Zenster was struck by the phenomena exhibited in Stage Two of what the Baron, in a recent post, termed “Sheikhdown” behavior – i.e., what Muslims do when they reach a certain percentage in the populace of their host country.
In what the Baron calls “the lax and permissive societies of the West”, this is a surprisingly low number. It takes only about 1% to 3% of the population to be Muslim for their previously low profile, unassuming behavior to metamorphose.
At that point, things heat up:
When the moment is auspicious, Muslim leaders start the Sheikhdown by informing their hosts that because of their neglect and ill-treatment of Muslims, they risk arousing the violent enmity of their guests. The imams express their regret over this unfortunate situation, but, don’t you see, they have no control over it – the pious servants of Allah become enraged by all these insults against their religion and their prophet, and once their blood is up there’s simply no stopping them.
“I mean, what can we do? We deplore violence as much as anyone else, but the situation is beyond our control.”
To which Zenster offers the following reply:
How often have we heard some ostensibly reasonable Muslim leader pontificate, “I cannot guarantee what will happen if [insert here an inconsequential but inflammatory act], is allowed to pass”? The spokesman in question then proceeds to ominously predict the untold thousands of angry Muslims who will be compelled by virtue of their Islamic faith to unleash mayhem and carnage upon some target or other should this outrage be allowed to proceed.
– – – – – – – – –
This scenario took place in Britain recently when it became public that there would be a possible screening at Westminster of the film “Fitna” by Dutch politician, Geert Wilders. In response to this insult, British peer Lord Nazir Ahmed of Rotherham threatened to have 10,000 angry Muslims demonstrating in front of the Houses of Parliament.
Ahmed’s actions are but a template for many other instances of Islamic extortion throughout the West. Yet in the dhim halls of power, allowing this blatant blackmail to go unquestioned is deemed preferable to a direct challenge to public safety and to law and order.
But that is not the worst of it: this by-now stereotypical craven response to even the threat of Islamic violence serves to breed even more of it, and each time with less cause for rage. Our cowardly cave-in sensitizes the parasites so that the next encounter will have even less provocation.
Thus, soldiers return from Afghanistan and march in Luton; Muslim provocateurs come out from under the baseboards to hiss and threaten these men. And who do the police protect? Certainly not the soldiers.
Why is it that no one is curious as to exactly how Lord Ahmed is so sure that these 10,000 angry Muslims will materialize on command? Does not his threat imply some foreknowledge or involvement with these incendiary factions? Predicting angry crowds whilst simultaneously declaring them to be beyond control is transparent thuggery. It is extortion.
There are several preventive measures authorities might put in place in the future:
- Wouldn’t it seem sensible to take into custody someone who indulged in such incitement and interrogate them at length regarding whatever connections they might have to radicals and adherents of violence?
- Wouldn’t it also seem prudent to have several battalions of military personnel in riot gear, ready for the predicted violence?
- Should such a demonstration devolve into even a hint of illegal activity, shouldn’t all present be detained and questioned? Shouldn’t the perpetrators and planners be arrested and arraigned? Yes, the first time such a change in behavior on the part of authority would create even more outrage. It’s a fact that when you begin enforcing laws that have been ignored, it makes the perpetrators even angrier – at first. But once past that first hurdle (and perhaps a second follow-up to show that law enforcement is serious), the Muslim community would then be on notice: further attempts at intimidation would not be tolerated. Period.
In Lord Ahmed’s case, he should have been taken into custody for fomenting civil disorder. Intensive interrogation to disclose any links to subversive or violent Muslim elements should have been followed up and exposed.
Even a single positive result should have been used as grounds for placing him on trial and beginning the arduous process of discrediting him politically while destroying his power base.
If the law were being followed in Britain, identifying all who planned to participate in transforming public assemblies into violent mayhem would result in the detention, identification and future surveillance of those responsible. Thus, anti-terrorism agencies could begin untangling the web of Islamic radicalism.
These should be standard responses wherever and whenever intimidation tactics occur – or are even proposed. Lord Ahmed’s pronouncement was an incitement to riot and a naked attempt to subvert Britain’s rule of law. If each European country refused to be brought to heel with these bullying tactics, there would be a rapid decline in the process of Islamization.
Instead, what we face is a rapid dhimmification of Europe led by a myriad of Lord Ahmeds, aided and abetted by the complicity of their corrupt and cowardly peers.
In a sane country this would not be permitted to stand.