He doesn’t exactly put it that way. The title of his piece yesterday is simply:
Who Are Europe’s Most Important Politicians?
President of the Middle East Forum, Daniel Pipes is a historian/author with a primary focus on Islam and migration.
Invasion of Europe news….
First Pipes tells us that he had put his faith in Geert Wilders a few years ago, and although he still admires the Dutch politician, he says Wilders perhaps focused too much on the nature of Islam and not enough on what migration generally was doing to the Netherlands and Europe.
Here are a few snips from Pipes’ piece published in the Washington Times yesterday, here, and at the Middle East Forumhere:
After expressing admiration and explaining about Wilders, Pipes says….
Her foolish actions helped create powerful leaders like Hungarian PM Viktor Orban
That’s a good way of asking what our reporting for years seems to be leading to for Sweden. Yesterday Daniel Pipes writing at National Review Onlinereports on how close the Swedes are to committing cultural suicide.
Woe to anyone in Sweden who dissents from the orthodox view that welcoming large numbers of indigent peoples from such countries as Iraq, Syria, and Somalia is anything but a fine and noble idea. Even to argue that permitting about 1 percent of the existing population to emigrate annually from an alien civilization renders one politically, socially, and even legally beyond the pale. (I know a journalist threatened with arrest for mild dissent on this issue.) Stating that there exists a Swedish culture worth preserving meets with puzzlement.
Daniel Pipes: Before too long, the supreme issue of national suicide might actually be discussed. Photo: http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/pipes_daniel
And yet, the realities of immigration are apparent for all to see: welfare dependency, violent bigotry against Christians and Jews, and a wide range of social pathologies from unemployment to politically motivated rape. Accordingly, ever-increasing numbers of Swedes find themselves — despite known hazards — opting out of the consensus and worrying about their country’s cultural suicide.
Efforts by the immigration restrictionists—Sweden Democrats—to debate immigration are being squashed from both the political left and the so-called political right. I say woe to those countries without freedom of speech (no matter how unpopular the words are) because it leaves no place else to go but toward civil unrest and ultimately violence.
Maybe we should thank Sweden for helping the rest of us see and understand the lesson.
Back in 2013, we posted on an extremely good idea presented by Mr. Pipes—Let refugees stay in their own cultural zones.
Why won’t they? Because Mohammed told them to MIGRATE!
See our complete ‘Invasion of Europe’ series, here. Do you find it as puzzling as I do that there is so little mainstream media news coverage in the US of the on-going invasion of Europe? Or more accurately, there is some coverage of individual issues and incidents, but no one really tying it all together and placing the blame squarely where it needs to be—on out-of-control Muslim migration.
I love it! And, it makes so much sense you know it won’t fly!
But, it gives me an idea. Immigration restriction advocates are always on the defense when dealing with the open borders agitators demanding we should be “good” people and let ’em all in. Pipes has a suggestion—and we should all be promoting it in the media and with our US Senators and Members of Congress—resettle Muslim refugees in their own “culture zone” which Pipes calls “Arabia.”
The advantage for Muslim refugees in Arabia—no dogs, no pork, no scantily clad women, and no gay marriage to assault their religious sensibilities!
Here is his op-ed in the Washington Times today (hat tip: Paul)! I don’t want to steal his thunder, nor do I want to put in all his links, so please go read his proposal.
The problem:
About one-tenth of Syria’s 22 million residents have fled across an international border, mostly to neighboring Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey. Unable to cope, their governments are restricting entry, prompting international concern about the Syrians’ plight. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, suggests that his agency (as the Guardian paraphrases him) “look to resettle tens of thousands of Syrian refugees in countries better able to afford to host them,”
[…..]
…. many more Muslim refugees are likely on their way. In addition to Syrians, these include Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians, Egyptians, Somalis, and Algerians. Other nationals – for example, Yemenis and Tunisians – might soon join their ranks.
The solution:
To place Syrians in “countries better able to afford to host them,” as Guterres delicately puts it, one need simply divert attention from the Christian-majority West toward the vast, empty expanses of the fabulously wealthy Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as well as the smaller but in some cases even richer states of Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. For starters, these countries (which I will collectively call Arabia) are much more convenient to repatriate to Syria from than, say, New Zealand. Living there also means not enduring frozen climes (as in Sweden) or learning difficult languages spoken by few, such as Danish.
More importantly, Muslims of Arabia share deep religious ties with their Syrian brothers and sisters, so settling there avoids the strains of life in the West.
We have many times on these pages pointed out that rich Muslim countries (especially Saudi Arabia) take NO refugees. The International Left and the United Nations never utter a word of criticism (no surprise there!).
