Angela Merkel is a racist
According the some of the Progressive definition of “racism,” the Prime Minister of Germany is racist because she has banned the berka – the full covering of a Muslim woman. How could any moral person do such a thing: discriminate against a religion, hate Muslim women, and suppress freedom of religion?
But of course, with a common definition of “racism” among Progressives, everyone is a racist, everyone but themselves of course. Everyone makes generalizations about groups of people. Everyone categorizes people according to the group they are in. Also, everyone feels inferior or superior to everyone else.
As an antithesis, many idealistic Progressives believe that it is immoral and false to see any negative qualities in any group of people. Thus they believe that Muslims, as a group, cannot have any imperfections and it is immoral and false to see any imperfections in them, as a group. Only an individual can be imperfect.
Probability, terrorism, and discrimination
Most people are “racists” because they think – and they think rationally. For example, most people have accepted the fact that everyday reality, in the end, is based on probability.
Let’s look at probability and Islam.
A fundamental belief in Islam is that the Koran is a literal and accurate description of God’s words, and they cannot be improved upon or modified in any way.
The Koran clearly states the following ideas (as well as contradictory ideas):
Muslims should not be ruled by infidels.
All Muslims must work (or fight) towards subordinating all people to the Koran. This is called “jihad.”
Muslims have the right to kill infidels the pursuit of jihad.
The left, center, and right wings of all groups
All groups of people can be generally described as belonging in the left wing, the center, or the right wing of their specific group. Concerning Muslims, a person can interpret the Koran with different emphasis, depending on what wing of Islam in which he belongs — the left, the right, or the center.
Thus a left wing Muslim may see Islam as a religion of peace, and that all Muslims want to do is to live in peace and harmony with their neighbors of different religions. They accept the fact that in most Western countries they they are in a democratic minority and are governed by infidels. They may accept the UN Declaration of Human Rights (Freedom or religion, freedom of speech, women’s rights, etc.). Perhaps over 50% of Muslim immigrants are in the left wing.
A right wing Muslim may see Islam in perpetual war with infidels, until all people should be subordinate to the teachings of Mohamed. They may believe infidels have no right to govern Muslims and that Muslims have a duty to pursue jihad in their new country. Perhaps around 25% of Muslim immigrants belong to the right wing. Most of these 25% may be willing to pursue jihad by peaceful, democratic means. But a small portion of this right wing (over 1% of the total Muslim immigrants) may believe they have the right — and even a duty — to pursue jihad by violent means, including “by any means necessary.”
The people in the middle wing — around 25% — are somewhere in-between.
Since Muhammad, besides being a prophet, was a military leader who conquered almost all of the Arabian continent and much of the Mideast, we can consider him in the extreme right wing of Islam. It is reasonable to conclude that if a Muslim man wants to emulate Muhammed, over 1% of them could believe they too should be a military leader, fighting for jihad — and going to paradise if they die while pursuing violent jihad.
Now, what about Germany?
Germany has recently accepted 1 million Muslim refugees.
We can reasonably estimate, at most, around 75% of the new immigrants are in the left wing of Islam. This would be around 750,000 of the new refugees may accept that Germany is basically a Christian and secular country, based on democracy, and are they content to remain a minority and be ruled by infidels.
We can reasonably estimate that at least 25% — or 250,000 — of the new immigrants in Germany are in the right wing. They want some version of Sharia established in Germany, but are willing work for jihad by democratic, peaceful means.
We can also reasonably assume that at a minimum, over 1% of the one million new immigrants are – or will be (especially their children) – in the far right wing of Islam. That is, they support violent jihad, if given a chance. This means that Germany now has 10,000 violent jihadists within her borders. Once these jihadists become citizens of Germany, they will automatically be citizens of the European community, and thus will be free to move to France, Italy, or any other European country in the European Union.
And this may be the primary reason England decided to opt out of the European Union. The voters may have felt that their small island couldn’t have sustained itself — as it now exists — with an unlimited immigration of Muslims, especially when over 1% of the immigrants will believe in violent jihad, as England has recently experienced. (If England remained in the European Union every violent jihadist in Europe — once they became citizens of the EU — would have the right to immigrate to England, where, for whatever reason, many of them want to eventually live.).
In an existential contradiction in modern political reality, these jihadists may prefer England because England is the most tolerant country in Europe, and practices the principles of democracy the most — especially the freedom of speech and religion. The jihadists want to enjoy these liberties while they work to destroy them.
Now let’s take a quick look at Sweden.
They recently immigrated Muslims that equalled 1/40 of their total population of 11 million, that is, 250,000 Muslims. (This is equivilent to the U.S. immigrating 9 million Muslims, since the U.S. has a population of 350 million.)
If 1% of these new immigrants are violent jihadists, this means that Sweden now has 2,500 Muslims who are willing to fight for jihad by any means necessary.
We will see in the near future how this turns out.
Let’s now look at Muslims and probability in the U.S.
Currently there are around 3 million Muslims in the U.S. This means that there are at least 30,000 Muslims in the country who support violent jihad. And this population is responsible for the periodic acts of terrorism, which will continue for the foreseeable future, especially we continue to support Israel’s existence.
It is also reasonable to assume that the greater number of Muslims we immigrate, the greater the number of violent jihadists will be here — at least 1% of whatever number we immigrate — and the greater probability of periodic acts of terrorism. This is why Trump and his supporters believe that we should restrict Muslim immigration “until we figure out what the hell is going on.”
Progressives, on the other hand, want to increase the number of Muslims we immigrate, so that we don’t discriminate on the basis of religion. This is a moral and idealistic policy decision. However, if we make this decision, we must accept the increased incidences of acts of terrorism.
Merkle may have accurately seen the wearing of the full berka as a manifestation of Muslim women refusing to integrate with the values of Western civilization — especially the values within women’s liberation and women’s equality. She may also have seen the wearing of the full berka as an advertisement for the values of Islam, must like wearing a cross can be seen as an advertisement for the values of Christianity.
As with every other policy, Americans and Europeans must be grown-ups and accept the consequences of our decisions. Until the international movement of violent jihad is resolved, an increase of Muslim immigration and an encouragement of Muslim isolation in Western societies corresponds with an increase of periodic terrorist acts.