Does integration prevent radicalization?
We want your views
We want your views
My comment, edited for typos, went as follows and it may or not be published in Clarion:
If we are speaking of Muslims, I would say no. Muslims would need to repudiate Islam or leave it as apostates. Because Islam is a totalitarian ideology melded to the “religion” of Islam, such an action would require intellectual honesty, a fealty to reality, and a dollop of courage in the face of death threats prescribed in the Koran or leave it as apostates. I also base my conclusion on the record of crimes by jihadists who are first- or second-generation Muslims, a record compiled and documented by Clarion and numerous other sites that report on the rapes, murders, knifings, and suicide-bombings committed by Muslims who have resided in the West for any measurable time. The more barbarous the origins of these Muslims (Somalia comes to mind, and there is also a racist element in Somalian crimes against Westerners), repeatedly commit the most heinous crimes and plead ignorance of Western mores and standards of behavior. The authorities and the MSM jump on a “mental illness” explanation before a victim is taken away in an ambulance.
Islam does not prepare average Muslims for any degree of intellectual enquiry on any subject, especially when it comes to the multitude of contradictions and fallacies inherent in the “faith” which would leave Socrates or Aristotle massaging their heads. Islam is anti-mind to the core, and does not much tolerate Muslims who “want to know.” Islam is a mortal enemy of free minds. This will help to explain why Muslim populations in Western countries represent a “silent majority” reluctant to or will not condemn jihadist outrages, and this silence is to my mind tacit approval of the crimes, even when Muslims are collateral victims of terrorist attacks (as there were on 9/11, e.g.). This tacit sanctioning may be based on fear of reprisals or on an inbred indifference to the death and suffering caused by terrorism. Islam is, among other charges one may level against it, profoundly anti-life and anti-individual, and so I shall always remain “Islamophobic.”
|Is it envy or is it hatred of the good for being the good?|
Clarion prefaced its article with:
We recently reported the FBI has an ISIS “kill list”. Many on the list belong to non-Muslim groups trying to help young Muslims integrate culturally into American society. Pro-jihadi websites are urging American Muslims to undertake "personal jihad" against those who are helping Muslims study or settle in the United States. They know that one more integrated US Muslim is one less Jihadi fighter.
Integration and education will help combat the influence of radicalist ideology.
Do YOU think that integration of young Muslims into American society will prevent their radicalization?
Please email your comments to email@example.com. Information we gather will be used to help our research and your comments may be published on our website unless otherwise stated.
I have always had a major problem with the employment of the terms “radicalization” and “extremism” when critics of Islam attempt to pigeonhole Islam into separate compartments, thus divorcing the actions from the thoughts that inspired them. Islam is nothing if not “radical” (in the political sense, and even in the ethical sense) and practicing the ideology in any degree is inherently “extremist.” Just as an average, due-paying member of the Nazi Party couldn’t be more “radicalized” than he already is (whether or not he joined the Party under duress or voluntarily), radicalized Nazis had their share of crimes and atrocities of the type committed as policy by the SS or the Gestapo. One could say the same thing about being “radicalized” by Communism; if your sympathies lie with the ideology then you’re in the club, whether or not you participate in firing squads or smash the windows of Jewish shops in Berlin or in manning gas chambers.
The term used by Clarion, “integration,” is likely used by it as a synonym for “assimilation.” I fail to understand the purpose of the substitution when the term assimilation has been used more often than integration when describing the purported adoption by “refugees” and “migrants” of the culture and mores of a Western country. To assimilate the new culture and mores is a voluntary action, while to integrate “refugees” and “migrants” connotes government action, a policy very similar to the American practice of “bussing” school children to far away schools to achieve “racial parity.”
However, given the resort to force employed by especially Germany it boils down to the government adopting a policy of integrating the indigenous population to Islamic and Sharia culture and mores. This is being accomplished by censoring social media and by penalizing indigenous Germans (and Swedes) who speak out against the government-fostered invasion of the country by hordes of “migrants” openly hostile to and contemptuous of Western values and for objecting to being forced to subsidize the invaders’ “resettlement” with welfare benefits, expropriated property to feed, clothe, and house them, and so on, only to see the coddled beneficiaries turn on indigenous Germans and Swedes in daily commissions of harassment, sexual crime, robbery, vandalism, and even murder.
|The smiles soon vanished after the first episodes of rape and murder.|
The terms employed by Clarion have another cause, which may or may not be acknowledged by the parties who want to hear what readers have to say: the unchallenged role of altruism in the Continent’s push for “integration.” Indigenous populations are being asked to sacrifice their lives and identities for the sake of those who possess neither, Islam placing no value on life, or on Muslims having no identity except as commutable, anonymous ciphers of an anti-life philosophy/religion. After all, we have seen repeatedly in news reports a complete absence of gratitude by the “migrants,” and instead regular assaults on their involuntary benefactors not only by the “refugees,” but by the governments, as well.