It is hardly surprising that the New York Times would take the lead in linking the Norwegian terrorist to the right-wing, Christian conservatives and anyone who would speak out against the outrages that come out of the Islamic world on an almost daily basis.
The writer, Scott Shane, takes particular aim at bloggers and activists like Robert Spencer and Pam Geller. That is hardly fair. Virtually none of the individuals or organizations mentioned in this article has expressed anything other than shock and disgust of what happened Friday in Norway. Nobody is celebrating and nobody is expressing support for this evil act. Had the victims been Muslim, the reaction would be the same. It was wrong-period.
It is undeniable that many people, both in Europe and America, have spoken out against Islamic terror, as well as shariah law and its attempt to gain a foothold in the West. In Europe, especially, uncontrolled immigration has disrupted virtually every western European country. One reason is that Europe never attempted to assimilate their immigrants, most of whom came to do manual labor or came as refugees-real and imagined. Immigration is a positive thing as long as it is controlled and people come and stay legally. That immigration in the US and Europe has broken down (due to different factors) is clearly the fault of our political leaders.
It is true that decades ago, when the first Turkish Gast Arbeiters (guest workers) began arriving in Germany, many were met with discrimination. A German writer actually went undercover posing as a Turkish shop cleaner, experienced the discrimination, and wrote a book about it (Ganz Unten-"At the very bottom").
Things are different now. We have the specter of Islamic terrorism sweeping the world and militant Muslims on the march, many openly telling us that we will all become Muslim. That has offended many people on both sides of the Atlantic. In Europe, most countries - including Norway-are witnessing a dramatic upsurge in crime committed by Muslim immigrants, who, as stated, have generally arrived as part of worker-refugee families with little education and a resultant low degree of assimilation or any regard for the host country values and culture. Their abominable behavior-as always- hurts the decent Muslims in Europe just trying to live better lives and become part of their new country. That applies here as well. When a group like Hizb-ut- Tahrir holds a conference in Chicago and speakers get up and rant and rave about the US, while predicting a world-wide caliphate under shariah law, people are going to be offended. That is not racism.
It is undeniable that Muslims, especially in Europe, are not popular. Yet, is it simple Islamophobia or racism-as the Times writer would have us believe to be angry about seeing sections of major cities become areas where they dare not enter? Is it racist to resent entire streets in Paris being illegally closed off and used for Muslim prayers? Is it racist to fear that your country will not belong to the indigenous people in 20-30 years? Is it racist to resent riots in the streets by immigrants? Is it racist to resent the fact that Jews can no longer walk the streets of the cities they have lived in for decades wearing Jewish garb because of harassment and assault by Muslim immigrants? Is it racist to resent an ideology (political Islam) that will strip away the rights that people, especially women, Jews, gays and non-Muslims enjoy as a given? Is it racist to fear Islamic terrorism? Is it racist to rebel against hate and intolerance itself?
This is where the Times is blatantly unfair. This phenomena in Europe-and to a lesser extent in the US- cannot be laid strictly on the doorstep of white, Christian, conservative racists. If there were no such thing as Islamic terrorism, and Muslim immigrants simply wanted to find a better life in the West, it would be certainly racist to not welcome them just because they have a different skin color, speak a different language or practice a different religion. I think that Asian immigrants from the Far East fit into each of those categories, but they are not being met with the same resentment. Why?
The action of one crazed gunman cannot be used to paint entire classes of people. Yet, for the Times and the left, it presents them with just such an opportunity. First it was Timothy McVeigh; now it is Anders Breivik. Two deranged individuals; two horrific acts. This is not a trend. The people they represent is a minuscule group of fanatics. They do not represent Pam Geller or Robert Spencer. They don't represent Gates of Vienna. I read Gates of Vienna. I have heard Geller and Spencer speak. They do not call for the murder of anybody. Nor do I think they are calling for mass deportations, which would not be reasonable. What is reasonable is to crack down on the criminals and troublemakers and send them packing. It is also reasonable to tell would-be immigrants that they are expected to come legally, assimilate, obey the law and accept our values. If they do, I say, "Welcome."
The Oklahoma City bombing was in 1995. Oslo was 16 years later. If, God forbid, other such attacks occur, I would predict they will be few and far between. There will not be a rash of similar attacks by like-minded people. Yet, how many acts of terror inspired by Jihad have occurred in the 16 years between McVeigh and Breivik? There is no excuse for our politically-correct Department of Homeland Security to lose its focus and operate as though the threats are the same from both sides.
Yet, the challenge for those of us who are speaking out is not to be radicalized a'la Breivik and lash out at all Muslims. Most are not terrorists or even terrorist sympathizers. Most probably, deep in their hearts, don't care about the whole world being one big, fat Islamic caliphate. I still hold to the view that the Muslims I know appreciate the liberties they enjoy here in America. To them I say, "Stand with us against the bad guys."