If you watch the EU and most corners of the world you would need to be blind not to be aware of the massive amounts of Muslim immigration. I am not anti-muslim people. I am no fan of the religion/governance (it is both via Sharia Law) yet I do not dislike the people on a group basis. There are people through their acts that I despise, but this is not unique to practitioners of Islam. Yet that is not the thought I had earlier today that I wanted to write about.
Islam has a thing similar to Jihad that is not talked about much. It is called Hijrah (sometimes spelled Hejira, Hijra, or Hegira). It can amount to invasion via immigration. If you don't want to consider it an invasion then let's discuss that for a bit. It is the spreading of Islam via immigration.
So what is the difference between an invader and an immigrant?
Could it be that an immigrant is interested in becoming part of the culture, and community of the place they are immigrating to? An invader on the other hand will be interested in replacing that culture and community with one of their design. To me this defines Hijrah. It is not about becoming part of a culture and community, it is about replacing it with Islam and Sharia Law. As far as I know that makes it an invasion.
I believe the results in the EU paint a picture to back up what I am saying. In the last decade many countries in the European Union have had their community, culture, and heritage set aside as they become more and more Islam and Sharia Law. Please note, I am saying Sharia Law and Islam even though Sharia Law is part of Islam for emphasis.
Now throwing the borders open and not only allowing this invasion to occur, but any pointing out of this, questioning, etc is being censored. It may also be hidden behind the verbal grenade/label "Islamophobia". Meanwhile it is okay to attack Christians, and other faiths with impunity and they have no similar protection.
I am neither a Christian or a Muslim, and while they both have dark parts in history I do know some things for certain. Islam is less about equality. It is anti-LGBT and killing, stoning, etc are authorized. It is anti-female rights. It is the opposite of separation of Church and State. In Islam the Church and the State are the same thing. It is backwards and in my opinion an avenue for evil. I do not think all the people are evil that follow it, but not only does it often allow evil to occur, it endorses it in its own tenants. It is far less peaceful by design than Christianity.
It could be changed. In fact some Muslims have changed it and do not practice the darker corners of Islam. Yet they are often attacked and challenged as being Apostates due to only accepting and practicing some of the tenants of Islam. "The religion of peace".
Perhaps they call it the religion of peace because they believe that when they have converted the entire planet to Islam then there will be peace. Yet the nations that are predominantly (or completely) Islam do not back this up.
I do not consider the actions of past administrations of the U.S. free of blame for kicking the proverbial ant hill that is the Muslim Nations in the Middle East and Africa. This has created things like ISIS, and the large scale immigration from such places since the ant hill was kicked.
While people can talk about winning the war on terror, which was a stupid idea anyway, they would be wrong. They have given the Terrorists exactly what they wanted. They have created a massive Muslim immigration/hijrah on a global scale. They have brought it closer to the idea of a Global Caliphate that many Muslims are a fan of.
Let's be clear. Islam is a Theocracy. It is religion and state as one. That is not a Republic, it is not a Democracy, it is not Communism, it is not a Corporatocracy, it is not a Technocracy. It is a government run by the religious elites.
So why do the would be communists seem to be working hand in hand with the Muslims and encouraging this mass global invasion of Islam and Sharia Law?
I ask why, because a Caliphate is not Communism. So somehow these would be communists think that they could usher in communism against the will of a religious ruling class, when the religion itself is willing to kill anyone that questions it's practices. (again... religion of peace?) It seems like a rather stupid move for the would be communists.
Perhaps not. That is where the Hegelian Dialectic comes in.
As there is uncontrolled immigration being promoted and it is destroying countries it is also creating a hate of Islam in people that have been displaced. They call it Islamophobia, but it has nothing to do with being AFRAID of Islam so that is a bad label. That label assumes Islam is viewed as power. It is anti-Islam, but anti-Islam and Islamophobia technically are different things. One implies fear, the other just states opposition. Anti-Islam is growing, and it is growing in places and people that had nothing against Islam until it was forced upon them and their countries, neighborhoods, schools, freedom of expression, etc were all destroyed by this Hijrah.
Hegelian Dialectic is to have a desired outcome, and to make that outcome happen you create the problem where it did not exist in order to have people demand your solution which leads to the desired outcome. The simplest example would be someone who had a vaccine they want to sell. The problem is there are not many people sick with what they vaccinate against. So to achieve their outcome they intentionally infect population so there is demand for their vaccine.
Looking long term I had some pieces fall into place for a possibility when I saw articles similar to those below:
- Muslim Detention Camps Are Like ‘Boarding Schools,’ Chinese Official Says
- China’s Detention Camps for Muslims Turn to Forced Labor
- China's detention of Muslims in re-education camps 'country's worst human rights abuse since Mao era', MPs told
- First Detention, Now Demolition: China Remakes Its Muslim Region
- China's Muslim detention camps
If we consider the vaccine being Chinese style Communism (many will argue they are not Communist, but they refer to themselves as such).
Then how might we convince the world to embrace it?
Well you could push for the spread of something throughout the nations of the world that is destroying and replacing their cultures, their religions, their freedom of expression, their history, etc. At the same time not allowing it to happen in China.
The friction caused by Hijrah would result in people that previously had no animosity towards Islam to begin drifting towards thinking that detention centers is a good idea. The process of dehumanization does not occur only by propaganda labeling people bad things (which it is not currently doing with Islam), but it also occurs by the victims of force by another ideology becoming more and more willing to do whatever it takes to stop those they perceive as destroying their lives and the lives of those they love.
Could this be why Communists work hand in hand with this push for a Muslim Hijrah activity on a global scale?
Once there is enough friction will the Chinese style detention camp become something people are pushing for?
How long until they turn into death camps?
If the Hegelian Dialectic is to reduce global population then the outcome of any of these processes would lead to that, as the detention centers would lead to mass conflict and death. Death camps would speed that up...
Chinese style Communism to the rescue?
Now I only put this as a possibility out there, and a new thought path I had today. I don't necessarily believe it is true. I just see it as one among a lot of possibilities.
What could be done to stop this for all parties, the Muslims as well as the other nations?
Simple: Stop this open border nonsense. Still allow immigration, but do it controlled. Invite people that will benefit your nation and that want to become PART of it rather than REPLACE it.
That would stop this in its tracks. In many cases you will no doubt find Muslims who are willing to be PART of your nation rather than replace it. Currently, there are a large number who have no interest in being PART. This is what is destroying the countries. The administrators of the countries are facilitating the destruction.
Why?
Hegelian Dialectic.