Integration is Done!

Muslim Brotherhood operative Tariq Ramadan is quite outspoken about the Islamic game plan. Beats me how anyone can call this sly jihadist a ‘moderate’ or a ‘reformer’- he is neither.

“Islamic Reformation is Done!”

“The Germans claim that they want to integrate you in their society. We tell them we are going to integrate them in our Umma (Muslim world) after converting them to Islam.”

He said the same in America:

Tariq Ramadan openly calls for Muslim colonization of the U.S. 

‘It should be us, with our understanding of Islam, our principles, colonizing the United States of America.’ –Dallas, July 27, 2011

No ‘reformation’ to see here. You will be colonized, infidel. Islam will rule, like in the days of the marauding Muhammad. Colonization means sedition, subversion, sabotage, terror, thuggery, coercion and intimidation.

Here you can see how integration of Muslims in France  is ‘done’ in reality.

thanks to SOS Oesterreich:

Giscard d’Estaign:  we must stop immigration!

Mitterand: “we must reduce immigration”

Chirac: “We must limit immigration”.

Sarkozy: ‘we need to  be more selective with immigration”.

The new minister of interior: “The problem with immigration is resolved”.

And that’s what reality looks like, dare to compare:

Spot the difference between EUrabia & Africa:

 

A clumsy headline for a clumsy article

“Germany proves clumsy with foreign matter”

You gotta read yourself through 3 quarters of this article before the writer comes to the point:

Oliver Marc Hartwich/The Australian

THE ghosts of multiculturalism are haunting a country that has failed with the concept.

(Not withstanding the fact that there is no country in the world that is  not “clumsy” and succeeded with the concept of multiculturalism,  Germany is definitely not the only place in the world that “failed with the concept”. It is precisely  the other way around; Muslim migrants, or ‘non working guests”  as they are called in Germany, have failed to integrate or assimilate,  it is the ‘religion of peace’ that fails them. But that does not occur to Oliver Marc Hartwich from the Australian.)

LAST weekend, German Chancellor Angela Merkel became the unlikely gravedigger for multiculturalism when she rejected the idea of cultural pluralism, surprising even her own party members.

Merkel is hardly known for her outspokenness. (Continued below the fold)

Dutch welcome Germans to Europe’s immigration debate (M & C)

Multiculturalism has ‘utterly failed’

Now here’s an article that makes a lot more sense:

GERMAN Chancellor Angela Merkel might well have been speaking for Britain when she admitted that multiculturalism in her country had “utterly failed”.

Continue reading A clumsy headline for a clumsy article

KRudd's "White Paper" Mentions The Unspeakable

For example, the white paper states of violent jihadism: “The scale of the problem will continue to depend on factors such as the size and make-up of local Muslim populations, including their ethnic and-or migrant origins, their geographical distribution and the success or otherwise of their integration into their host society.”

Honest analysis, but too timid solution

Andrew Bolt

Greg Sheridan says Kevin Rudd’s new white paper on counter terrorism is much better than its many critics claim:

For example, have you heard Hezbollah terror groups are operating in Australia? It’s in the white paper, but not the media.

Have you heard the government has declared the level of terror threat a society faces depends on the size and composition of its Muslim minority? It’s in the white paper but not the media….

For example, the white paper states of violent jihadism: “The scale of the problem will continue to depend on factors such as the size and make-up of local Muslim populations, including their ethnic and-or migrant origins, their geographical distribution and the success or otherwise of their integration into their host society.”

This is a statement of the obvious but it is normally not allowed to be said. It begs the question: is it necessary for a liberal Western society to encourage immigration from predominantly Muslim countries with histories of significant minority support for extremism, when it is obvious such immigration will lead to big problems?

So far I’m with Sheridan. But I can’t quite buy his defence to the most obvious criticism – that a paper which announces the real threat now comes from within the Muslim community in Australia prompts measures almost entirely aimed at stopping boat people and visiting jihadists instead.

First, Sheridan caricatures the argument, and draws a false analogy with a country facing a far bigger and more entrenched Muslim minority, drawn from a more radicalised part of the globe, and brought into a country without our strong immigrant tradition:

Two chief lines of criticism of the government have emerged. One is that because the white paper and Kevin Rudd’s remarks concentrate on the growing home-grown terror threat, he should have announced millions of dollars for domestic counter-radicalisation programs, as is done in Britain. This would be a catastrophe… Britain’s anti-radicalisation program is a cross between a fiasco and a disaster. It has empowered extremists, defined extremely conservative Islam as mainstream and demoralised moderates.

And he draws also a false distinction between Australia’s society and Britain’s in suggesting an alternative solution:

The best counter-radicalisation program is a good, open decent society. Our settlement model is infinitely better than Britain’s.