Top Menu

Polish Magazine: “The Islamic Rape of Europe”

screen_shot_2016-02-17_at_3.07.21_pm

What was once old is new again. A Polish newsweekly that is popular on the right-wing published a racist magazine cover reminiscent of European fascist, xenophobic illustrations of the past. Poland has seen quite a number of Islamophobic and hateful events the past year, including a massive Islamophobic march in November but “The Islamic rape of Europe” cover line really takes the cake.

By Ishaan Tharoor, Washington Post

A popular right-wing Polish newsweekly, wSieci or “The Network,” published a deeply provocative magazine cover this week. It shows a young blonde woman, garbed loosely in the flag of the European Union, being groped by three men. Only the six swarthy arms and hands of the assailants are in view, but the message is clear and barely needs the brutal cover line: “The Islamic rape of Europe.”

According to the Daily Mail, the Polish magazine said it was focusing on “what the media and the Brussels elite are hiding from the citizens of Europe.” An editorial in its pages, entitled “Hell Europe,” inveighed against a culture of “tolerance and political correctness” that supposedly led to the grim scenes on New Year’s Eve in the German city of Cologne and other northern European town centers.

Groups of men, many apparently of Arab or North African descent, went on a shocking criminal rampage that led to hundreds of complaints to the police of rape, sexual harassment and other abuse. The incidents fed into an already growing backlash against European policies welcoming migrants and refugees, particularly an influx from war-torn Syria.

Continue reading…

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • AJ

    I understand that perspective but then again someone who cares that Israel doesn’t get the upper hand would also be concerned about Donald’s latest madness about Muslims.

  • AJ

    I ask that question since the same people that wouldn’t say a thing against kids having sex (and producing more kids) in the west will be lambasting what they call ‘child marriages’ (girls in their teens getting married) in the east. I am against either of it but I am not a hypocrite to say its alright for teenagers in the east to get married but then talk how kids having sex in the west is horrid.

  • Just_Stopping_By

    I don’t agree with all your positions or links, but this was informative and worth thinking about. Thanks.

    That said, the Malcom X quote leads to the question: on which policies do Trump and Clinton agree and on which do they disagree? And why (if the essence of the quote applies today) do the policies on which they agree mean more than those on which they disagree?

  • MichaelElwood

    JSB wrote: “I understand why Muslims may favor Republicans.”

    I don’t. I think that in the minds of some Sunni and Shia immigrants, being card-carrying republicans is proof that they’ve arrived in America. . . that they’re accepted as “mainstream”. But if you look at immigrant Sunni and Shia republicans like Nezar Hamze, Zuhdi Jasser and others, you’ll find that they’re still despised by Islamophobes. Just google them and you’ll see that a lot of the criticism they get comes from their fellow conservative republicans. If after all that ass kissin’ all they have to show for it is chapped lips and bad breath, why keep doing it? Are they masochists? Sycophants? Both?

    JSB wrote: “But the 7% is for Trump specifically. Especially given the GOP field on January 26, why him?”

    I think a case can be made that at least with trump, Muslims know exactly where they stand. Clinton is pretending to be a friend of Muslims while cozying up to Islamophobes:

    https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/rania-khalek/when-hillary-clinton-threw-arab-and-muslim-americans-under-bus

    The argument for Trump over Clinton is similar to the argument Malcolm X made when asked whether he supported Goldwater or Johnson:

    “I said I felt that as far as the American black man was concerned they were both just about the same. I felt that it was for the black man only a question of Johnson, the fox, or Goldwater, the wolf.

    “‘Conservatism’ in America’s politics means ‘Let’s keep the niggers in their place.’ And ‘liberalism’ means ‘Let’s keep the knee-grows in their place-but tell them we’ll treat them a little better; let’s fool them more, with more promises.’ With these choices, I felt that the American black man only needed to choose which one to be eaten by, the ‘liberal’ fox or the ‘conservative’ wolf-because both of them would eat him.

    “I didn’t go for Goldwater any more than for Johnson-except that in a wolf’s den, I’d always known exactly where I stood; I’d watch the dangerous wolf closer than I would the smooth, sly fox. The wolf’s very growling would keep me alert and fighting him to survive, whereas I might be lulled and fooled by the tricky fox. I’ll give you an illustration of the fox. When the assassination in Dallas made Johnson President, who was the first person he called for? It was for his best friend, ‘Dicky’ Richard Russell of Georgia. Civil rights was ‘a moral issue,’ Johnson was declaring to everybody-while his best friend was the Southern racist who led the civil rights opposition. How would some sheriff sound, declaring himself so against bank robbery-and Jesse James his best friend?

    “Goldwater as a man, I respected for speaking out his true convictions-something rarely done in politics today. He wasn’t whispering to racists and smiling at integrationists. . . . Under the steady lullabies sung by foxy liberals, the Northern Negro became a beggar. But the Southern Negro, facing the honestly snarling white man, rose up to battle that white man for his freedom-long before it happened in the North.

    “. . . .If it had been Goldwater, all I am saying is that the black people would at least have known they were dealing with an honestly growling wolf, rather than a fox who could have them half-digested before they even knew what was happening.”

    That’s a reasonable argument. But it’s not the type of argument being made by Trumps immigrant Sunni and Shia groupies. I think they really believe all that make America great again BS. But they don’t seem to understand that the time period that most Trump supporters want to go back to is the time before they came here. 🙂

  • Jekyll

    LOL the masses, not the GOP which is finished.

  • Jekyll

    Krauthammer, Kristol, Goldberg all with their panties in a bunch…

  • Jekyll

    Either way the same ppl that made a living on hate and fake conservative politics now are shocked that Frankenstein has to form…’cause thee is a strong chance he’ll turn on them!

  • Jekyll

    Meh, I lost interest due to his uber Zionist carp and self labeled Israeli cuckaservative..

  • Just_Stopping_By

    Maybe we can agree that people can either like or dislike Trump based on how they weigh various things he says and (apparently) believes in.

  • Jekyll

    Yeah see that for example the Zionist toilet stain Ben Shapiro at Brietbart, now openly ‘criticizing’ Trump after paving the pathway to the likes of Trump for years.

  • Just_Stopping_By

    I think you are missing my point. Even if you would rather have Trump, you can still dislike him but view him as the least bad/evil of the bunch.

    The question you posed was, “Why shouldn’t Muslims like Trump?” Even you call him “a spectacular liar” who would apparently admit that “We’re going to kill Muslims because that’s what we do.” Surely those are reasons to not like him, even if you think he is the least bad choice in a group of liars and murderers. And surely some Muslims can think that Trump is more anti-Muslim than others in the group and dislike him for that reason as well.

  • Jekyll

    Hell Fing yeah…do I like him? NO. Despise his xenophobic racist utterly pathetic side show tactics, but his victory will the first stop in ending The System and by gawd, I’ll take any septuagenarian puppet who would willingly or unwillingly End The System.
    Hell I hope Sander’s is VP!
    Trump OR Sanders 2016!!!!

  • Jekyll

    He’s the only one that at least takes a gasp before kissing Zionist beheind, like almost a thought goes into…unlike the other defacto bipartisan Zionist .

    Honestly the some Zionists Jews are bit worried because he is a lose cannon, who targets muslims openly but what happens when all his White Nationalists start to look else where? I mean how Muslims are there to target in America anyway? He could finish them fast enough…
    Trump A Zionist Wildcard instead of a pure bred a$$ kisser.

  • Just_Stopping_By

    Umm, even if I agreed with everything you say, it still doesn’t explain why Muslims shouldn’t dislike Trump. All it means is that they may have reasons to dislike a lot of people in politics and other fields

  • Jekyll

    Low opinions around for these uppity muslims…

  • Just_Stopping_By

    You’re kidding, right?

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politics/donald-trump-islam-hates-us/

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/

    These aren’t broad policy positions or views that happen to have an impact on Muslims. These are quite specific to Islam or Muslims. Now, maybe some Muslims find other features of Trump offset these, as AJ suggests (or are his personal friend, like Mike Tyson is). But there are certainly obvious reasons for Muslims not to like Trump.

  • AJ

    I would tend to think that it’s the Republican base that feels that Trump has the highest chance to beat Hillary. Of course, these could be people not caring about socialism or taxes and genuinely like Trump for some reason.

  • Just_Stopping_By

    I understand why Muslims may favor Republicans. But the 7% is for Trump specifically. Especially given the GOP field on January 26, why him?

  • AJ

    A lot of wealthy Muslims in the US favor Republicans since they don’t want their taxes to be raised by the Democrats. Most of these are physicians or businessmen.

  • AJ

    Are you against kids younger than 18 having sex in the west?

  • George Carty

    Civil_Rights_Man replied on a completely unrelated blog (I may not have replied originally if I’d known he’d been blocked here — could the admins tell me why this was?) so I’ll repeat that post here:

    By the way, I could not respond to your irrelevant remark about Churchill because the anti-free speech fascists from loonwatch blocked me as a poster. Like Churchill or not, the world would have been a different place if we attacked the Nazis in 1936. Millions of lives would have been spared.

    My response is that it is hardly irrelevant to point out that because Churchill was wrong in so many other respects (two big mistakes he made were the abortive invasion of Gallipoli in 1915, and the decision in the 1920s to rejoin the gold standard at its pre-war rate), he was less likely to be heeded even when he was right.

    It is completely unfair to blame the appeasement of Hitler on “lefties”, as appeasement was popular right across the British political spectrum. Conservative supporters of appeasement were motivated primarily by fear of the cost of another war, as well as by a fear that the defeat of Germany could clear the road for Soviet aggression against Europe.

    Churchill’s clique and the Communists were the only real dissenters until 1939, when the Nazi occupation of rump-Czechia followed by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact caused public opinion to switch.

    As it was, the only reason World War II was so destructive in the end was because the fatal interlocking of Allied and German war plans in 1940 allowed France to be crushed within a matter of weeks. How could anyone have predicted that back in 1936?

  • Friend of Bosnia

    Bravo. Thank you for sharing. Points 1 to 12 describe a large majority of Serbs and Russians exactly.

  • George Carty

    I don’t think it’s about anti-Arabism per se because in at least two of the most important European countries the Muslim population is overwhelmingly non-Arabic (Desis in the UK, Turks and Kurds in Germany).

  • Friend of Bosnia

    “After seeing the rather extreme attacks on some questioners higher up in
    these comments, it seems to me that some people on this site as unable
    or unwilling to extend the civility and forbearance they want for
    themselves, to others. Uncomfortable or challenging questions meet with
    verbal abuse.”, you wrote.
    So I should meet someone who wants to see my people dead or exiled, with “civilty”.
    “Challenging questions”, you say. Yes, questions challenging a people’s right to exist, and to live in freedom and dignity in their own land. And I should accept such a challenge with forbearance.
    I don’t see what’s wrong with calling a spade a spade. Islamophobes often talk the same talk that anti-Bosniak propagandists used in the media before the serbo fascists unleashed all hell on Bosniaks, and in Burma concerning the pogroms against the Rohingya it’s exactly the same.
    I have in my comment above, given some examples of what they say.
    Conclusion: I don’t take kindly to persons who talk that same talk. I don’t suffer fools gladly, and evil, malevolent, malicious fools in the bargain.
    If you expect an apology from me, forget it.
    Fascist, genocidal, pogromist hate speech is indeed enough to give me an ulcer. So I may be forgiven for wishing the worst in the world on those who utter it. I mentioned Hiroshima above. Well, I can tell you, I have been to Hiroshima, I have a very good idea what it must have been like, and even so I’m not taking back any of what I said about it.
    Mark my words: Those who would dump me in a mass grave should be dumped in a mass grave themselves.
    I could only spare them if they sincerely asked for my forgiveness.
    Maybe I don’t speak for all Bosniaks, but I’m sure that, should the Serbs try again to exterminate the Bosniaks, and should they fail in their attempt (as undoubtedly they must – they have failed at every single one of their previous attempts, all the damage they did and the atrocities they committed, and surely intend to commit, notwithstanding), the Bosniaks will show them very much forbearance and generosity if they allow any Serbs who weren’t on the Bosniaks’ side to continue living on the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  • George Carty

    It was probably BECAUSE Churchill was an imperialist dinosaur that his warnings about Hitler weren’t heeded earlier.

Powered by Loon Watchers