Again, this column is also about the epistemological epilepsy of our political elite. And the political elite’s unreal metaphysics.
As noted in an illustration tag in Part One, the sustainability of a European Islamic State, which is all the Continent’s current immigration policies can lead to and end with, will depend in large part on the ignorance of its itinerate and hapless citizens – Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Once it reaches that stage, and Shariah law becomes the legal byword, non-Muslims will be obliged to assimilate into a largely Islamic culture.
Rank-and-file Muslims will be naturally ignorant and will have no problem adjusting to the new society of diversity. Non-Muslims, however, will have great difficulty keeping their mouths and minds shut as they are relegated to second-class citizen status.
To ensure that Germans, Swedes, French, and so on participate peaceably in this unprecedented reverse assimilation with the least possible problems, non-Muslims must, first, remain ignorant of the true peril to their lives and futures by becoming dhimmis, and, second, be prohibited from voicing their objections under the penalty of Shariah law. For Shariah law will replace whatever legal codes exist now in those countries. Current legal codes, amended to conform and mirror those of Shariah, will be but paper tigers. The judicial status of non-Shariah law will be but a sham.
- The European Union Commissioner who advocates across-the-board censorship of any opposition to the conversion from Western legal codes to Islamic codes and the subjugation of Europeans to Islam, is Vera Jourova, a Czech who is the EU’s Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, in the Juncker Commission. Her remarks, voiced and recorded at the Colloquium on Fundamental Rights – Tolerance and Respect: Living better together in Brussels on October 2, 2015, are the most blatantly evil of the trio of bureaucrats I have discussed here. As Fjordman noted in his Gates of Vienna article, “The EU Elites’ Positive View of Islam” from October 14th, “Commissioner Jourova indicated that the EU will clamp down even harder on so-called ‘hate speech’ directed against immigrants.” Here are her venomous recommendations at the Colloquium:
“If freedom of expression is one of the building blocks of a democratic society, hate speech on the other hand, is a blatant violation of that freedom. It must be severely punished. As some of you noted, over the past few weeks, we have witnessed a lot of solidarity towards refugees. But we have seen a surge of xenophobic hate speech. Some of you advocated enrolling the help of online intermediaries such as Google or Facebook to take down hate speech from the web. Other participants rather underlined promoting the use of counter-narratives. You also highlighted the need for clearer procedures to prosecute those who spread hate speech online. I was pleased to hear media and Internet providers’ experiences and to hear their commitment to work with us. I fully agree with you on these lines of action.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel pulled an Obama-style “hot mike” gaffe of her own when she was heard imploring Mark Zukerberg of Facebook to do something to curb or eliminate “hate speech” from Facebook. The Washington Times reported on September 30th that:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel was overheard on a hot mike confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over anti-immigrant posts, amid complaints from her government that the social network isn’t doing enough to curtail racist comments.
She makes no distinction between “hate speech” and “hate crimes,” as defined by Western legal codes (in Shariah law, they are mere instances of blasphemy). The very concept of “hate crimes,” however, is illegitimate in the first instance, because a crime committed and motivated from “hate” should be treated as a mere felony. Speech (other than libel and slander) and motivations should not be treated as “crimes.” Allow that to happen, and you’re on the road to censorship.
However, Jourova’s notion of “hate speech” as “hate crime” echoes Winston Smith’s observation that “thoughtcrime” does not entail death. Thoughtcrime is death. It’s guaranteed. Think bad thoughts, and you’re doomed. It’s best not to think.
It’s of no concern to Merkel and Jourova that while Muslims maintain their own Shariah-bound satrapies in these cities, which not even European police and fire fighters and many Western journalists want to enter (not that they’re much welcome anyway) because they get stones and other objects thrown at them, the male residents don’t mind making forays into Dar al-Harb for a bit of rape, robbery, gang assaults, and murder.
Jourova and Merkel might admit that these crimes are deplorable, but they won’t acknowledge that these regularly recurring crimes are not considered crimes at all by Islam and Islam’s chief scholars and spokesmen, that they are part and parcel of Islamic ideology. They don’t want to know it, and if you persist in telling them or anyone else that, they will want to have you arrested and punished for “defaming” a “great religion.”
And not wanting to know about it, not wanting to hear about it, not wanting to see the abundant evidence of it, points to a very serious -and, as it turns out, a very dangerous – state of mind that would best be contained in the same kind of insane asylum in which Antonio Salieri expired.
The European Union – shortly to be unofficially known as the European Caliphate – is being run by men and women who have displayed marked symptoms of dementia, a condition that is quite in sync with Islam’s own brand.
Full article: The Mental State of the Political Elites: (Part II of II) (Family Security Matters)