Minor news items can at first appear to be insignificant and as such “useless” for the commentator. However, once a stroke of lightning provides the connecting idea, these items become united in an unanticipated context. Once this happens, the small pebbles transmute into the supporting beams of a significant story. This is what happened in the case of the news bits behind this essay. 

The other day, a Polish friend’s e-mail dumped pictures on my desk. They were of the kind that the official media overlooks. Presenting such “censured” material makes the alternative news-world of the internet thrive regardless of the disapproval of the political class and its peeved organs. One of the matching pieces of the puzzle is a protest in England. The material consists of posters carried by Islamist demonstrators. 

The other component that rounds out the material comes from an interview of Tunesian refugees in Lampedusa (an island in the Mediterranean) that barge their way into Europe. Both bits of evidence compromise those that have created them. That shortsightedly the thought that their “speech” will help their cause demonstrates the alienation from the modern world that is to harbor them.

Let this begin with the pictures that, as photos, cannot be duplicated here. The e-mail with the images named no source. The inferior photography, taken by cameras integrated in phones, also speaks against duplication. The loss is not critical. It is the verbal point that endows the message with significance.

The advertised views are rich in notable formulations such as “Freedom go to hell.” Obviously not the cancelling of the demonstrator’s right to free speech is meant here. Much rather, limitations imposed by the laws of the place where the protester chose to live is the target of objection. It is the rules curtailing actions to the detriment of the rights of the host society that are dismissed when “freedom”, guaranteeing the rights of all is wished to “hell”. The point is simple. “Your freedom to refuse us license is denied, while your right to continue to live in your way must be cut curtailed as it displeases us”. 

Several of the appeals were directed to “Europe.” Such as ”Europe you will pay, 9/11 is on its way.” The same tune is taken up by “Europe you will pay, demolition is on its way”. Justifying the promise, the slogan is “Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer”. Equally sensitive is “Europe, take some lesson from 9/11”. After this rating of the merits of the culture that gave them refuge, there might be open questions regarding the substance of the threat. “Be prepared for the real holocaust” settles uncertainties about the program, its source of inspiration and the commitment to its implementation. 

The catchphrases are not warnings to “Europe” but blueprints for action. These sampled articulations of intent depart slightly from the multi-cultural norms invoked by those whose tolerance grows with the magnitude of the threat directed against them. “Slay those who insult Islam” covers most conceivable situations. So is “Exterminate those who slander Islam”. A variety on the same theme might be “Massacre those who insult Islam”. Helpfully, “Butcher those who mock Islam”, suggests the method to achieve the noble end. Here “Behead those who insult Islam” is medically quite precise and is, as demonstrated, an effective way to deal with the recalcitrant. 

The list seems to betray a concern. The advocates of Islamism appear uninterested in the kind of “dialogue” that PC fans favor while they implement multiculturalism. Here a dim view is taken of “insults” inherent in coexisting with other persuasions. Rightly so as the problem will disappear once, as promised by a sign, “Islam will dominate the world”.

It is of course possible to describe these people as “unintegrated” and to suggest that more remedial outreach programs are needed. Once can claim that the utterances were clumsily phrased to whip up a sense of “self-respect” and of “community”. More seriously, the placards can be evidence that those that display them have, as they assert, contempt for the blasphemous addressees. The language used is unsuited to convert those in need of redemption. Even less are the signs likely to move the unenlightened to embrace voluntarily the cause praised by the demonstrators. 

The contemptuous language tells more through its implications than does the text. The unveiled scorn is appropriate only when a party to the dispute is defeated. In that condition, it is incapable of defending itself and the victor can impose his will. In such cases, the winner must not be concerned with the reactions of the vanquished. “Freedom go to hell” should be seen in this context. The phrasing reveals the rights to be granted to the defeated current majority in the new order to come.

Some viewers might think that dismissing freedom points to an inconsistency. Are the demonstrators not a numerical minority that challenges the way of life of the majority? Such a minority needs the protection included in “freedom” to bait without risking retaliation by the despised majority. The position taken by the demonstrators betrays their perception of the situation. They regard the self-prostrated majority incapable to retaliate and as inhibited by its own principles to defend its integrity.

Groups that manifest this attitude are not properly defined as an “immigration”. In fact, they are the spearhead of an invasion. The second “bit” mentioned in the introduction supports this point. A Tunisian “refugee” has contributed it. (Note that Tunisia has just been liberated from its tyrant.) 

Questioned about his response to the lacking reason to be granted refugee status, the arrogant man gave a revealing answer. It ran something like this: “I want to live in Europe. Therefore, I will live in Europe.” This dismisses the rules of his reluctant host society. Indeed, it is easy to circumvent the laxly enforced statutes. Therefore, you can bet that the man’s will and not the rules of “Europe” will determine his fate. How he will comport himself after his settlement is easy to guess. That the feebleness that tolerates such violations deserves contempt and that it elicits disrespect instead of gratitude, is obvious. The young man will not be the beneficiary of a privilege but of permissiveness. This permissiveness has its roots in weakness and not in humanitarian principle. Sensing that will undoubtedly influence the uppity “applicant”. Therefore, given some time, he will join those that carry the posters his ilk displayed in London.