Is There a Partition in Sweden’s Future?

Our Indian correspondent Krutya sends his observations about the European “refugee” crisis, and specifically the situation in Sweden. He includes a series of questions about the problems associated with Muslim integration in the West, and invites input from Gates of Vienna readers.

Sweden’s Refugee/Immigration Challenge

It may go the way India went in 1947: to partition

by Krutya

I read the news from Sweden and other European nations, and I want to help, but I do not know how. I feel very badly for Sweden’s immigration/refugee crisis. No country that opens its doors to the refugees should be punished for its generosity by the same people whom it embraces.

The refugees from war-torn, impoverished nations of Middle East, North Africa and Arab nations pouring into Europe is a major challenge to the original inhabitants of Europe. I am going to avoid all political correctness.

A point of clarification: While Islam is practised the world over, the major problems seem to come from the Arab and Middle Eastern cultures, whose influence has been felt in Africa and other parts of the world. While my questions are about the Muslim population, I am primarily focusing on the Muslims from these Arab, Middle Eastern and African nations.

I am an Indian and I would like to believe I am as liberal and rational as the other person. What is my interest in Sweden’s refugee/immigration debate? Simple: I want every nation to maintain its unique cultural heritage proudly. That’s what makes the Earth interesting and livable. I have never visited Sweden, but those Scandinavian and some European nations are among the best nations to live in. While it may be futile to replicate their economic standard of living, perhaps every country could imbibe some of their values of social welfare, the rule of law, health care, education and a measure of broad-mindedness. If such open societies were to absorb sizeable populations from a society that is closed, regressive and sometimes incompatible with modernity, these accommodating cultures will experience a threat to their existence. Sweden has to only look at India to understand the influence Islam has had on its history.

The India that the British ruled included India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Up until 1000 AD, the Indian subcontinent was largely Hindu with sizeable populations of Jains, Buddhists and followers of animism. In 1000 AD the Islamic invaders from Arab and Middle East began to make successful forays into India, eventually ruling India for 850 years.

By 1947 the Hindu population was reduced to 68% of the Subcontinent. Muslims were 24% of the population. The Muslims convinced themselves that under a united India, Muslims would be under threat from the Hindu majority, and that they might lose their religious and cultural identity. Mind you, it was Muslim invaders from the Middle East and Arabia who invaded India, destroyed Hindu temples, and erected Grand Mosques upon the foundation of these Hindu and Jain temples, stamping their victory on the pagans and idolaters and violently converting the local populace.

After the Muslims dynasties had ruled India for 850, years until the 1850s, in 1947 they thought they were under threat from a Hindu India. Not all Muslims were convinced by such an explanation, but a large number were. Even though they were culturally Indian, the Muslims who migrated to Pakistan related to the Arab culture. The native, ethnic Indian culture is all but dead in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

In the Indian subcontinent, the population of Hindus decreased from 68% in 1947 to 61% in 2015. During the same time, the Muslim population in the subcontinent increased from 24% in 1947 to 33% in 2015. In India we have 172 million Muslims, as compared to 191 million Muslims in Pakistan and 153 million in Bangladesh. Hindus are almost extinct in Pakistan and are down to less than 10% in Bangladesh. Hindu culture is destroyed in Pakistan and under constant threat in Bangladesh.

In India, Islam was introduced by the sword, with bloodshed, looting, rape and pillage. While that may be the way armies behaved in the medieval world, Islam’s spread in India has been terribly violent, to put it very mildly.

Islam as we know it was never a spiritual path, but a political statement. In large numbers, Islam shows no mercy towards the other. In small numbers they successfully play the victim and appeal to the same modern values of liberal-mindedness that they so disdain to introduce in Islamic culture. I fear that Sweden may have opened its doors too widely and carelessly without fully knowing the history of Islam’s propensity to violently and totally eliminate the native culture wherever it finds a home.

I am proud of the heritage that I was born into. But I find it distressing that I must be careful in protesting against the sometimes favourable treatment meted out to my Muslim compatriots lest I be labelled a right-wing extremist. True, Muslims have their set of challenges in India, but the problems for them were not created by the Hindu majority. If that were true, how can the growth in proportion of the Muslim population in India from less than 10% to 15% be explained? Why are India’s biggest movie star, its most celebrated music director, its second-richest man and its most-loved President Muslims?

I am disappointed that while I have to follow the Law of the Land, our Muslim citizens have a separate set of civil laws. While such laws were justified in the immediate aftermath of India’s partition, continuing with such laws has no rationale. Suggesting they follow a Uniform Civil Law is shouted down by saying that we are majoritarian, and do not respect a Muslim’s right to practice his tradition. And this is just one of the many examples.

Muslim apologists, ultra-liberals and pseudo-secular “intelligentsia” demand that rich, peaceful, well-developed and liberal European Nations accept more and more immigrants/refugees from the troublesome Muslim nations. These host nations are blameless for the troubles of these Muslim refugees. To demand that they pay for someone else’s mistakes is unreasonable, to put it mildly.

In this communication I hope to put forth my support for Swedish culture, and to pray that it succeeds in maintaining its proud culture and heritage.

As for the refugee/immigrant debate, I present my observations and ask questions for which I would like to know some answers. For ease of comprehension, I have divided them into four categories. Further, I define refugees as those fleeing from atrocities for dear life, while immigrants are moving towards a better life than the miserable one their nation has handed them.

The Commonality of Crisis

Observations:

1.   Most refugees/immigrants are Muslims from Muslim nations usually running from atrocities committed by other Muslim groups. These groups could be: Terrorist organizations, nations with a majoritarian belief system (such as Sunnis against Shias), kingdoms, ethnically different cultures with animosities between them predating Islam itself.
2.   Most refugees/immigrants are from Arabian, Middle Eastern, or African nations with a distinct Islamic influence.
 

Questions:

1.   Why is it that refugees are mostly from Islamic nations?
2.   Are all these Islamic nations so utterly useless in protecting their compatriots and citizens?
3.   If a Muslim is not safe in a Muslim nation among his own Muslim neighbours and citizens, why does he hope for a better life in an Agnostic/Non-Islamic/Christian nation?
4.   If he can’t find peace in a nation that practices Islam — the Religion of Peace — and if he searches for a peaceful life in the Dar-al-Harb or Dar-al-Kufr, is he not being blasphemous?
5.   If Islam can’t foster peace and brotherhood among the millennia old animosities among African and Arab tribes and kingdoms, then how does it claim to be the only path to peace?
 

The Commonality of a Better Life

Observations:

1.   These refugees choose a well developed country — such as Sweden, Germany, Canada — that is religiously different, linguistically alien, culturally unimaginable, in the hopes of a better life.
 

Questions:

1.   Why don’t neighbouring Muslim Kingdoms and Nations open the doors to these hapless Muslim refugees/immigrants?
2.   Are these Muslim refugees not Muslim enough?
3.   Is it that for these Muslim nations, the concept of Islamic brotherhood is to be used only as a weapon to trumpet their so-called victimization?
4.   Is the Islamic virtue of charity so miserable or narrow-minded that they treat these Muslims with so much distrust, disgust and contempt?
5.   Why are these Muslim nations not attractive to the Muslim refugee/immigrant despite his religious, geographical and cultural similarities?
 

The Difficulty of Integration

Observations:

1.   These immigrants/refugees then find it difficult to integrate with the host country and culture.
2.   They then live amongst the very same group of people that they were running away from. The reasons could be as varied as lack of affordability to an inability to appreciate the cultural differences between the immigrant self and the hosting nation.
3.   The case of some British Muslims is a good example. These Muslim organizations in the UK enjoy all British privileges while at the same time they deride and insult the very same British culture in which they flourish.
 

Questions:

1.   Why can’t a refugee/immigrant in Sweden or Germany practice his religion and culture in the privacy of his home?
2.   Why does he choose to flaunt his religious or cultural identity, sometimes violently, in the host nation that has been generous to offer him a home?
3.   An immigrant/refugee has the obligation to his future to maintain and protect his culture. He ought to see his own culture as his skin. But why does he find it so difficult to accept the host nation’s culture as the clothes? Why is it difficult to be a Roman in Rome for the refugee/immigrant in the host nation?
4.   Why does the immigrant/refugee find the generosity of the host nation acceptable, but not its culture and law?
 

The Acceptance of Law in Islamic Nations and in the Host Nations

Observations:

1.   When an immigrant works in Saudi Arabia, he accepts that he is a second-class individual with no political voice and limited security support.
2.   As a non-Muslim immigrant in Saudi Arabia, he has further limitations on his religious practice.
3.   These immigrants accept the law in these Islamic nations and agree to live as second-class citizens. There are no refugees in any Muslim nation.
 

Questions:

1.   If a Muslim immigrant in a Muslim nation accepts his second-class status there, why does he demand better treatment in the non-Muslim host nation that granted him a home?
2.   Why does the refugee who has no rights in the nation of his birth demand equal treatment in the host country when his numbers become sizeable?
3.   Why does he insist on following and implementing Sharia Law in the nation that is neither Muslim nor obligated to accommodate his culture? It has accommodated him. It has no further obligation to accommodate his culture.
 

If you have read this far, thank you for your time. Please advise where else and how else I can offer my support to Sweden and all other nations in the midst of this crisis that are facing the music for their kindheartedness.

47 thoughts on “Is There a Partition in Sweden’s Future?

  1. Islam is selling itself as “Religion of peace”. Western political and spiritual leaders are believing that, against all evidence given by history and present times. The “peace” of Islam, however, is not precisely the same
    peace as is understood in Judeo-Christian culture. Even the concept of “Religion” differs. A multicultural society, as exists in many countries, means that every component of that society is expected to contribute for the sake of common welfare. The problem of participation of Islam to a multicultural society lies in the fact that Islam is monocultural, and does not intend to renounce to it’s character. Placed in Darlington al Harb, it will not integrate, it will grow and develop separately, and eventually try to submit every non-Muslim. Having achieved the latter, sharia law will rule that country, so that the “Peace” of Islam will bestow upon everyone… Those concepts are very difficult to explain to feminists and leftists who are governing Sweden.

  2. A Partition:

    1) Throw out the Muslims, then no partition is necessary

    2) Eastern Europe needs to tell Western Europe, they will merge with Russia if they are forced to take (1) Muslim. To hell with the Schengen agreement. If a family member decides to commit suicide you are under no obligation to join him.

    3) Western Europe needs a revolution. More murder by Muslims will be necessary to energize its people but then a LePen victory followed by a Wilders victory and so forth strong may swing the rest of Europe to the right and to liberty.

    4) The Muslims ran over the Hindus because the Hindus were not tough enough militarily. India needs a government that realizes they must fight Islam. If it does not it will be finished. India, you state is 61% Hindu. Well, it’s population is 1,252,000,000. So, you mean to tell me you are 763,720,000 strong and you can’t do anything? What is holding you back?

    • The problem is so huge, so simple, that westerners and Hindus WILL NOT see it!
      Everyone (except moslems) is afraid to do anything which might upset the moslems, who are and have been the enemy for their entire 1400 year existence; their koran demands it, and anyone who stupidly maintains they have moslem ‘friends’ has not read that manual of hatred, or chooses willfully to misunderstand it.

      Krutya has listed the problems encountered with islam with admirable clarity, and western Europeans in particular should have no difficulty identifying them, however, many westerners appear to have lost an attribute key to survival, and have become terminally guileless, naïve; deadly afraid to question anything to do with islam, which is not only questionable, but so disgusting I find it amazing the western world tolerates it.

    • The dopes in dar al harb are too civilized to contemplate what needs to be done. They cannot fathom that there is a culture that is not like theirs in goodwill and itent. They expect that the world IS like they would want it to be. They are no longer “normal” ( as in “sane”). The progressive education system made sure of that.

      “redacted ” – H.L. Mencken

      Sorry folks, but it may come to that.

      NOTE FROM ADMIN: Even with Mencken, no fomenting violence.

    • John Galt III, thank you for your comment.

      Just a little clarification: India is 77-79% Hindu, 15% Muslim. The Indian Sub-Continent includes, nations like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Srilanka, Afghanistan. Only India and Nepal have majority Hindu population. Lanka and Bhutan are Buddhist. Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan are predominantly Muslim – no Hindus there.

      Therefore, the Indian sub-continent is therefore only 61% Hindu.

      And India faces a lot of internal religious riots, but none to the point of being nation-wide, atleast not since 1991. There is a lot of tension, but we are not viewing each other as enemies. That’s because Muslims here are from the Indian culture and view themselves as Indians first. (As an aside, the Muslims in Iran are Caucasians of the Persian culture and not Arabs.) Our Muslims are the part of the national culture and history. We share common histories, common ancestors in some cases. There is no further integration to be made among the Muslims here, only a lot of religious/social reforms.

      That is not the same with the current refugees. The problem that Europe faces is from the Muslims from Arab. For Western nations the current torrent of refugees is from a different culture, different country, different traditions. Therefore, their integration into the host nation’s culture needs to be done with immediate effect. It is the refugees oligation to embrace the host nation’s culture. The host has already thown open his home for them. The host needn’t and shouldn’t change the way he lives and believes.

  3. There’s nothing you can do for a place like Sweeden. The country is like a big university campus without the scholarship and anyone from India will just get treated like an infantile third-worlder. People will just nod and smile as you state all your un-enlightened concepts that fail to recognize the great superiority of cultural relativism and epistemological subjectivism. Anything you do will be treated as foolish behavior that must be tolerated in the name of the panacea of cultural relativism. And that 3000+ year history of Indian philosophy is all just part of “historical stages of development” (see the Communist Manifesto) leading up to the enlightened philosophy of radical subjectivism and reality denial.

    Though you may find a few sane people, most have been turned into lotus-eating Eloi. The fatalism might be a great match for the “philosophy” of Islam if it weren’t for the violence.

    I doubt that there’s anything that can be done. Certainly no amount of logic will help because the problems are caused by deep religious faith in passive subjectivism which is not based on logic. The goal seems to be to achieve moksha by clinging to this faith regardless of what happens sort of like an ascetic starving themselves to death.

    In some cases there is nobody who can do anything. For examples from Indian history see the Pali Canon where, for example, the Buddha goes to try to talk some Jain ascetics out of flailing themselves. The Buddha attempts to use logic to explain how this is not causing them to experience the result of past action because the flailing is the action (Kamma) that is causing the pain (vipaka). Therefore they are taking an action and immediately experiencing the result, not somehow “speeding up” the timeframe of experiencing the results of long past action. But the response from most was something like “we will do as our teacher instructs”. So even pro-Buddhist scriptures which depict the Buddha as a superhuman genius don’t depict their own leader as being able to get through to everyone because not everyone can be moved by logic or anything else. Though they may change one day, other things would have to happen to change their mental state.

    Sweden seems to be in this situation where nothing will change until more people experience more serious consequences and by then it may be too late to do anything.

  4. Mr. Krutya,
    All of your observations and questions are reasonable and logical . I think it to be unlikely that you are Islamic. It may be equally unlikely that you are a western- like Progressive.
    I speak or write as a person influenced by Christianity, and I may even be a semi- good Christian but would not dare say so. Because of this Christian influence, much of what Islamics and progressives describe as grievance looks to me like envy, or worse. I do not know what Hindus and Buddhists and Jains and Sikhs think of this but perhaps in this forum, I will learn.
    The Ten Commandments seem to me not to be only a religious proscription but a commen sense way to build a well off civilization from the product of one’s work. One creates wealth by working. This also requires individuality.
    Envy appears to me to be a way to build a society upon theft and violence. One acquires wealth from the work of others by theft. This will create tribalism.
    The great weakness of all civilizations has always been that the benefits of their systems are so obvious that few of their individual members have any clue why everyone might not agree or that they might have to defend their good works, and sometimes to defend from unscrupulous leaders of their own as well as outside enemies.
    We need to make our own tribes of convenience to work together on this.

    • Living in a community with the ideology of thou shalt not, and do unto others as you’d have them do unto you has its benefits whether or not internally embraced.

      Living in Islamic community of supremacy must always lead to incessant conflicts due to inequalities in life.

      Which does Sweden prefer?

      The elite have made their choice.

  5. Is it moral for a government to follow conventional rules of warfare if by so doing, they lose the war and open their country up to occupation by hostile invaders? If there are civilians along an enemy’s supply lines, is it moral to not bomb them, and thereby subject your own population to murder and destruction?

    Europe is facing a real threat to its existence, so should they extend to the invaders all the rights of a civil society with a relatively well-behaved population: property rights, competent legal representation, due process, habeas corpus, and traditional liberties?

    It seems likely that the European countries will not be able to maintain their existence or the security of their present citizens with the numbers of Muslims already in the countries, or on the way. To the extent this is true, individual rights as we know them may have to take a back seat. It is obvious, though, that any significant Muslim presence will degrade and threaten the host society. The spread of Islam over 1500 years illustrates its virulent nature.

    Partition is one way to eliminate the corrosive Muslim presence in a non-Muslim country. Of course, one wonders what would motivate a country to voluntarily cede a significant part of its territory to alien “guests” who recently entered under the guise of being peaceful. Partition would be one way of attempting to maintain civil standards: property exchanges, equivalent security forces, and the like.

    The only reason I can see for carrying out partition is practical. As an example, take the situation of the Serbs who were winning the Bosnian and Kosovo wars, but were bombed into submission by NATO forces for reasons I still don’t understand. Partition may be necessary to stave off foreign intervention, or to get needed foreign support, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the case. The partition of Israel in 1948 is another example where a country (Israel) settled for an illegal partition out of practical necessity.

    For partition to have any chance of success, particularly with Muslims, it has to be complete. The Indian and Israeli partitions were partial, and they are still looking over their shoulders at their Muslim populations. Muslims have shown they can develop a strong, almost irresistible political presence starting from a small number, so it seems insane to give up part of your territory and keep the very same penetration responsible for losing your territory in the first place.

    A country which agrees to set up a hostile state on its borders, as in the case of Pakistan or the Palestinian Authority, may have to live with danger for a very long time. A country may enhance its survivability by being less “civilized”, and insisting on relocation of Muslims to existing countries, rather than carving out a new, inevitably hostile, territory.

  6. OMG! Krutya … what a brilliant essay. I read every word including your questions. But this is going to take some time to digest. I do believe your questions can all be answered. And I believe they can be answered by YOU. I suggest reading all the essays at http://www.historyofjihad.org/ . Watch all the videos put together by Bill Warner at http://www.politicalislam.com/ . A good understanding of the Koran and Hadiths is key to answering your questions as well. You can read them here; http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/ . You will quickly come to the conclusion that Islam is NOT a religion. It is a fascist political organization which aims to rule the world. Understand too … there is no such thing as “radical Islam”. Terror is only one of the many jihads that Islam uses to politically overtake. Once you have this knowledge I am most sure you will be able to answer your own questions.

    Do not rule out the religious aspect altogether. If you are familiar with the Bible recall Genesis 16:12 written about the descendants of Ishmael; “He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.” Consider this was written 2,000 years before Mohammed crawled out of a cave with the Koran and it will give you the basic understanding of what the world is confronting.

    Unless you are a citizen of Sweden you can’t directly help them. The citizens of Sweden must either vote down or overthrow their governments. I am from the U.S. I am an Independent voter and I will be voting Republican in our upcoming election because they are taking the hardest “line” against Islamic aggression not only in the U.S but worldwide. That is the what you can do as a citizen of your country. Vote for the hardliners against Islamic aggression.

    • I keep meaning to put up a few of Bill Warner’s videos. The man is sooo good! We ran the one in which he talked about the West being fearful for 1400 years – did it when that one first came out. But it could do with a re-run. A classic.

      And besides, I told his wife I was going to do that and then it got buried. Every day I think, “must get to Bill Warner’s channel…”

    • Thank you, Knight for the compliment and the links.

      I wasn’t very sure about the benefit of voting hard-liners. It seemed as if the hardliners were driving the moderate Muslims towards extremism. But then it occured to me that there were extremist Islamists when moderate, democratic leaders were around.

      So voting a hardliner may not be for voicing against “Islamic aggression”, but to merely the right “to call a spade, a spade”. Its a right to demand answers why should liberalism demand sacrifices from a native when the refugee could possibly be hostile/resentful to much of what the native represents.

  7. Your observations are quite intelligent and bring to me the conclusion that you live in a more intelligent and less self-destructive environment than Sweden.

    This is what makes it hard for you to see how crazy and self-destructive the Swedes are. You’d have to visit it, or a place similar to it, in order to understand the level of insanity. I suspect that it wouldn’t take you long after arrival to write them off as “finished”.

    India will survive, and likely relatively thrive, despite huge challenges.
    Sweden, I’m not so sure about.

    • Mike, it will be really tragic if Sweden were to lose its uniqeness for the sake of political correctness and misplaced sense of liberalism.

  8. You did not mention leftist ideology. Islam is, of course, a major problem in Europe but it is little more than an intellectual blunt instrument utilised by the left to control and subjugate the host population and its culture. Unfortunately the leftists will make the same mistake they made in Iran, which did not turn out too well for them.

  9. To Sweden and all the other EU nations all I can say is, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a duck! You are being INVADED by a Christian hating hoard of young Muslim men. React accordingly or settle for living in a third world hell hole within the next decade.

  10. Turkey has accepted 2,5 million Syrian refugees and Lebanon 1,2 million in the hopes for a better life.
    They do not choose a well developed country to invade, if you like.
    Logical flaws in your questions above, narrowminded :

    “Why don’t neighbouring Muslim Kingdoms and Nations open the doors to these hapless Muslim refugees/immigrants?”

    “These refugees choose a well developed country — such as Sweden, Germany, Canada — that is religiously different, linguistically alien, culturally unimaginable, in the hopes of a better life.”

    5. Why are these Muslim nations not attractive to the Muslim refugee/immigrant despite his religious, geographical and cultural similarities?

    • In the period 2011-2015 asylum or protected status as refugees was granted as follows by these Middle-Eastern countries:

      Bahrain 311
      Kuwait 614
      Oman 151
      Quatar 133
      Saudi Arabia 534
      United Arab Emirates 417

      Not very impressive. One should think they felt more concern for their muslim brothers.

      Source: worldbank.org/UN High Commisioner of Refugees

    • Thank you so much Chrys Kane for correcting me there. I totally missed Turkey and Lebanon. With 2.2 million refugees, Turkey has really shone right through. Though I tend to think that Turkey practises a moderate form of Islam than its Arab counterparts, the region primarily responsible for all the problems.

      I, however, wonder if the the refugees plan on settling in Turkey, demanding asylum and citizenship. Or if Turkey and Lebanon merely springboards for better lands. If so, why is the choice Italy, Germany and distant Sweden rather than richer and closer Saudi, UAE, Kuwait?

      Are the refugees rioting or protesting in Turkey for less then expected amenities? Are they protesting/rioting for lack of wi-fi, the weather, the food that is different, poor infrastructure in the camps, being forced to beg because there are no jobs in the host nations? Why then do it in Europe? Are they demanding that Turkey share its welfare resources as they demand elsewhere?

      Or is it that the Turkish authorities know how to deal with these refugees? If so, then the Swedes ought to learn from them. Or are the Swedes hoping for a pat on the back from a hypocritical Amnesty International that blames everyone except the people who cause the problems. If so, Sweden may pay very heavily.

      As for Lebanon, it truly is tragic that 25% of the country is a refugee from elsewhere. It pays for the faults and the indifference of its rich Arab neighbours.

      [emphasis by moderators]

  11. If they may help, here are some observations:

    Islam comes to non-islamic lands in Hijra – migration to impose Islam.
    Islam INSTRUCTS muslims not to co-exist nor integrate – “Loyalty and Enmity”.
    Islam gives no choice (Koran 33:36).
    Islam, a hostile ideology, comes to take over – “Islam Will Dominate”.
    The non-muslims are “filth ….the vilest of beasts” (9:28, 8:22).
    Muslims are “the best of peoples raised up for mankind” (3:110).
    The claim of “Peace” is a deception, as permitted in Islam.
    Islam instructs “between us and you hatred and animosity forever” (60:4).
    “Fight them and kill them until Islam is the only governance” (8:39)
    “If anyone desire a religion other than Islam never will it be accepted of him” (3:85).
    Muslims are INSTRUCTED to set up their own muslim-only zones.
    “If you are a practicing muslim you are above the law of the land” (Dallas CAIR)
    Partition is favoured as an interim victory.
    The objective is total domination – the Global Caliphate.

  12. Krutya, this is more of an addition to your article than an answer to your questions. From the UK there’s a photo of four moslems in a rural craft centre (question: whence their sudden interest in rural crafts?) The moslems suddenly demand a prayer space. Of course, there isn’t one & the management tell them to sling their ‘ook as we say in England. Moslems then call the police. The police ‘solve’ the problem by going upstairs & on finding a spare room, tell the management to allow the moslems to pray there.

    It’s clear that this was a deliberate supremicist provocation – a colonisation of typically English space which I should imagine has never experienced such an invasion before. The photo shows four young men who don’t look like typical craft centre visitors.

    And then there’s the reaction of the police – who aid & abet the invaders.

    The whole incident is in microcosm what you describe happened in India – but without the resistance from the indigenous &, indeed, with the assistance of the authorities. Of course, the supine reaction of the state’s representatives only emboldens the invaders & reinforces their belief that they are now the bosses. As exemplified in the video of Britain First’s foray into Luton, where they’re told by a moslem, ‘it’s our country now’.

  13. The answer can’t be partition. Unlike the Jews & even the moslem former Indians, immigrant moslems in Europe have no claim to the land on which they now live. A nation’s land is its homeland, the land of the ancestors. Moslems already have several homelands. They of course covet other nations’ lands because they’re by nature imperialists.

    Like many I’ve thought long & hard about how we can resist this imperialism. I believe deportation to be impossible. The reality is that the deed is done & we in Europe & the UK must live with it. The only policy that might work is one that is extremely unlikely: that the churches step up to the plate & work at converting moslems to conservative Christianity & thus to the civilisation of Old Europe. The cultural divide between conservative Christianity & Islam is not quite as wide as between secular ‘liberalism’ & Islam.

    Islam is winning (& gaining converts) because it has momentum, great self-confidence, & ‘manliness’. All three are lacking in most contemporary churches. Momentum is always highly attractive to fence-sitters. Stephen Molyneux says in one of his videos that undecided people ‘won’t look at who’s right but who’s most certain’.

  14. Regarding question #3 on integration:
    Quote:

    He ought to see his own culture as his skin. But why does he find it so difficult to accept the host nation’s culture as the clothes?

    There is the rub. Perfect examples of the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing:
    Tariq Ramadan
    or any of a variety of suit/tie members and Representatives of CAIR

  15. I am a Swede and I have almost lost hope in my fellow countrymen. The political correctness cuts like a laser beam through families, friends and co-workers. To even hint at criticism of immigration politics marks you as a racist and/or neonazi.
    I am fortunate that my closest family is free of the PC disease. At this point I’m just waiting for the bloodshed to start… I’m not a deserter so I will stay and fight.

    • Ragnir; We counter-jihadists here in the U.S. feel your anguish. You say “At this point I’m waiting for the bloodshed to start …”. But who among you (Vikings) will actually start it?

      • RiseAKnight: The fight has started in small scale already. This Saturday there was an organized patriot mob attacking the enemy in Stockholm.
        MSM was all over it and our minister of Interior made harsh statements. Then on Sunday an Islam mob attacked Swedes in subway station – totally quiet from MSM and no statement from the minister.

        PS I wish we had an equivalent to your 2nd amendment. Don’t ever let the politicians grab your guns!

    • So I take it that in Sweden, people won’t even tell the truth in private.

      Here in Canada, a lot of people will, though they wouldn’t be caught dead saying it in public. There’s some change, though.

      Keep on saying the truth, it’ll encourage others to do so and make the opinions acceptable.

    • Ragnir, I hope its not really all that hopeless. But I fully understand the predicament you are in.

      On one hand one is concerned with the security from the arriving immigrants/refugees. And on the other hand, voicing such concerns may label one as racist. Its not fair.

      Perhaps the first fight may be with “political correctness”. The right to call it a “spade”.

      The second may be in resisting to give in to demands that negatively imapct the host culture.

      India certianly has absorbed a multitude of cultures. Many of them came from the continuous invasions the land has witnessed since time immemorial. But the advantage that India always had is this, we were always too huge for any one kingdom or empire of antiquity. I may exaggerate a bit, but I believe half a million invaders even during Alexander’s time would have been absorbed and not made a difference. And I doubt if anyone had half a million soldiers. And we had a many centuries and millions of people to assimilate the foreigners amongst us and accept their traditions as part of our own.

      Sweden and by extension Europe does not have the population (an ageing one at that) and the time to absorb the alien culture. Please note, I am not against the Arab culture or the Muslim traditions. There would be something that the Swedes can learn and absorb but not at the cost of their own. And certainly not at gun-point.

  16. Very tongue in cheek. Some questions indeed; rhetorical questions that is.

    Indian people are polar opposites of Pakistani’s. We, regardless of our religious beliefs or any “ways” we follow for moral guidance should remember well that we operate under a different set of rules; the golden rule, tolerance, personal freedoms, rule of law, democratic governance. Followers of Islam are completely, utterly against these concepts – they are a danger to every society and humanity itself.

    As an Indian you probably know far better the dangers of the growth of Islam than even us Europeans. Visiting places such as Hampi was an eye opener. None of us should fear stating the truth about Islam.

    • Thank you, NativeGladius.

      I didn’t notice it was “tongue in cheek” but I am pleased you mentioned it. And yes, none of us should fear in stating the truth of Islam. If the imperial nations are routinely chastised for their treatment of their colonial natives, I would believe that the ideology of Islam and particularly the Arab world should be called to answer for their actions as well, from medieval times to current years.

      As for me knowing the dangers of Islam, I can’t really call 15% of my countrymen who are Muslims, dangerous. But yes, the generation of my grandparents who witnessed the partition were concerned. For us the erection of Mosques over destroyed Hindu temples or simply the ruins of Hindu kingdoms under Islamic invasion is history. We can’t do much about it. We have made peace with it. In fact many of us view that with the creation of Pakistan, we have all those who think of Hindu as enemy in a different country and not living amidst us. Undivided India was big, but not big enough to deal with the headache of 190 million more Muslims who are resentful of everything Hindu. Undivided India was not big geographically as the US or China, but it was a Sub-Continent that was partitioned. It hurt, but we both survived – India and Pakistan – in our own way.

      Sweden is only a country and she must learn from India’s history.

  17. Scandinavia could easily become the Balkans of the North. Partition would be a desperate attempt to save what remains of the Swedish people but outright Islamic takeover looks more likely. Neighbouring countries will be forced to respond whichever way it goes. The most powerful of those is Russia. Putin will not sit quietly on the sidelines.

    • Partition may be the only option that sort-of makes sense, is the thing.

      It’s a scary world, in which we look to Putin as being the lesser evil (by far!).

      • Partition is not the option, Mike. It can not be for Sweden or any other nation. I wasn’t proposing partition. I was pointing out that if Sweden is not careful how it deals with the influx of these refugees/immigrants, it may pay the price that India paid.

    • At present, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary are resisting the invasion, and who will they turn to for help to keep their countries free, since western Europe demands they also wreck their countries and submit to islam?

      But with the memory of Russian occupation still fresh in their minds, no doubt the above countries must agonize long and hard over any decision to ask for help from uncle Vlad, who of course has moslems of his own….

      Partition can never be the answer, as has already been shown.
      The only answer is to eject the cancer of islam, and of course that means violence….like it or not. And even if Sweden submits to islam, there will still be violence until all Swedes convert, and still there will be violence, because Swedes are white….

  18. Pakistan often gets a bad press here, quite rightly, but it has taken many refugees, perhaps uniquely among muslim-majority nations.

    Saudi and the Gulf states don’t because they don’t want the jihadists they subsidised subverting their illegitimate governments.

  19. Regarding the comment …..”An immigrant/refugee has the obligation to his future to maintain and protect his culture. He ought to see his own culture as his skin.”

    Well that’s exactly what Muslims are doing – protecting their culture. An immigrant has the obligation to assimilate, otherwise WHY immigrate in the first place?!!

    • That’s what I meant Rav. The complete quote was:

      An immigrant/refugee has the obligation to his future to maintain and protect his culture. He ought to see his own culture as his skin. But why does he find it so difficult to accept the host nation’s culture as the clothes? Why is it difficult to be a Roman in Rome for the refugee/immigrant in the host nation?

      That he has his rights to practice his beliefs, traditions in the privacy of his home. But outside, he is part of the host nation and ought to assimilate with the culture of the host.

  20. 1. Why don’t neighbouring Muslim Kingdoms and Nations open the doors to these hapless Muslim refugees/immigrants?

    Because it serves their purpose of islamisation to forward them to infidel nations. Doing so pleases Allah. Would they just invite their brothers into their own home and relieve them from their hardship, they would not only themselves do nothing for the cause of Islam, they would even discourage their fellow Muslims from doing so. Hence it would be doubly bad.

    From this viewpoint you have to judge everything they say and do. This is islamic logic.

    • You will notice that the United Nations is ever critical of Europe in regards to the so called refugee crisis and demanding that we accept more people. However they NEVER mention the total lack of action by Saudi Arabia, Qatar or North Africa. Since the end of colonialism Africa has had one almighty chip on it’s shoulder and consequently has always held the begging bowl out for foreign aid. I suggest this should be stopped with immediate effect unless it shoulders some of the immigration crisis burden.

  21. I think we would solve all these problems tomorrow if we all started to carry guns.

    This is what we all do when we enter jungles….meaning places where there is lots of danger. Aren’t we in such a place?

    This would speed up Darwin. Anti-social folks would be eliminated rapidly. Governments would be respectful. People would be polite and loving.

    It is not difficult to test scientifically. Drop lots of guns into Raqqa or Mosul or Detroit or Manchester and see what happens to crime or terrorism or grooming.

    I admit this is slightly whimsical, but the logic settles in later.

  22. Thank you all for your comments. Those who found my questions largely valid, thank you for your support and appreciate your attempt to answer them. Those who corrected me, thank you for bringing it to light.

    Looking at these comments, I have made some observations of my own.

    I had thought that my questions were largely devoid of emotion, judgement and logically asked. In some cases it was indeed rhetorical and it has served the purpose of atleast putting my view point across.

    This exercise has revealed a few things to me. Those who may have found merit in the questions I placed, tended to be resentful (somewhat concerned if not totally phobic) of the Muslims amidst them. Except for one comment that corrected the Syrian settlement in Turkey and Lebanon (not preferring developed nations but Turkey & Lebanon) the rest have been largely critical of Islam. It could be perhaps because Gates of Vienna offers a platform for people that are concerned about or resent the jihadist attitude of Islam.

    I am beginning to understand how the narrative is moving. I am certain I am no hate monger. I harbour no anti-Muslim sentiments. While I hate labeling anyone, perhaps for convenience I may label myself as Politically Left Liberal, Economically Right. If I am Left-Liberal, then I must, for sake of consistency, subject the Islamic way of life to the same rigour as the Liberalists apply to all the other conservative attitudes/ideas/beliefs the world throws at us. Asking a tough question based on how Islam is affecting negatively the way we live, shouldn’t paint me as “Islamophobic”. And if posing such questions attracts a slightly anti-Muslim population to my side, it is highly probable that the Islam apologists view me as an anti-Muslim. As an aside, If I were to ask such questions on Hinduism or Buddhism, I may be treated as a reformer perhaps.

    Seeing how the media is hijacked by extreme versions of views from the Left-Liberal and Right-Conservative, perhaps a balanced middle is losing its voice. Would it be possible then that similarly the Muslim Middle is lost in the chaos?

    I have seen videos of how Swedish Muslims who made Sweden their home in 1980s themselves being resentful of the new Muslim arrivals. They themselves seem to be fleeing from the later day refugees or immigrants.

    And this phenomenon is not new. India has 170 million Muslims. I myself have to deal with them everyday in almost every activity. I can’t afford to be hateful of 15% of my own countrymen. Especially, when from first hand experience I know that my Muslim friends are trying to get out of the ghetto they find themselves in. My Muslim friends and their parents are themselves fearful of the voicing their calls of moderation to their elected Muslim representatives. When they do demand moderation, they are accused of being cowards and pandering to the Hindu majority. My Muslim friends are themselves embarrassed of some the questions I raise here, but are totally voiceless. In fact more than one has been threatened to silence by his own Muslim neighbours. The option then is to leave the neighbourhood he is in and move to a more cosmopolitan one.

    The solution then may be to blunt their impact. If strength is in numbers, perhaps, a high rate of dilution may be necessary. Please refer to this link to understand the gist – http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/2013/06/03/muslim-behaviorterrorism-correlated-with-population-size/ (it gives very broadly the impact of Islam on the country).

    And perhaps, the Swedes can learn from the history of migration of the original Persians (Parsis) and their Indian host Jadi Rana (I will follow up with a post on the same).

    Thank you again everyone.

  23. Thank you all for your comments. Those who found my questions largely valid, thank you for your support and appreciate your attempt to answer them. Those who corrected me, thank you for bringing it to light.

    Looking at these comments, I have made some observations of my own.

    I had thought that my questions were largely devoid of emotion and logically asked. In some cases it was indeed rhetorical and it has served the purpose of atleast putting my view point across.

    This exercise has revealed a few things to me. Those who may have found merit in the questions I placed, tended to be resentful of the Muslims amidst them. Except for one comment that corrected the Syrian settlement in Turkey and Lebanon (not preferring developed nations but Turkey & Lebanon) the rest have been largely critical of Islam. It could be perhaps because Gates of Vienna offers a platform for people that are concerned about or resent the jihadist attitude of Islam.

    I am beginning to understand how the narrative is moving. I am certain I am no hate monger. I harbour no anti-Muslim sentiments. While I hate labeling anyone, perhaps for convenience I may label myself as Politically Left Liberal, Economically Right. If I am a Liberalist, then for the sake of consistency, I must subject Islam to the same rigour as other Liberals subject every “conservative” thought/idea/belief/attitude.

    Merely asking a tough question on how Islam is affecting negatively the way we live, ought not paint me as an “Islamophobe”. And if posing such questions attracts a slightly anti-Muslim population to my side, it is highly probable that the Islam apologists view me as an anti-Muslim. As an aside, If I were to ask such questions on Hinduism or Buddhism, I may be treated as a reformer perhaps.

    Seeing how the media is hijacked by extreme versions of views from the Left-Liberal and Right-Conservative, perhaps a balanced middle is losing its voice. Would it be possible then that similarly the Muslim Middle is lost in the chaos?

    I have seen videos of how Swedish Muslims who made Sweden their home in 1980s themselves being resentful of the new Muslim arrivals. They themselves seem to be fleeing from the later day refugees or immigrants.

    And this phenomenon is not new. India has 170 million Muslims. I myself have to deal with them everyday in almost every activity. I can’t afford to be hateful of 15% of my own countrymen. Especially, when from first hand experience I know that my Muslim friends are trying to get out of the ghetto they find themselves in. My Muslim friends and their parents are themselves fearful of the voicing their calls of moderation to their elected Muslim representatives. When they do demand moderation, they are accused of being cowards and pandering to the Hindu majority. Moderate Muslims in India are themselves embarrassed of some the questions I raise here, but are totally voiceless. In fact more than one has been threatened to silence by his own Muslim neighbours. The option then is to leave the neighbourhood he is in and move to a more cosmopolitan one.

    The solution then may be to blunt their impact. If strength is in numbers, perhaps, a high rate of dilution may be necessary. Perhaps this link may throw some light on how the degree of Muslim population in a country changes their behaviour – http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/2013/06/03/muslim-behaviorterrorism-correlated-with-population-size/

    And perhaps, the Swedes can learn from the history of migration of the original Persians (Parsis) and their Indian host Jadi Rana (I will follow up with a post on the same).

    Thank you again everyone.

Comments are closed.