigrant party) and that she had to “change her attitude.” The Islamists sensed that she disapproved of them. They might also have been informed, because there are Muslims working in the city administration. One day, when she was accompanied by her superior, she was attacked by a Muslim youth. Her superior refused to interfere. When she questioned him afterward he said that all the animosity toward her was her own fault.

In the end she was fired. She is unemployed at the moment and gets turned away whenever she applies for another job as a civil servant. Last week, she learned that city authorities have given the job of integration officer, whose task it is to supervise 25 Antwerp mosques, to one of the radical Salafists. Meanwhile, the latter have threatened her with reprisals if she continues to speak out.

After her dismissal Ms. Uijt den Bogaard went to see Monica Deconinck, a Socialist politician who is the head of the Antwerp social department, to tell her about the plight of the Muslim women. Ms. Deconinck said, “You have taken your job too seriously and tried to do it too well,” adding that she cannot help, although she sympathizes. Ms. Uijt den Bogaard also went to see Christian Democrat and Liberal politicians. They also refused to help her because they are governing the city in a coalition with the Socialists. The only opposition party in town is the Vlaams Belang.

According to Ms. Uijt den Bogaard, the reason why the Socialists, who run the city, allow the Islamists to do as they please is because they want to get the Muslim vote, which is controlled increasingly by the Salafists who are in the process of taking over the mosques.

Europe isn’t dying; it’s already dead.  What we’re witnessing are the nervous twitches that continue for some minutes after death.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Mike Devx

    Bookworm, you should post a story about the riot in the train station in France. All the stories currently talk about ‘youths’ who did this, ‘youths’ who did that. I found one article that, in the context of discussing police oppression during the riot, suggested that the riot worsened when police broke the arm of a ‘youth’ of ‘North African origin’.

    Will we find out that the entire riot was composed of ‘youths’ that are entirely Muslim?

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ ymarsakar

    Law and Order were never big priorities for socialists.

    Their problem, eventually becomes everyone’s problem. Similar to Muslims. Their stagnant systems require outside energy, but their system resists this as occupation and infidel mongering. It is the status quo for the system to police its own, to prevent Muslims from leaving, The way the Muslim social fabric and government system is setup is one of high entropy. New ideas that could lessen oppression and poverty, are rejected systematically and vigorously. All the indoctrination is carried out in house, i.e. Palestinians, which simply recycles their resources, human resources, into the grinder.

    The real objective for people to resist American invasions of Arab countries is because of this. They either want Muslim societies to continue the status quo of being stagnant, breeding viruses and decaying souls and societies. Or they wish to prevent America from bringing change, progress, and new energy into a failed economy, a failed religion, and a failed culture.

    People talk about you can’t force democracy on others, but their premises are wrong. All freedom of thought and human progress requires new energy, new as in new, defined as something different than what you already have. The West as people well know, benefited from the Greek, Roman, and Briton traditions. They could recycle the energies and ideas of these systems, to create a hybrid, something better than the sum of its parts. The openness of Greek and Western society put up low resistance to new ideas, thereby improving the system as a whole. I say their premises are wrong because democracies are not self-contained and self-sufficient entities. They require new ideas, they require progress and revolutionary thoughts to maintain equilibrium. The Arab world never really had this kind of social or religious openness and tolerance. Now they have built up a resistance to new ideas that is truly close minded.

    Since the Arab world will not accept what they need to become healthy as a people and a society, you must force new ideas upon their people. And you cannot do that without a real force on the ground. The objective then is to create Law and Order, but our kind of law and order, one which protects the free expression of ideas, instead of totalitarian order which stifles it. There are different orders after all, based upon the form as it is setup.

    With global technology and transportation, a highly entropic and destructive closed system no longer just sits there until it rots. No, it spreads, as any disease does so, viruses, AIDs, or cancer. It spreads not by incorporating the energy of the new systems to be conquered into a new stronger hybrid… no it spreads by tainting the new system with close mindedness and disorder (entropy).

    Cells are a system, a self-contained system with its own equilibrium. They mimic thermodynamic systems just because of how evolution worked and had to obey physical laws. You can look at it on a biological scale, thinking of the Islamic Jihad as a virus that takes advantage of an already weakened immune system, living in cells and using those cells to make more viruses (As Shrink did a post about). Or you could look at it in a physics sense. There’s other ways, war strategy for example, invasion vs defense.

    In the end it is about winning. It has always been about winning. Which system is better? Which system deserves to survive? Which system has a higher energy potential? See, these do not have set answers. Western civlization is not always the greater good, and Arab civilization is not always the greater evil. These things are decided by conflict, because you can never tell who is the stronger simply by analyzing some trends or aspects. You need to run a simulation, and what better simulation is there than the reality fabric of the universe?

    Sometimes the disease wins… and sometimes you win and it loses. That’s just how it is. I haven’t read Nietzche’s works yet, but I think I could benefit some considering his quotes.

    Oh btw, I think there is an inherent weakness to Parliamentary systems that isn’t present in America’s two party winner takes all system. Hitler is just one example, but he isn’t the primary example. The primary example is Germany, post reunification. You know the Grand Coalition between SDP and Christian Democrat? I looked at a demographics vote map of Germany. And the entire Western half of Germany voted more or less for Christian D, while the East voted predominantly for SDP socialism…. hrm one wonders how that got setup.

    It is an inherent weakness because it does not pit two opposing ideologies and philosophies against each other and test which is the stronger. Ah, now we get back to the original topic don’t we. Parliamentary systems go along to get along, because they need votes, votes, and votes to keep their leadership status and PM slot. A simple majority of all votes. That means out of 300 total, if the best party has 145 (not a majority) and the extremist fascist jihadists have 15 and the SDP has 140, guess what happens. The last two form a coalition, combining their 15+140 into a majority, 155. It is inherently a system that averages the extremes and the moderates together. I say inherently because systems are different from individual people, even though systems are composed of people. If you get enough molecules together, you can more or less predict the general trend of their movements, even though the individual molecular position/velocities are unknown and erratic.

    So it is not surprising to me that they wish to court the “Islamic Jihad” vote. Parliamentary systems already are used to giving government jobs and positions to coalition partners. Think about that for a second. That’d be like electing a Republican total War president and he is forced into nominating John Murtha as Secretary of Defense just to keep his seat… Oh, that kind of political deal does happen (vote buying and deals, i.e. VP slot), but it always tends to weaken leadership and the system.

    So in essence, Europe is already a stagnant system because they don’t compete against each other for top prize. They aggregate, they average themselves out, and they “mediate” things. Entropy as a process is described as equalizing temperature and energy extremes. If you have hot there and cold here, entropy is the inevitable melding of the two extremes into one mediocre temperature. Europe’s entropy has been going high for awhile now.

  • Pingback: Webloggin - Blog Archive » Speaking out in Europe()