Fitzgerald discusses how, in every "infidel" land like Europe, Asia, or Africa where Muslims have immigrated, terrorism and unrest follow.
doesn’t it occur to anyone, looking around the world and noticing that
in every Infidel land, whether in Europe or in Asia or Africa, or in
formerly easygoing Australia, that the presence of large numbers of
Muslims has disrupted life for the indigenous Infidels? This presence
has caused their lives to be more constrained and unpleasant. It has
forced them to defend their own legal and political institutions
against constant assault.
But how specifically does this unrest manifest itself?
1. Billions of extra dollars spend on security
It has required them to spend billions upon billions in guarding their
own transportation centers (airports and airplanes, train stations, bus
stations, ports and ships), schools (Christian and Jewish in Western
Europe, Christian and Hindu in parts of Asia), religious institutions
(churches, temples), government offices of every kind, skyscrapers that
house the offices of American or British or other Western countries,
embassies, and so on.
2. Danger and fear for citizens in both Muslim and non-Muslim areas of Cities
Jews are warned not to wear outward signs of their faith in most of
Paris and in whole cities (Malmo, Rotterdam). Or large parts of cities
(see Marseille, see Bradford, Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester, London)
are declared dangerous for Infidels and for the forces of order. One
has to worry, even along the Champs-Elysees, about the attacks of
groups of Muslims on Infidels, both native and visitors.
3. Legal challenges to long-standing laws that safeguard justice and freedom
Where Muslims possess sufficient numbers, they behave with their wonted
aggressiveness in demanding here and there and everywhere changes in
the Infidel institutions in order to accommodate Muslims. And these are
all not as a final "compromise," but as the first in a long series of
demands that must be made in order to remove every "barrier" to the
dominance of Islam. Every attempt to retain those "barriers" (which are
nothing more than the Infidel legal and political and social
institutions, that those Infidels for some reason think they have a
right to preserve) is regarded as an act of "aggression" by those
Infidels against Islam — and that "aggression" therefore justifies all
kinds of violence as a necessary act of "defense."
But what are we to do? Fitzgerald dismisses our vain hope that we can accommodate Islam, since huge numbers of Muslims just do NOT integrate, but form enclaves, and eventually, the Believer/Infidel problems begin. In fact, he chides our blind approach to the consistent pattern of Islam, from its inception.
And one wishes to ask them why they keep avoiding the history of
Islamic conquest and of subjugation of non-Muslims. Why is the
treatment and fate of the dhimmi — that is, the "tolerated" or
"protected" (from Muslims themselves) non-Muslims under Muslim rule —
which is so unsurprisingly similar in all the lands conquered by Islam,
is not a subject of intense and widespread scrutiny. Instead, the
Infidels of this world continue to make policy based on wishful
thinking and willful ignorance.
But it is far more important not to import the Muslim-Infidel problem,
the state of permanent war between Believer and Infidel that Islam
inculcates, into Infidel lands. Yet we are importing it by continuing,
monstrously, and suicidally, to pretend that what is going on in all
the other Infidel countries that are now suffering from the large-scale
presence of essentially un-integrable Muslims will not happen here.
In fact, Muslim unrest of the Suni/Shia kind is already beginning in US cities like Dearborn, MI. How do we stop this cancer from spreading? Fitzgerald doesn’t even offer a solution, but I suggested many in Dealing with Islam: Passive or Active Resistance? , and there are those who are Fighting Islamofascism Like Cold-War Communism.