Monday, October 16, 2006

Socialists, Multiculturalists and "trust levels"

Europe's Socialist parties have increasingly been making large gains in elections with the help of Musilm immigrants. But there is concern, even among Socialists, that Muslims are simply infiltrating Europe's Socialist parties, until they can be turned to serve the Islamic agenda. Could this be true?

Belgian and Dutch Parties Try to Put Genie Back in the Bottle
[...] In Antwerp the immigrants are now demanding an alderman’s post in the city government, which consists of the mayor and ten aldermen. In Brussels the Parti Socialiste (PS) is embarrassed at the election of Murat Denizli as a Socialist councilor. Denizli is a hardright Turkish extremist belonging to the Grey Wolves. In the Netherlands political parties are facing serious problems with Turkish candidates who refuse to acknowledge the 1915 Armenian genocide. [...]

Yesterday the Brussels newspaper Le Soir ran a front page article about the problems in the important Brussels borough of Schaarbeek. The paper says it had been widely known for three months that a member of the Turkish Grey Wolves was a Socialist candidate there. (It should be noted, however, that Le Soir, the largest paper in Brussels, failed to disclose this to its readers until yesterday, well after the elections.) The election of Murat Denizli, Le Soir says, has led to “open warfare and an identity crisis” within the PS because the Grey Wolves are know to be “ultra-nationalist, racist, anti-European.”

Denizli was introduced on the PS list by the Schaarbeek PS leader Laurette Onkelinx, who is also the Belgian vice prime minister and minister of Justice. Schaarbeek PS members told Le Soir that last April the local section of the PS had rejected the list of candidates which included Denizli and “other immigrants adhering to rather religious and conservative Muslim values.” Onkelinx, however, demanded that the candidates be accepted because “they are popular and the party had to win the elections at any price.” Today it bothers many traditional indigenous Socialists who failed to get elected that the party sold out to the immigrant hard-right and the Islamists. “The end justified the means,” one of them told Le Soir. They are condemning a multilingual electoral campaign which was conducted partly in Turkish and Arab and during which Socialists visited mosques to attract voters and held “ambiguous speeches denying the Armenian genocide.” “Whenever one of the Belgo-Belgians [the indigenous Belgians] complained he was told off for being a racist.” [...]

Looks like the socialists will do anything to grab power. But what will happen when it's time to pay the piper, even if they don't like the sharia tune?

Tribes in Europe and the Disappearance of Trust
2006 will go down in European history as the year when Muslims as a group became a dominant factor in elections. The demographics indicated this long ago, but it still came as a surprise to many multiculturalists that Muslims tend to vote primarily along ethnic lines: Muslims vote for Muslim candidates, even if the political parties give the latter almost unelectable places on the list of candidates. As a consequence the Muslim candidates got elected to the detriment of indigenous politicians. Party leaders, who used to be able to get those candidates elected which the leadership favoured, have been taken by surprise by Turks voting only for Turks and Moroccans voting exclusively for Moroccans. The parties that put Muslim candidates forward are being “cannibalized” from the inside. They risk being taken over by radical Muslims. This is what is happening to the Socialist parties in Belgium and the Netherlands.

The article proceeds to take an in depth look at trust levels, how they are formed and how they work, in European culture, and in the Middle East. There are some striking differences. Europeans tend not to trust clans or family, as much as they do the Nation-State, their fellow citizens and the rule of law.
[...] Why does trust matter? The Western societies we know would grind to a halt if we did not trust authorities, such as courts, the police, tax inspectors, to uphold the rule of law rather than take a decision based on kinship. We would not invest in or work for companies which decide about the promotion of employees or product prices on the basis of kinship rather than merit or price. We would not send our children to school if we did not believe children would be treated equally, with no favored treatment for relatives of the teachers. [...]

All this is quite different in the Muslim world or in Africa, where traditionally no nation states have existed to protect individual citizens. In such societies individuals inevitably have to fall back on their clan for protection. In the case of Islam there is another trust layer apart from the clan: the Umma, which is the community of all Muslims. Islam teaches extreme (by current Western standards) allegiance of believers to the Umma, and hence the trust profile of Muslims is unique : the individual is relatively unimportant compared to the clan or the community of believers, there is very high trust in the family and clan, very low trust in fellow citizens of the same nation and relatively high trust in fellow Muslims, wherever they are in the world. The latter helps explain why Jihad, conquests by Islam, has been so successful throughout history, and why it is so difficult for democracy and the rule of law to take root in Muslim countries. Such fundamental cultural traits have taken centuries to shape and do not change easily. [...]

While in the Muslim world, there is not complete agreement about interpretation of the Koran and the practice of Islam, there are core beliefs that transend the differences in sects. It's not hard to understand how competing sects could still cooperate against infidel outsiders who are not a part of the Umma. It's not hard to understand why members of the Umma would embrace an opposition party they disagree with in a host country, to simply use it for their own purposes.

Can it happen in the USA?

As the left in Europe embraces sharia Jihadists in their grab for power, one has to wonder if we are not seeing the same thing happening in the US, with our own Democratic Party. Their "talking points" often mesh so well with the video taped messages the terrorists keep making. And now, the Democrats may even succeed in electing the first Muslim Congressman in the US, Keith Ellison, even though he receives financial support and other kinds of aid from a self-identified supporter of Hamas:

Will Dems Embrace Candidate Backed by CAIR?
[...] Democratic credentials on national security could be undermined if they fail to denounce a candidate closely allied with someone that a senior Democrat described as having "intimate connections to Hamas."

Known for months has been that Ellison was involved in the 1990's with the Nation of Islam, which even he now concedes is racist and anti-Semitic. In a letter of apology to the local Jewish community, Ellison claimed that he was never a member of the NOI and thus didn't realize until later the organization's ugly ideology. But according to press accounts at the time, Ellison served as NOI spokesman at a 1997 public hearing where he defended--in his own words--"the truth" of a government official's supposed comment that "Jews are the most racist white people.".

Only learned recently and far more troubling is Ellison's seemingly tight connection with Nihad Awad, co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), whom he met almost two decades ago at the University of Minnesota.

Ellison's campaign obviously has downplayed the affiliation with Awad. But here are the facts: Awad headlined a fundraiser last month that the campaign estimates netted $15,000 to $20,000, and in July, and it appears that CAIR's co-founder bundled contributions totaling just over $10,000. (The campaign issued a terse denial on the latter point, though it refused to explain away overwhelming evidence to the contrary.) The campaign has gone so far as to suggest that Awad did all this without having any contact with someone he's known since the late 1980's.

The Democrat's supporters have taken a different tack. Rather than defend Awad or downplay his connections to the candidate, Ellison partisans have attempted to paint attacks on the candidate as overtly partisan or even bigoted. A Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist, for example, recently suggested that Ellison is under attack solely for being Muslim. [...]

Just as in Europe, if you question what a Muslim does, the left calls you a racist, which is supposed to stun you into silent submission.

I say, lets not do that. Lets not be cowed by leftists using the race card. Lets learn something from Europe's mistakes. Questions need to be asked.

Ellison's campaign, and the Democrats, needs to be watched closely.

Related Links:

Muslims help Socialists make big gains in recent Belgian elections


Internet, talk radio blamed for 'anti-Muslim violence'
Terrorist front group CAIR is at work again. When you can't deny the message, attack the messenger.

No comments: