Over coffee in Budapest recently, a visiting European lawyer told me her son had withdrawn as a student at Sciences Po—the familiar name for the elite Paris Institute of Political Studies—because he no longer felt safe there. The reason? An atmosphere of intimidation around pro-Palestinian activism, and antisemitism.
The young man is a Christian, but he concluded that the Sciences Po administration had lost control of the situation and had no intention of restoring order. It wasn’t just the 2024 campus protests, which were eventually broken up by the police. It was more a matter of an overall culture of intolerance and bullying within one of France’s top institutions of higher learning.
Get used to it. As Europe moves steadily towards Islamization, this kind of thing will become the norm.
The French government knows it, too. Last month, someone in the Macron government leaked a confidential intelligence report detailing how the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated French society on many levels. The report, which was intended for the eyes of senior officials only, documents how the Brotherhood, a well-financed international Islamist organization, seeks to turn Western countries into sharia states, not through direct confrontation, but through a soft strategy of transformation from within.
This is nothing new. In 2007, a federal trial of a Hamas fundraising front operating in north Texas under the guise of an Islamic charity turned up a Muslim Brotherhood strategy document seized in an FBI raid (Hamas, according to Article Two of its charter, is the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestinian territories.) The document read:
The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a “Civilization-Jihadist” process with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack.
You would think that such a document would have drawn attention from the U.S. media, appearing as it did only six years after the 9/11 attacks. Nope. As I wrote at the time, the American media had no interest in it. Indeed, my years of reporting as a columnist on the Brotherhood’s radicalizing activities in the region, including through Dallas Central Mosque, the largest in Texas, brought intense pressure from local Muslim activists on my newspaper to silence me. In meetings with activists, they tried to portray me as a bigot dedicated to demonizing Muslims who just wanted to be part of the community.
In fact, I signed up for an online listserv for local Muslims. They discovered my presence within a day, but not before I had downloaded a number of messages in which they discussed the need to appeal to Dallas religious leaders to join in a pressure campaign to “ruin” me. Their strategy was to present themselves as peace-loving minorities who were being victimized by a crusading right-wing lunatic.
They did not succeed—because I had my facts in order and stood my ground, with my editor’s support, I continued to write. But neither my own paper’s newsroom nor any other local media picked up on the evidence I found. In one editorial meeting, a liberal editor from the newsroom accused me of focusing unfairly on Islamic extremism, when I ought to be paying attention to the danger from Christian conservatives.
So it goes. Islamist organizations know their enemies well. They know how to capitalize on the liberalism of Western institutional elites to bend them to their will. It works.
An extraordinary thing happened the other day in Britain. A Kurdish atheist was convicted on charges connected to his burning a Koran in protest outside the Turkish embassy. Hamit Coskun was found guilty of a “religiously aggravated public order offense” because, according to the judge, Coskun’s act was probably motivated by hatred of Muslims. Coskun contended that he does not hate Muslims, only Islam.
Free speech advocates correctly characterized the ruling as the de facto re-establishment of blasphemy law in Britain. Note well that Coskun did not attack a Muslim person. He burned a Muslim book. As distasteful as that may be, it must be understood as legally protected speech, as would be the burning of a Bible. The judge’s ruling sets a dangerous precedent in Britain, a country whose government currently permits Muslims to say all manner of hateful things in public protests, but which also severely punishes the speech of non-Muslim Britons for remarks critical of Islam and Muslims.
None of this is done out of love and respect for Muslims. It is done because authorities fear them. And it is also likely done because respectable establishment opinion usually looks favorably on people who can be construed as “the Other.” It’s the same reflexive mentality that caused that U.S. editor years ago to swallow the camel of Islamist extremism, even violent expressions of it, while straining out the gnats of peaceable fundamentalist Christians.
As in France, Britain will surely have more of this, as the country moves steadily towards Islamization via de-Anglicization. Fifty years ago, the UK Muslim population was around 0.6%of Britain’s total. Today, it stands at 7%—a staggering increase in a time period of less than a single lifetime.
Research published in The Telegraph this week projected that by 2050, more than one in ten Britons will be Muslim. By the end of this century, the ratio will be one in five. As Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban said last week, the political effect of this will be to disempower conservative voters, as European Muslims vote heavily for the Left.
In France, this “Islamo-gauchiste” strategy is widely acknowledged. Leftist leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a serious contender for the French presidency, often praises Islamic groups, and condemns “Islamophobia.” Today, the Muslim population of France stands at an estimated 13%—up three percentage points from only two years ago. Though it is hard to get reliable data, owing to France’s ban on collecting religious census data, it is believed that in 1975, only 3–4%t of Frenchmen were Muslim—meaning that the number of French Muslims has quadrupled in only half a century.
By 2050, France’s Muslim population will be nearing 20%. As in Britain, Muslims are concentrated in cities, where it is easier for them to maintain tight-knit communities resistant to assimilation. Additionally, 10% of French people today are migrants, with an estimated one in three Frenchmen being either migrants or descended from migrants over three generations.
This—a high population of non-natives, and ghettoization—is a major reason that King’s College London war studies professor David Betz says that civil war—defined as violent clashes between native populations on one side, and Muslims and migrants on the other—looms as a distinct possibility for western European countries.
Historians call the period of mass migration of German tribes into the western Roman Empire the “barbarian invasions” (though the term has fallen out of fashion, out of distaste for making negative judgments on these primitives). This denotes the time period between the first Germanic tribes crossing into Roman territory until the deposing, by the Gothic tribal chief Odoacer, of the final western Roman Emperor in 476. Europe today is making the same process far more efficient. After all, the Romans resisted those invasions; our European elites welcome them.
The fall of the Roman Empire was an unmitigated social, cultural, and economic catastrophe for Europe. It will be so again, if Europe doesn’t change course, fast. The de facto re-introduction of blasphemy laws in Britain, to allay Islamic anger, is only one sign of the times. It will not be the last.
The Barbarian Invasion of Our Time
Students of Sciences Po Paris hold a pro-Palestinian protest on October 8, 2024.
Dimitar DILKOFF / AFP
You may also like
How the UK Police Criminalised Christian Speech
Police officers across the country are arresting street preachers for publicly declaring their religious beliefs.
Trump Shows Europe How To Respond to Terror
The U.S. president’s reaction to the Washington D.C. shooting is how any serious country should answer an attack on its citizens.
Big Europe Has Lost the War Over Ukraine
The EU’s claim to be a global power player stands exposed as the fantasies of an ageing pretender.
Over coffee in Budapest recently, a visiting European lawyer told me her son had withdrawn as a student at Sciences Po—the familiar name for the elite Paris Institute of Political Studies—because he no longer felt safe there. The reason? An atmosphere of intimidation around pro-Palestinian activism, and antisemitism.
The young man is a Christian, but he concluded that the Sciences Po administration had lost control of the situation and had no intention of restoring order. It wasn’t just the 2024 campus protests, which were eventually broken up by the police. It was more a matter of an overall culture of intolerance and bullying within one of France’s top institutions of higher learning.
Get used to it. As Europe moves steadily towards Islamization, this kind of thing will become the norm.
The French government knows it, too. Last month, someone in the Macron government leaked a confidential intelligence report detailing how the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated French society on many levels. The report, which was intended for the eyes of senior officials only, documents how the Brotherhood, a well-financed international Islamist organization, seeks to turn Western countries into sharia states, not through direct confrontation, but through a soft strategy of transformation from within.
This is nothing new. In 2007, a federal trial of a Hamas fundraising front operating in north Texas under the guise of an Islamic charity turned up a Muslim Brotherhood strategy document seized in an FBI raid (Hamas, according to Article Two of its charter, is the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestinian territories.) The document read:
You would think that such a document would have drawn attention from the U.S. media, appearing as it did only six years after the 9/11 attacks. Nope. As I wrote at the time, the American media had no interest in it. Indeed, my years of reporting as a columnist on the Brotherhood’s radicalizing activities in the region, including through Dallas Central Mosque, the largest in Texas, brought intense pressure from local Muslim activists on my newspaper to silence me. In meetings with activists, they tried to portray me as a bigot dedicated to demonizing Muslims who just wanted to be part of the community.
In fact, I signed up for an online listserv for local Muslims. They discovered my presence within a day, but not before I had downloaded a number of messages in which they discussed the need to appeal to Dallas religious leaders to join in a pressure campaign to “ruin” me. Their strategy was to present themselves as peace-loving minorities who were being victimized by a crusading right-wing lunatic.
They did not succeed—because I had my facts in order and stood my ground, with my editor’s support, I continued to write. But neither my own paper’s newsroom nor any other local media picked up on the evidence I found. In one editorial meeting, a liberal editor from the newsroom accused me of focusing unfairly on Islamic extremism, when I ought to be paying attention to the danger from Christian conservatives.
So it goes. Islamist organizations know their enemies well. They know how to capitalize on the liberalism of Western institutional elites to bend them to their will. It works.
An extraordinary thing happened the other day in Britain. A Kurdish atheist was convicted on charges connected to his burning a Koran in protest outside the Turkish embassy. Hamit Coskun was found guilty of a “religiously aggravated public order offense” because, according to the judge, Coskun’s act was probably motivated by hatred of Muslims. Coskun contended that he does not hate Muslims, only Islam.
Free speech advocates correctly characterized the ruling as the de facto re-establishment of blasphemy law in Britain. Note well that Coskun did not attack a Muslim person. He burned a Muslim book. As distasteful as that may be, it must be understood as legally protected speech, as would be the burning of a Bible. The judge’s ruling sets a dangerous precedent in Britain, a country whose government currently permits Muslims to say all manner of hateful things in public protests, but which also severely punishes the speech of non-Muslim Britons for remarks critical of Islam and Muslims.
None of this is done out of love and respect for Muslims. It is done because authorities fear them. And it is also likely done because respectable establishment opinion usually looks favorably on people who can be construed as “the Other.” It’s the same reflexive mentality that caused that U.S. editor years ago to swallow the camel of Islamist extremism, even violent expressions of it, while straining out the gnats of peaceable fundamentalist Christians.
As in France, Britain will surely have more of this, as the country moves steadily towards Islamization via de-Anglicization. Fifty years ago, the UK Muslim population was around 0.6%of Britain’s total. Today, it stands at 7%—a staggering increase in a time period of less than a single lifetime.
Research published in The Telegraph this week projected that by 2050, more than one in ten Britons will be Muslim. By the end of this century, the ratio will be one in five. As Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban said last week, the political effect of this will be to disempower conservative voters, as European Muslims vote heavily for the Left.
In France, this “Islamo-gauchiste” strategy is widely acknowledged. Leftist leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a serious contender for the French presidency, often praises Islamic groups, and condemns “Islamophobia.” Today, the Muslim population of France stands at an estimated 13%—up three percentage points from only two years ago. Though it is hard to get reliable data, owing to France’s ban on collecting religious census data, it is believed that in 1975, only 3–4%t of Frenchmen were Muslim—meaning that the number of French Muslims has quadrupled in only half a century.
By 2050, France’s Muslim population will be nearing 20%. As in Britain, Muslims are concentrated in cities, where it is easier for them to maintain tight-knit communities resistant to assimilation. Additionally, 10% of French people today are migrants, with an estimated one in three Frenchmen being either migrants or descended from migrants over three generations.
This—a high population of non-natives, and ghettoization—is a major reason that King’s College London war studies professor David Betz says that civil war—defined as violent clashes between native populations on one side, and Muslims and migrants on the other—looms as a distinct possibility for western European countries.
Historians call the period of mass migration of German tribes into the western Roman Empire the “barbarian invasions” (though the term has fallen out of fashion, out of distaste for making negative judgments on these primitives). This denotes the time period between the first Germanic tribes crossing into Roman territory until the deposing, by the Gothic tribal chief Odoacer, of the final western Roman Emperor in 476. Europe today is making the same process far more efficient. After all, the Romans resisted those invasions; our European elites welcome them.
The fall of the Roman Empire was an unmitigated social, cultural, and economic catastrophe for Europe. It will be so again, if Europe doesn’t change course, fast. The de facto re-introduction of blasphemy laws in Britain, to allay Islamic anger, is only one sign of the times. It will not be the last.
Our community starts with you
READ NEXT
The Anti-Israel Tantrum Threatening To Break Eurovision
Silent Leader, Stagnant Nation: Romania’s Lethargy Laid Bare
Why Does the BBC Platform a Crank? Because He’s Their Crank