Freedom Loving Infidel

Increased Security Levels

2010-01-31T16:03:00.008Z

Just in from cyberspace!

(actually shamelessly plagiarised from another blog by Tiger, my Equality and Diversity Director, shortly before his narrow escape at the hands of a rabid Muslim suicide tomcat armed only with a copy of "The Pussies Guide to the Koran" and a collar packed with high-density remote-control exploding fishcakes.)

-----

Increased Security Levels: Britain

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have raised their security level from "Slightly Miffed" to "Mildly Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may have to be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorised from "Tiresome" to a "Bloody Nuisance." The last time the English issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was during the great fire of 1666.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "See You Jimmy, Who The Fuck Dae Ye Think You're Looking At" through "Fuck Off Reet Noo" to "Reet, Let's Banjo The Fuckers." They don't have any other levels. This is the main reason they have been used on the front line in the British army for the last 300 years.

The Irish have raised their alert level from "To be sure, you don't want to be worrying about dem little guys in turbans, dey're harmless enough, sure dey are" to "Begorrah, Paddy, would you look at dat! Dem little brown fookers have only hijacked Murphy's tractor and driven it into the duckpond outside Dublin Airport."

The Welsh have also raised their security levels - from "baaa" to "BAAAA!" In addition, extra supplies of duct tape have been stockpiled to deal with the potential risk of the hind legs of sheep becoming detached from farmers' Wellington boots during an apocalyptic nuclear explosion and the resultant fallout.

Increased Security Levels - Europe

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralysing the country's military capability.

However, it's not only the French who are on a heightened level of alert.

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout loudly and excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

Sicily, on the other hand, has raised it's alert level to "Nice-a little Muslim community you got-a there, Mohammed. Be-a shame if anything was-a to happen to it. Know what-a I mean?"

The Germans have also increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose" (with the associated caveat of "Ve vere only obeying orders, honest!")

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual, and the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels. A leaked security document shows the one and only alert level to be "Grease arse copiously with Vaseline, bend over and grasp ankles securely."

The Spanish, while content for the moment to leave their alert level at "manana, manana" are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Increased Security Levels - Rest of World

Americans have raised their alert level from "Don't you mess with my country if you know what's good for you, you dumb-ass raghead" to "Jeezus, where did that goddam tower block go? Now I'm really gonna kick your motherfuckin' ass!"

The Americans are also carrying out pre-emptive strikes on all of their Middle Eastern allies, just in case. (Although the Obama administration is at pains to point out that just because a daisy-cutter has obliterated your herd of mountain goats, that doesn't mean that outreach to the Muslim world is any less important than it was before.)

Like Wales, New Zealand has also raised its security levels - from "baaa" to "BAAAA!" but without the stockpiling of duct tape for Wellington boots. (except in Wellington, naturally.)

Due to continuing defence cutbacks (the air force being a squadron of spotty teenagers flying paper aeroplanes, and the navy some toy plastic boats in the Prime Minister's bath), New Zealand only has one more level of escalation, which is "Fuck, I hope Australia will come and rescue us."

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright mate, let's crack open another couple of Fosters."

Three more escalation levels remain, "Crikey!", "I think we might need to cancel the barbie this weekend" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.

The Chinese have raised their security level from "You want soy sauce with that?" to "|You no be so fucking cocky if you knew my brother was in Triad!"

-----

The increased security levels around the world have prompted predictable rumblings from the Muslim community, especially here in Birmingham where I live, however seasoned observers have put this down to a particularly nasty contamination in the local vindaloo curry paste factory.

On a separate note, Tiger, my Equality and Diversity Director, has petitioned the one-eyed malodorous Scottish git, also known as the PM Gordon Brown, for a nationwide ban on the sale of any materials that might conceivably be used in the construction of high-density remote-control exploding fishcakes to all Muslim tomcats.

He already has the 50,000 signatures (carefully culled from the 2010 Birmingham Fraudulent Postal Vote Database) and the £10,000 bribe required for our local MP to raise the issue at PM's Question Time.

Although I have pointed out to him that it's not easy to tell a potentially rabid Muslim suicide tomcat from a more moderate Muslim tomcat, and that such profiling might inflame the Muslim tomcat community as a whole, he is still of the opinion that in the interests of national security, a clampdown on all Muslim tomcats will be necessary sooner or later. He has even suggested that the compulsory insertion of a small microchip, perhaps under the skin in the nape of their neck, might assist the authorities in tracking their whereabouts.

While it is certainly a radical suggestion, I have to say that I do have some sympathy with his point of view. We will have to see how this pans out.

I'm really pleased to see......

2009-03-04T14:39:00.005Z

.....that Geert Wilders has had such a great welcome in the United States.

Here

Here

and here.

It's too bad that our own government here in the UK didn't have the cojones to let this brave, principled and much-maligned man speak truth to power.

At least his political party is currently #1 in the opinion polls in the Netherlands - Woo Hoo!!!

If only we could swap him for the malodorous one-eyed Scottish git currently occupying 10 Downing Street (as Jeremy Clarkson might have said.)

Just in case you were wondering.....

2009-03-04T13:50:00.007Z

.....why it's so important to take out Iran's nuclear facilities NOW.....

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/03/beginning-of-end.html

I have a small side bet going on with my recently-promoted Equality and Diversity Director to the effect that if Iran is allowed to continue development of nuclear weapons, then within five years, Israel will be hit with nuclear bombs. That's March 2014, if anyone wants to take me up on it.

And if Israel goes down, all Freedom Loving Infidels will be next.

My Equality and Diversity Director thinks otherwise. He thinks that an international initiative of peace and love, followed up with generous shipments of processed chicken and tuna steaks to the people of Iran to show our goodwill, will avert such an apocalyptic scenario.

But then, he is a cat after all. I'm not so sure that I should trust his political instincts. Particularly as he's taken to reading the Guardian (a left-leaning newspaper here in the UK, subscribed to mostly by loony liberals.) Although he assures me he only does it for the crossword.

The value of a human life.....

2009-02-25T14:42:00.001Z

.....not so very much, when put into context with maintaining a Muslim peer's reputation.

Is anybody else as outraged as I am over this light sentence?

Banning Wilders

2009-02-19T13:25:00.005Z

A must-read article by Theodore Dalrymple.

When I was a prison doctor, not a few prisoners would demand tranquillizers from me, claiming to be so agitated that they would soon kill someone if they were not calmed down.

This was the kind of blackmail to which some of the doctors, especially the younger ones, did give in; but I quickly learned that it was both morally wrong and inexpedient in practice to do so.

The conversations would go something like this:

‘I need my valium, doctor.’
‘Why?’
‘I’m all wound up.’
‘What about?’
‘If I don’t get my valium, I’ll kill someone.’
‘I advise you very strongly not to.’
‘If I don’t get valium and I kill someone, it’ll be on your conscience.’
‘No it won’t. It is you who will be guilty. I am not responsible for your actions.’

If the man persisted in his threat, I assured him that I should still eat my dinner and sleep soundly even if he carried out his threat.

I appeared firmer than I felt. I had little doubt that if he did commit a murder, not my conscience but the official enquiry afterwards would blame me, because officialdom and professionals are now deemed to be in loco parentis to all those who come under their purview, and therefore responsible for their actions.

No man did carry out his threat, however; and I knew from experience that if I gave in to their blackmail I would never hear the end of it.

In writing a prescription, I would have created a rod with which to beat my own back: before long, the man would return, claiming that the amount I had prescribed was insufficient to ‘hold’ him, that he needed more, and for longer, indeed for ever; and the ensuing scenes in my office would grow ever more desperate and threatening. I discovered that the best policy was to let your nay be nay, as the Good Book puts it; indeed, I became known as ‘Dr No,’ and in time the threats died out. I sought not popularity, which in those circumstances, as in so many others, is akin to contempt, but respect; a reputation for doing all in my medical power to assist the genuinely ill and suffering, allied to an absolute refusal to be led down any garden path.

Let us now turn from the sublime (prison) to the ridiculous (the British government). In its wisdom, that august institution declared that the Dutch member of parliament, Geert Wilders, who is invariably designated as being of the far-right, a prohibited immigrant, and refused him entry into our green and pleasant land. The Mother of Parliaments is fast turning into the Step-mother of Parliaments.

As everyone knows by now, Mr. Wilders made a short film called Fitna (Struggle), arguing in a powerful rhetorical way a causative connection between certain verses in the Koran and brutal acts of modern terrorism. The film is uncompromising, to put it mildly; and whether or not Mr. Wilders’ interpretation of the verses is correct, few could deny that at least some Moslems have taken it to be correct. They have differed from Mr. Wilders only in their moral evaluation of the injunctions that they have both found in them. He thinks cutting off the heads of unbelievers is a bad thing, they think it a good thing.

Those who argued for the exclusion of Mr. Wilders from our haven of peace and prosperity claimed that his presence would stir up trouble, perhaps even violence, and that (therefore) he and his film constituted an incitement to hatred.

This, of course, is ludicrous. I have no doubt that Mr. Wilders despises Islam; he probably thinks that its prophet, far from being a model for mankind, is presented as a man with many and serious faults; its holy book a derivative mish-mash with bad passages thrown in, practically unreadable to all but believers; its influence in the world wholly deleterious, imprisoning hundreds of millions of people in a world view that is incompatible with modernity.

But it is his right to think and to say all this; and at no point has he ever suggested that anyone should harm a Moslem, nor would anyone believe that it were an extenuation of such an attack that the perpetrator had seen his film or listened to his pronouncements. His view of Islam, while crude and provocative, is no more crude or provocative than that of the views expressed by many Moslems of what they call Hindu polytheism.

Of course, Mr. Wilders is not a man who believes that free speech should have no limits. He has himself argued for the banning of the Koran on precisely the grounds that it is an incitement to hatred, violence and murder; I need hardly rehearse the arguments against this preposterous proposal.

It is obvious that if anyone were moved to violence by the presence of Mr. Wilders in the country, the responsibility would be the perpetrator’s and the perpetrator’s alone. In a free society, you are at liberty to be as indignant and offended as you choose, by whomever and whatever you choose; but you have to conform your conduct to the law. You have no right to consider your own indignation as evidence in itself of incitement. That way totalitarianism lies.

The contemptible moral cowardice of the British political class was perfectly illustrated by an article that appeared on the website of The Guardian newspaper by the prominent Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, Christopher Huhne. His utter pusillanimity is evident in the following: Fitna’s shocking images of violence and its emotional appeals to anti-Islamic feeling risk causing serious harm to others.

As so often with sentences written by the pusillanimous, it would take an entire essay to reveal all the evasions, equivocations and underlying false assumptions. Let me merely point out that an appeal to anti-Islamic emotions (based, incidentally, upon undeniable, if slanted, evidence) is not incitement to harm Moslems, any more than an appeal to anti-socialist or anti-conservative emotions is an appeal to harm socialists or conservatives. So it is not incitement.

Nor does Mr. Huhne specify which people will be harmed by the images and the feeling. One suspects very strongly that what Mr. Huhne really means is this: that a group of Moslems of undefined size would commit acts of violence if Mr Wilders were allowed in the country. If he had been a prison doctor, Mr. Huhne would have prescribed valium for all he was worth, for whoever demanded it.

The contemptible Mr. Huhne makes his cowardice even more clear when he writes: I have in the past defended [the right of] people with some particularly odious views [to come to this country], such as the recent case of the Australian Holocaust denier Dr. Gerald Toben.

So what are the differences between the cases of Dr. Toben and Mr. Wilders? It seems to me that there are two: the first is that while holocaust denial is completely irrational, Mr Wilders has at least some evidence for what he says. There are verses enjoining violence in the Koran, and there are Moslems who are violent in the way enjoined, even if the connection between the two is very much more complex than Mr. Wilders suggests.

The second, and much more important, difference is that while the Jews in Britain were unlikely to cause any violence as a result of Dr. Toben’s presence in the country, a few Moslems might possibly (by no means certainly) have caused violence if Mr. Wilders had been let in. In other words, the implicit threat of violence is what for Mr. Huhne made
the difference. A fine principle to set before the country, a real basis for lasting peace and security.

The most heartening thing about this article was the response, particularly by Moslems (or those with Moslem names, whom I assume to have been Moslems).

One said that Mr. Wilders was right and that the offending passages of the Koran should henceforth be removed (voluntarily, not by decree). Of course such tampering with a book that is supposed by the faithful to be the direct word of God presents some logical difficulties; but it so happens that I was speaking not long ago with an enlightened Moslem woman, who claimed to be religious, who told me (not in connection with Mr Wilders) that the Koran had to be interpreted in the light of the fact that it was written many centuries ago in a society very different from any existing now.

Two other Moslems wrote in to say that, while they disliked Mr. Wilders intensely, they felt that Moslems could deal with his argument by argumentation. In other words, they acknowledged that he had an argument, but thought it was mistaken and could be shown to be false.

By banning Mr. Wilders from entry into the country, then, the British government revealed that, at heart, it agrees with, or even went beyond, him: that Moslems are predominantly violent irrational bigots, incapable of holding their own in argument, and of whom it, the government, is physically afraid.

Americans should not be complacent. A few days before last Christmas, I went to one of the Indian restaurants in my small town in England, which is owned and run by Moslems. It was hung with Christmas decorations, and when I left the staff wished me a Merry Christmas and handed me a Christmas card. And then I thought of the Christmas cards I had received from America, with their snivelling, pusillanimous greeting of Happy Holidays, not one of them daring to mention Christmas.

---------

Theodore Dalrymple rarely wastes a word when writing his essays - so I have reproduced this article in full. The time will come when we will realise the truth of his words. Sooner than you may think.

Who Exactly Is Lord Ahmed?

2009-02-18T20:56:00.004Z

In the wake of the hugely anti-democratic barring of Geert Wilders from the UK last week by the ex-primary school teacher "Jackboot" Jacqui Smith, the British author Paul Weston makes some trenchant observations:

Who is Lord Ahmed?

Britain has shed a great deal of blood and made a great deal of sacrifice in order to stand defiant, proud and undefeated (at home at least; away matches are always more difficult) since its defences were last breached in 1688 when a Dutchman, William of Orange, deposed King James II.

In the 321 years since then, despite the best efforts of the Napoleons and Hitlers of this world, Britain has remained free, enabling its great triumvirate of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Monarchy to preside over and mould one of the greatest democracies the world has ever seen.

Until February 2009 that is, when the ancient and venerable House of Lords was put to the test by a middle-aged rotund individual with a beard, after which the edifice of British sovereignty came crashing to the ground in a woeful display of liberal appeasement.

Who is this single-handed slayer of British democracy? How can he cause such destruction? What power does he wield that can force the submission of a core component of Britain’s constitution?

Step forward, Lord Ahmed, the aforementioned rotund individual with a beard, albeit a beard of such straggling inconsequence that one suspects he could never have risen to such unlikely heights of power in his native Muslim lands, where the serious power brokers have an unspoken yet mandatory requirement to sport beards of astonishing length and luxuriance.

But enough of his follicular failing. It is time for a brief look at Ahmed’s résumé.

Born in Mirpur, Pakistan, in 1958, the young Nazir Ahmed emigrated to Britain where he took successful advantage of a free education provided by the taxpaying British public, and was subsequently accepted at Sheffield’s internationally recognised Hallam University where he studied Public Administration in between his duties as a Labour Party member.

In 1992 he founded the Muslim Councillors Forum, and was active in local politics in the north of England where he championed various Muslim causes.

In 1998 he was appointed to the House of Lords, swearing his oath of allegiance to Queen and Country on the Koran, as one does in such a vibrant, modern, multicultural and mulitfaithed country that Britain is now privileged to be. Ahmed was both the first Muslim to be appointed to the Lords, and the first Lord to lead delegations on behalf of the British government to Saudi Arabia for the Haj, or Muslim pilgrimage.

In February 2005 he hosted a book launch for the infamous anti-Semite Jöran Jermas at — wait for it — the House of Lords, where Mr Jermas launched into fundamentalist Islam’s standard tirade against those pesky imperialist Zionists.

When picked up on this by Stephen Pollard of The Times, Lord Ahmed refused to even speak about it, let alone distance himself from the contents of Jermas’s Jew-hating monologue, which is ironic given the MSM’s blanket whitewash of Lord Ahmed’s historic behaviour after Jermas accused the British Newspapers of being owned and run by Zionists!

According to the Times, Jermas’s depth of anti-Semitism runs so deep he has felt compelled to work for Zavtra, Russia’s extreme anti-Semitic publication, and is allied with the Vanguard News Network (motto: “No Jews. Just Right.”) set up by an American, Alex Linder — a man so extreme that he was even ostracised by the US neo-Nazi National Alliance.

But such affiliations hold no fear, it would seem, for Lord Ahmed, which is unsurprising as he is a man with the usual trappings associated with less-than-moderate Islam, affiliated as he also is with Dr Abdul Bari of The Muslim Council Of Britain who, like Ahmed, has very dubious friends of the anti-Semitic variety.

In July 2005, after four self-detonating Muslims in London left 52 innocent people dead and some 700 maimed, blinded and burned, the good Lord described the suicide bombers as suffering from an “identity crisis”. After exploding, no doubt there could be a case for such an argument, but not before, surely?

In August 2006 he was a co-signatory of an open letter to Tony Blair which was, in essence, a thinly veiled threat that were Britain to continue its then current foreign policy with regard to Iraq and Israel, then they could expect further terrorist attacks at home.

In January 2007 Lord Ahmed invited Mahmoud Abu Rideh to Westminster, after meeting him at the Regents Park Mosque. Abu Rideh had been recently released from Belmarsh — a British prison — for links to terrorism (he had previously been jailed in Jordan) and was subject to a control order when he met Ahmed, imposed in 2005 after he admitted to having hopped about Afghanistan with a false plaster cast within which was secreted a perfectly efficient leg along with large sums of money, weapons for the procurement of. Allegedly.

Why Lord Ahmed should invite such a man to the House of Lords raises difficult questions, which I presume is why they were not raised at all. One of them being what on earth was Ahmed doing at the Regents Park Mosque in the first place, fingered as it was in a Policy Exchange study entitled The Hijacking of British Islam which claimed that Saudi money was behind the Mosque’s drift toward fundamentalist Islam, as evidenced in the extremist literature it happily displays and sells.

Ahmed told reporters it was his “parliamentary duty” to meet Abu Rideh, although this is clearly not a duty he feels the need to extend to a non-Muslim with legal troubles on his mind, such as Geert Wilders. We must not write Ahmed off as being “non-inclusive”, however. He does not just help Muslims in the UK, he also spends a great deal of time travelling the world seeking out other disadvantaged peoples he may be able to help, the only proviso being they must be exclusively Muslim.

In 2007, he joined his old mucker Dr Bari of the MCB in denouncing the Knighthood awarded to Salman Rushdie, who, according to Ahmed “has blood on his hands” due to Rushdie’s crime of writing words on a piece of paper with a pen, thereby causing Muslims around the world to smite at the necks of their fellow Human Beings with scimitars, putting an end once and for all to that feeble Western adage that the pen is mightier than the sword.

In January 2009, Lord Ahmed pressed the British Government to call for the prosecution of British Jews who have had the temerity of serving in the Israel Defence Forces, going so far as to say:

“This is why Baroness Tongue asked the question about the number of British youth who go to religious Jewish schools and also the kibbutz. In this case, it is a double standard to allow young British citizens of whatever religion, who go to religious schools and then get involved in armed conflicts and join a terrorist state.”

In February 2009, Lord Ahmed finally managed to achieve international infamy. Unhappy with the idea that the House of Lords was intent on screening Fitna, and knowing that Islam was about to incriminate itself through images of its Holy Book’s Unholy Words and its Holy Book’s Unavoidable and Unholy Physical Actions, Lord Ahmed, acting with surprising alacrity, bounded tubbily into Islam’s version of defence code green.

A legal threat to the organising Lords here, a violent threat of 10,000 men in beards there, and his job was done. No Fitna, no Wilders, no backbone, no democracy, no questions, no comeback, no longer Great Britain.

Or so we thought.

Within days though, the ex-empire struck back. Despite Ahmed’s proud boast to the foreign press that he had won a victory for the Muslim community the House of Lords reissued an invitation to Geert Wilders and sanity appeared to resume for a brief few days, until Britain’s quisling Home Secretary Jacqui Smith banned Wilders from the UK on the grounds his mere presence may cause British Muslims to tut disapprovingly and shake their heads sorrowfully.

I have no doubt a deal was struck between Ahmed and ex-primary-school-teacher-turned-Home-Secretary Jacqui Smith, whereby the Lords could still screen Fitna, but Wilders would remain banned as long as there were no men in beards anywhere near the Houses of Parliament, as indeed there were not. Nor were there any nervous looking policemen alongside their newly issued riot vans — one forward gear, four reverse. This was way above street level agitation and organisation.

Given all the above, it is clear that Lord Ahmed’s loyalties lie with Islam and the greater Muslim world, rather than anything that could remotely be described as British. To threaten the British government itself, and to get away with it with nary a peep from the press is extraordinary. To boast about it and get away with it is even more so. He may take pride in a Muslim victory, but indigenous Brits should feel shame for a British defeat, which this event undoubtedly was.

Now I think such a man should be taken outside the House of Lords and given a thoroughly vigorous admonishment, part of which would include the explanation of the words “sedition” and “treason”.

Someone also needs to explain to our present Home Secretary the magnitude of what she has allowed to happen. Perhaps she should be taken to a war cemetery where she can pause and reflect on what she has done, as she looks at the headstones of the brave young men she has betrayed, along with her country.

Several Views on Dealing With Piracy in Somalia

2009-02-18T19:54:00.004Z

Roger Middleton - The Independent, 18 February 2009:

International navies are patrolling Somali waters looking for pirates. This action, while welcome, is only addressing the symptoms of Somalia’s collapse. It is not a solution to piracy and nor will it resolve Somalia’s instability. If we want to secure the sea and contribute to peace in Somalia we need imaginative approaches. What Somalia needs more than a naval force is an international coastguard. Sending navies to fight piracy in Somalia is a way of being seen to take the “right” kind of action but with minimal risk to life or equipment.

However, it does not alter the fundamental factors driving people into piracy; the ability to make thousands of dollars per operation, in a country with a GDP per head of $600 is far greater than the disincentive of arrest.

Piracy cannot be defeated by navies. That can only happen when law is established and alternatives are presented to the pirates. Navies can certainly help to contain piracy and do perform an indispensable role protecting the delivery of food aid, but they cannot end this problem from the sea. A coastguard, however, is better designed for what is a law and order issue, and as part of a comprehensive approach to Somalia’s instability offers a real prospect for progress.

Why are so many nations then sending their ships and sailors to the eastern Indian Ocean? Some say they are attempting to protect fishing fleets trawling for tuna – pirates have often used illegal fishing as an excuse – but they are drawn by the money and not a desire to protect coastal fishermen.

Somalia’s problems are greater than piracy. It is chronically unstable and dangerous and millions of its citizens need humanitarian aid. The naval presence off Somalia’s coast is a good thing for sailors and shipping companies; it makes them less likely to be attacked and means that someone will be on hand during any period in captivity. The fundamental causes of piracy are not being addressed however: there must be a political settlement on land. A coastguard that combats piracy and protects Somali fishing could be the waterborne element of a wider diplomatic strategy to bring peace and stability to Somalia.

Jeffery Gettleman, New York Times, 05 February 2009:

NAIROBI, Kenya — The saga over the Ukrainian arms freighter hijacked off Somalia’s coast more than four months ago drew to a close on Thursday almost exactly the way the pirates had predicted: with the booty.

According to the pirates and maritime officials in Kenya, the ship’s owners paid $3.2 million — in cash, dropped by parachute — and on Thursday evening the last of the heavily armed pirates made their way off the ship.

“The fact that this took so long, that’s not good,” said one of the pirates, Isse Mohammed, in a telephone interview. “But we got the cash in hand, and that’s good. That’s what we’re interested in.”

Mr. Isse added that his gang would continue “hunting ships” because “that’s our business.”

But first, Mr. Isse said, he had to escape. Ever since the Ukrainian ship was hijacked by Somali pirates in dinghies, it had been ringed by American warships determined to keep the pirates from unloading the weapons.

Mr. Isse said that the pirate leaders were divvying up the money in Xarardheere, a notorious pirate den near the ship’s anchorage, and that he and his colleagues had deputized young gunmen to stay aboard until all the pirate leaders had gotten away. Only then, he said, would the ship be released.

Late Thursday, Viktor Nikolsky, the acting captain of the ship, called the Faina, said it was finally under the protection of the United States Navy and would head to Mombasa, Kenya, the Associated Press reported.

More than 100 ships have been attacked in Somalia’s pirate-infested seas in the past year, but no hijacking has attracted as much attention as this one. It stirred fears of a new epoch of piracy and precipitated an unprecedented naval response. Warships from China, India, Italy, Russia, France, the United States, Denmark, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Greece, Turkey, Britain and Germany have all joined the antipiracy campaign.

The Ukrainians’ doomed voyage began in late August, when the Faina departed the Ukrainian port of Oktyabrsk, near the Black Sea, bound for Mombasa. It was a tall, lumbering freighter. Its captain was Russian and its 21 crew members were mostly Ukrainian. Its cargo was secret.

On Sept. 25, the Faina broadcast an S O S. Three small speedboats were heading straight at it fast — the typical pirate swarm.

On Sept. 26, the news broke: The Faina had been hijacked 200 miles off Somalia’s coast, and its cargo, revealed reluctantly by the Kenyan government, included 33 T-72 Soviet-era tanks, 150 grenade launchers, 6 antiaircraft guns and heaps of ammunition.

American officials worried that Islamist insurgents ashore could get the weapons and drastically change the dynamic in Somalia, where a weak transitional government has been trying to resist militant Islamist groups.

By early Thursday night, United States Navy officials said no weapons had been unloaded. But witnesses ashore reported pirates removing grenade launchers. Mr. Isse said the pirates had tossed some antiaircraft guns overboard “so we can get them later.” He seemed unaware of saltwater’s corrosive effects.

The pirates always said they were in it for the money — initially they had demanded $35 million. There were mixed reports about their treatment of hostages. The captain died mysteriously after a few days, which the pirates attributed to illness. They kept his body in a refrigerator.

The destination of the weapons remains unclear. The Kenyan government says that it owns them, but the pirates and Western officials have said that the arms are destined for former rebels in southern Sudan and that Kenya was the transit point.

Piracy is a huge business in Somalia, which has limped along since 1991 without a functioning central government. Many maritime officials have criticized ship owners who pay ransoms, saying that only leads to more attacks.

Hugh Fitzergerald - New English Review, 05 February 2009:

You have armed men on every ship. You blast every small boat out of the water if it comes within several hundred yards. You do not pick up survivors. You locate, and then bomb from the air, the villas of all known pirates (agents on the ground can locate them), and all of their relatives,their friends, their relations. You do this, again and again. You seize their assets in banks. You prevent them from leaving Somalia. You prevent their relatives from leaving Somalia. You make their lives hell, and the piracy comes to an end the way other cases of piracy have been brought to an end. The only other way is to seize the whole country, the way the French felt compelled, after decades that followed centuries, of enduring the Barbary Pirates, to do in 1830 with Algeria. But that, today, is not desirable nor practical. From afar, from the air, but making sure that no pirate is left to enjoy his loot, either because his loot (and what it paid for) has been destroyed, or because he has.

Tiger - Feline Equality and Diversity Co-ordinator for Infidel Enterprises: Yeah, what Hugh said. Now, where's my tuna?

An Israeli Soldier Writes To The Gazan Arab Family In Whose House He Stayed

2009-02-18T15:33:00.001Z

With thanks to The New English Review:

The following letter first appeared, in Hebrew, in Maariv, and has just appeared in an English translation:

An Open Letter to A citizen Of Gaza:
I Am the Soldier Who Slept In Your Home:
By: Yishai G (reserve soldier)
ygoldflam@gmail.com

Hello,

While the world watches the ruins in Gaza, you return to your home which remains standing. However, I am sure that it is clear to you that someone was in your home while you were away.

I am that someone.

I spent long hours imagining how you would react when you walked into your home. How you would feel when you understood that IDF soldiers had slept on your mattresses and used your blankets to keep warm.

I knew that it would make you angry and sad and that you would feel this violation of the most intimate areas of your life by those defined as your enemies, with stinging humiliation. I am convinced that you hate me with unbridled hatred, and you do not have even the tiniest desire to hear what I have to say. At the same time, it is important for me to say the following in the hope that there is even the minutest chance that you will hear me.

I spent many days in your home. You and your family's presence was felt in every corner. I saw your family portraits on the wall, and I thought of my family. I saw your wife's perfume bottles on the bureau, and I thought of my wife. I saw your children's toys and their English language schoolbooks. I saw your personal computer and how you set up the modem and wireless phone next to the screen, just as I do.

I wanted you to know that despite the immense disorder you found in your house that was created during a search for explosives and tunnels (which were indeed found in other homes), we did our best to treat your possessions with respect. When I moved the computer table, I disconnected the cables and lay them down neatly on the floor, as I would do with my own computer. I even covered the computer from dust with a piece of cloth. I tried to put back the clothes that fell when we moved the closet although not the same as you would have done, but at least in such a way that nothing would get lost.

I know that the devastation, the bullet holes in your walls and the destruction of those homes near you place my descriptions in a ridiculous light. Still, I need you to understand me, us, and hope that you will channel your anger and criticism to the right places.

I decided to write you this letter specifically because I stayed in your home.

I can surmise that you are intelligent and educated and there are those in your household that are university students. Your children learn English, and you are connected to the Internet. You are not ignorant; you know what is going on around you.

Therefore, I am sure you know that Qassam rockets were launched from your neighborhood into Israeli towns and cities.

How could you see these weekly launches and not think that one day we would say "enough"?! Did you ever consider that it is perhaps wrong to launch rockets at innocent civilians trying to lead a normal life, much like you? How long did you think we would sit back without reacting?

I can hear you saying "it's not me, it's Hamas". My intuition tells me you are not their most avid supporter. If you look closely at the sad reality in which your people live, and you do not try to deceive yourself or make excuses about "occupation", you must certainly reach the conclusion that the Hamas is your real enemy.

The reality is so simple, even a seven year old can understand: Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip, removing military bases and its citizens from Gush Katif. Nonetheless, we continued to provide you with electricity, water, and goods (and this I know very well as during my reserve duty I guarded the border crossings more than once, and witnessed hundreds of trucks full of goods entering a blockade-free Gaza every day).

Despite all this, for reasons that cannot be understood and with a lack of any rational logic, Hamas launched missiles on Israeli towns. For three years we clenched our teeth and restrained ourselves. In the end, we could not take it anymore and entered the Gaza strip, into your neighborhood, in order to remove those who want to kill us. A reality that is painful but very easy to explain.

As soon as you agree with me that Hamas is your enemy and because of them, your people are miserable, you will also understand that the change must come from within. I am acutely aware of the fact that what I say is easier to write than to do, but I do not see any other way. You, who are connected to the world and concerned about your children's education, must lead, together with your friends, a civil uprising against Hamas.

I swear to you, that if the citizens of Gaza were busy paving roads, building schools, opening factories and cultural institutions instead of dwelling in self pity, arms smuggling and nurturing a hatred to your Israeli neighbors, your homes would not be in ruins right now. If your leaders were not corrupt and motivated by hatred, your home would not have been harmed.

If someone would have stood up and shouted that there is no point in launching missiles on innocent civilians, I would not have to stand in your kitchen as a soldier.

You don't have money, you tell me? You have more than you can imagine.

Even before Hamas took control of Gaza, during the time of Yasser Arafat, millions if not billions of dollars donated by the world community to the Palestinians was used for purchasing arms or taken directly to your leaders bank accounts. Gulf States, the emirates - your brothers, your flesh and blood, are some of the richest nations in the world. If there was even a small feeling of solidarity between Arab nations, if these nations had but the smallest interest in reconstructing the Palestinian people - your situation would be very different.

You must be familiar with Singapore. The land mass there is not much larger than the Gaza strip and it is considered to be the second most populated country in the world. Yet, Singapore is a successful, prospering, and well managed country. Why not the same for you?

My friend, I would like to call you by name, but I will not do so publicly. I want you to know that I am 100% at peace with what my country did, what my army did, and what I did. However, I feel your pain. I am sorry for the destruction you are finding in your neighbourhood at this moment. On a personal level, I did what I could to minimize the damage to your home as much as possible.

In my opinion, we have a lot more in common than you might imagine. I am a civilian, not a soldier, and in my private life I have nothing to do with the military. However, I have an obligation to leave my home, put on a uniform, and protect my family every time we are attacked. I have no desire to be in your home wearing a uniform again and I would be more than happy to sit with you as a guest on your beautiful balcony, drinking sweet tea seasoned with the sage growing in your garden.

The only person who could make that dream a reality is you. Take responsibility for yourself, your family, your people, and start to take control of your destiny. How? I do not know. Maybe there is something to be learned from the Jewish people who rose up from the most destructive human tragedy of the 20th century, and instead of sinking into self-pity, built a flourishing and prospering country. It is possible, and it is in your hands.

I am ready to be there to provide a shoulder of support and help to you.

But only you can move the wheels of history."

Regards,
Yishai, (Reserve Soldier)

Absurd Britannia

2009-02-08T20:06:00.007Z

A foster parent who has cared for 80 children over 10 years has been struck off the council rolls for allowing a child in her care to convert from Islam to Christianity.

Here is a little gem for you from the Daily Mail - also picked up on here:-

Would any foster parent be so cruelly treated if the child in question had converted from Christianity to Islam?

The answer, obviously, is NO. Any guesses on the background of the council officials involved? (I'm guessing they weren't evangelical Anglicans.)

There are so many forces at work undermining our Judaeo-Christian heritage it is difficult to know where to begin. Here at the Freedom Loving Infidel blog we can at least make a start by reporting on the worst excesses of the abuse of power within our political establishment. Say a prayer for this lady when you have a moment.

Equality and Diversity

2009-02-06T20:41:00.008Z

Apparently it is now compulsory for all businesses within the purlieu of Birmingham City Council that fall within certain criteria to have a permanent Equality and Diversity Co-Ordinator. As Managing Director of Infidel Enterprises (in my spare time of course, when not writing blog posts as Freedom Loving Infidel), I have considered it my solemn duty to select a candidate with the highest qualifications for this important position.

For several days now, I have been extensively trawling through my workforce, leaving no branch unexamined and no stone unturned in the search for the perfect candidate. After exhaustive research, I am happy to announce that after a series of intensive interviewing sessions, complete with psychological profiling and not to mention positive vetting, that Tiger (my own personal bodyguard, companion, bon viveur and also - after his latest self-empowerment class - recently promoted to Infidel Cat of the First Order) has been appointed as Feline Equality and Diversity Co-Ordinator for Infidel Enterprises.

His first task has been to write to Birmingham City Council to complain about the exclusively (and of course unacceptably) 100 per cent white nature of the snow that we have received thus far this year. He informs me that he expects a written apology in due course, complete with an Equality and Diversity action plan to deal with any unfortunate re-occurrences.

A spokesperson for Infidel Enterprises is on record as saying - "We feel sure that Tiger's appointment will usher in a new era of equality and diversity within Infidel Enterprises and shine as a beacon of light in the West Midlands for all other businesses to emulate."

Robert Spencer on Freedom of Speech

2009-01-30T00:03:00.003Z

A powerful argument by the incomparable Robert Spencer on the merits of freedom of speech in the face of the Stealth Jihad currently being waged against us - here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024625.php#respond

It comprises a 30 minute speech and a 15 minute Q&A session. It might take up most of your lunch hour but it's time well spent. Don't miss it.

We Are All Geert Wilders Now

2009-01-29T18:07:00.002Z

An excellent article from Jeffrey Imm - here:

A great man once warned that we "cannot sit idly by" and "not be concerned about what happens" in other places as injustice happens, equality is crushed, and liberties are threatened. He told us that: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."

That great man dared to defy an ideology of identity-based supremacism, an ideology based on denying equality to all men and women, an ideology based on the lie that some are inherently superior to others simply based on their race, religion, creed, or national origin. That great man challenged a supremacist ideology whose "ugly record of brutality is widely known," and he did not fear to name it or protest against its oppression of others. As a result, he was threatened and charged by some with actions that would "incite to hatred and violence." Those against him felt that a line had to be drawn to stop his protestations and stop his message of defiance against supremacism. That man was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a man in America, who is still celebrated today and honoured today as a courageous leader in defending equality and liberty.

But just a few days after the United States' annual honouring of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s life and courage in defying supremacism, another man in another part of the world in another era, was being charged once again with inciting hatred for defying another supremacist ideology. That man was Geert Wilders, a legislator in the Netherlands, who has dared to defy the ideology of Islamic supremacism. Mr. Wilders has challenged Islamic supremacism because of its leaders' threats against humanity, because of Islamic supremacism's goals to conquer the Earth, and because of Islamic supremacism's refusal to acknowledge the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty.

Like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not fear to recognize that this problem dealt with the identity-based supremacist ideology of "white supremacy," so Geert Wilders has also not feared to address the identity of those who would promote an Islamic supremacy. Like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. challenged whites, so Geert Wilders has challenged Islam. Defying any supremacist ideology requires the honesty to name the problem, so that humanity can find a solution. Whispering among ourselves in the dark in the face of a brutal supremacist ideology will only ensure that no one can gather the courage to light the first candle of wisdom to help humanity find the answers we desperately need.

In the case of Geert Wilders, a court was repulsed by his comments comparing Islamic supremacism's beliefs to those expressed in Hitler's Mein Kampf. That court was not repulsed by the daily calls for killing Jews by Islamic supremacists. That court was not repulsed by the anti-Semitic hate that is regularly channelled in the Islamic supremacist media. That court was not repulsed by the regular calls for the destruction of Israel by Islamic supremacists. That court was not repulsed by the references to the anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion promoted in Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf within the very charter of the Islamic supremacist Hamas organization, a group defended by protesters in the Netherlands over the past few weeks. That court was not repulsed by other Netherlands politicians defending calls for an intifada against Israel, while Amsterdam crowds called for "Jews to the gas."

Closing its eyes and plugging its ears to the reality around it, the Netherlands court extended an accusation against Geert Wilders of inciting hate for defying an Islamic supremacist ideology that is itself based on hate. Like those who charged Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. with inciting hate for defying white supremacism, no doubt they believe that if they just silence this one man - they will set an example to others causing "friction and unrest." No doubt they hope to persuade those who would defy supremacism that they need to find a more "realistic approach" and accept "forbearance" of the supremacist cause.

We have seen such tactics to silence defiance to supremacism before. We have seen them in 1963 in Alabama. We have seen them in the decades of covenants of security by nations that have harbored and tolerated Islamic supremacism around the world. We have seen them in the United Nations where Islamic supremacist groups seek to silence dissent and free speech against such supremacism. We have seen them in the halls of Congress in the United States in our present day, by those lobbying for "engagement" and "reconciliation" with Islamic supremacist organizations and leaders. Now we see them in the nation of the Netherlands by a court that seeks to turn a blind eye to the incitement of hatred throughout its nation by Islamic supremacists and instead focuses its blame on Geert Wilders, a leader of freedom who would dare defy such supremacism.

We know these tactics, and we know the frightened people behind them. We know those who would sell out their values and principles to totalitarian ideologues for the hope that they can declare "peace in our time." We know how much they dread acknowledging the reality that appeasement of supremacist ideologies will never quench the endless thirst for equality and liberty in humankind. We know how supremacists desperately cling to the lie of their superiority, for without it, they must acknowledge the harsh reality that their society is built on a hopeless delusion. We know how much the frightened people just desperately want to be left alone, and not be forced to have to face the difficult decisions that a world of mutuality must make to recognize the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty.

Most of all, we understand the frightened people, because even though we oppose their tactics, we know that they are fellow human beings, and because if our fate had been different they could have been us.

But our destiny is different and our future is based on who we are, not what we fear. Our destiny is not to live a lie of supremacism, but to embrace the truth of humanity's inalienable right of equality. Our destiny is not to depend on the whims of the merciless, but to extend our courage of equality and liberty to the hopeless and the helpless. Our destiny is not to find solace by cowering in a dark corner, but to shine a torch of truth even in the darkest night. Our destiny is not to ignore Islamic supremacism's war on equality and liberty, but to stand ready to defend these human rights.

We have not sought out conflict, but we have been challenged to prove the courage of our convictions. In the struggle of promoting equality and liberty against Islamic supremacism, we have been handed the responsibility to prove our dedication to humanity's inalienable rights. The decision over whether we will defend the principles of freedom or submit to the lie of Islamic supremacism is more than a war of ideas - it is a measure of our generation's willpower and resolve.

It is more than a debate by learned individuals referencing documents, organizations, actions, people, and history. It is more than an argument of who, what, where, and when. It is more than debating those who live in denial over the threat of Islamic supremacism, more than debating those who believe equality and liberty are merely relative values, and more than debating those who believe that humanity has no purpose or value at all.

Most of all, the fight for equality and liberty is a struggle to protect humanity's very identity in freedom, and a commitment to preserve and protect our inalienable human rights for the helpless, the hopeless, those without a voice, and for the next generation. It is a test to see if the flame of courage in our hearts will burn bright against the darkness of a supremacist ideology that seeks to envelop our civilization.

It is a challenge to see if we really believe that all men and women are created equal and that all human beings have the inalienable right of liberty, or if those are just words on a piece of paper.

It is a defining moment in history - not just for free speech, not just for a free press, not just for freedom of conscience, and not just for equality among all people.

It is a defining moment in history for determining who and what we are as a free people.

History will remember our choices. Will we stand as free men and women responsible for equality and liberty? Or will our resolve be blown away by those who can't see the gathering storm around humanity?

It is our choice, our destiny, our legacy - the outcome will define our identity.

But as for me, I say, that those who live in free lands and who cherish equality and liberty, have no real option for the survival of our society in this war of ideas. We cannot steal away quietly and hope that someone else will pick up the shield.

We must realize that we are all Geert Wilders now.

If we accept the silencing of him, then we know they will silence one of us next, and then another, and another, and another... until our defiance to Islamic supremacism and our commitment to equality and liberty is reduced to a handful of voices, then a whimper, then a whisper, and then not at all. That is a silence that we cannot accept, a defeat that we cannot stomach, a surrender we cannot live with.

This battle chose us because it knew who and what we are, the sons and daughters of free men and women who lived, fought, and died for the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty we hold so dear and that is fundamental to our identity.

It chose us because it could see within our society of freedom a light of courage that could shine around the nation and around the world - to the darkest places, to the most rejected places, and to the most hopeless places. It chose us because it knew what that light could mean to those oppressed by Islamic supremacists, what that light could mean to those who lived in fear of Islamic supremacism's brutality and terror, what that light could mean to those who had given up for a chance to have equality and liberty in their generation. It chose us because it knew we had no choice - that as free men and women responsible for equality and liberty we are compelled to defend such inalienable human rights - because we cannot accept a world, a humanity, and a future without them.

Those who would silence us, those who would threaten us, those who would terrorize us - you have no power over our commitment to the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. Your efforts to block the light of resistance by the sentinels of equality and liberty are as hopeless as trying to block the rays of the sun from reaching the very Earth itself. Your efforts to divide us, crush us, and silence us - will only strengthen our resolve and our commitment. Silence one of us and another will take his place, and another, and another, and another.

We are all Geert Wilders now.

Lord Ahmed the Nazi

2009-01-27T20:10:00.018Z

An absolutely incredible story has broken out here, here and here in the blogosphere - reproduced on at least seven or eight other different sites. I have yet to receive confirmation of it in the mainstream media, but if true, it drags our parliamentary system here in the UK to rock bottom. To say nothing of the freedom of speech so precious to our liberal democracy and Judaeo-Christian civilisation.

The bottom line would appear to be that Lord Ahmed, a Labour peer, has single-handedly bullied the House of Lords into cancelling a showing of Geert Wilders' short film "Fitna", accompanied by a speech from Geert Wilders himself and a subsequent discussion in the House of Lords, with the threat of some ten-thousand-strong Muslim "rent-a-mob" thugs to besiege the Houses of Parliament.

Lord Ahmed, if this is true, you are a disgrace. We simply don't do things like this in England. This is precisely why we have freedom of speech laws, to protect us from unprincipled fascists like yourself. If you had a shred of integrity, you would resign immediately. I won't hold my breath, though.

On an unrelated note, I am sure I am not the only person to wonder why you are not already in prison after pleading guilty to the dangerous driving charge that resulted in the death of an innocent motorist. Text messaging in the fast lane of a motorway. You really are a nasty piece of work, aren't you? I guess it goes to show that it's not what you know, it's who you know.

More on Lord Ahmed here:

2009: A Year to Defend Free Speech - Or Lose It

2009-01-27T15:28:00.002Z

More on the persecution of Geert Wilders, and its wider ramifications here:

Aisha and Nawal

2009-01-26T13:52:00.003Z

Well, never let it be said that as Freedom Loving Infidels (TM) here at Infidel Towers (TM) we don't appreciate a little light-hearted humour - :)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Dyujx4t2fYQ

Straight out of Monty Python. I'd cry if it wasn't so funny. And so true.

The Persecution of Geert Wilders

2009-01-26T11:47:00.000Z

The Dutch parliamentarian, Geert Wilders, is perhaps the only politician in Europe today who has the guts to speak up concerning the threat of Islam to our Judaeo-Christian Western civilisation. Now he is facing prosecution merely for speaking the truth, because the speaking of truth "hurts the feelings of" and "incites hatred towards" - yup, you guessed it - Muslims.

This is going to be a pivotal moment in European history and for the Western world. If criticism of Islam is to be outlawed, our ability to defend our civilisation against Islam will vanish. Only through honest, frank and open discussion, and the dissection and critical analysis of the Islamic texts, can we expose exactly what the totalitarian, supremacist agenda of Islam means for all decent and civilised people.

Extensive discussion of this case is taking place on many of the blogs listed on the right-hand side of this page. One of my favourites is Pat Condell speaking here:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EJKRF2uB8xU

Don't miss it.

Enough of Radical Islam Already

2009-01-25T14:53:00.002Z

In the absence of any meaningful reporting in the mainstream media (MSM) concerning the threat that Islam poses to our civilisation, the ability to search the Internet has never been more important and more necessary. A relatively new writer here encapsulates what all Freedom Loving Infidels (TM) have been saying for years.

---------------------------------------------------

Enough with the pseudonyms. Western civilization isn't at war with terrorism any more than it is at war with grenades. Western civilization is at war with militant Islam, which dominates Muslim communities all over the world. Militant Islam isn't a tiny minority of otherwise goodhearted Muslims. It's a dominant strain of evil that runs rampant in a population of well over 1 billion.

Enough with the psychoanalysis. They don't hate us because of Israel. They don't hate us because of Kashmir. They don't hate us because we have troops in Saudi Arabia or because we deposed Saddam Hussein. They don't hate us because of Britney Spears. They hate us because we are infidels, and because we don't plan on surrendering or providing them material aid in their war of aggressive expansion.

Enough with the niceties. We don't lose our souls when we treat our enemies as enemies. We don't undermine our principles when we post more police officers in vulnerable areas, or when we send Marines to kill bad guys, or when we torture terrorists for information. And we don't redeem ourselves when we close Guantanamo Bay or try terrorists in civilian courts or censor anti-Islam comics. When it comes to war, extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Enough with the words. Talking with Iran without wielding the threat of force, either economic or military, won't help. Appealing to the United Nations, run by thugs and dictators ranging from Putin to Chavez to Ahmadinejad, is an exercise in pathetic futility. Evil countries don't suddenly decide to abandon their evil goals — they are forced to do so by pressure and circumstance.

Enough with the faux allies. We don't gain anything by pretending that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are true allies. They aren't. At best, they are playing both sides of the table. We ought to be drilling now in order to break OPEC. Building windmills isn't going to cut it. We should also be backing India to the hilt in its current conflict with Pakistan — unless Pakistan can destroy its terrorist element, India should be given full leeway to do what it needs to do. Russia and China, meanwhile, are facilitating anti-Western terrorism. Treating them as friends in this global war is simply begging for a backstabbing.

Enough with the myths.

Not everyone on earth is crying out for freedom. There are plenty of people who are happy in their misery, believing that their suffering is part and parcel of a correct religious system. Those people direct their anger outward, targeting unbelievers. We cannot simply knock off dictators and expect indoctrinated populations to rise to the liberal democratic challenge. The election of Hamas in the Gaza Strip is more a rule than an exception in the Islamic world.

Enough with the lies. Stop telling us that Islam is a religion of peace. If it is, prove it through action. Stop telling us that President-elect Barack Obama will fix our broken relationship with the Muslim world. They hate Obama just as much as they hated President George W. Bush, although they think Obama is more of a patsy than Bush was. Stop telling us that we shouldn't worry about the Islamic infiltration of our economy. If the Saudis own a large chunk of our banking institutions and control the oil market, they can certainly leverage their influence in dangerous ways.

Enough. After the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the plane downed in Pennsylvania, the endless suicide bombings, shootings and rocket attacks in Israel, the Bali bombings, the synagogue bombing in Tunisia, the LAX shootings, the Kenyan hotel bombing, the Casablanca attacks, the Turkey synagogue attacks, the Madrid bombings, the London bombings, and the repeated attacks in India culminating in the Mumbai massacres — among literally thousands of others — it's about time that the West got the point: we're in a war. Our enemies are determined. They will not quit just because we offer them Big Macs, Christina Aguilera CDs, or even the freedom to vote. They will not quit just because we ensure that they have Korans in their Guantanamo cells, or because we offer to ban “The Satanic Verses” (as India did). They will only quit when they are dead. It is our job to make them so, and to eliminate every obstacle to their destruction.

So enough. No more empty talk. No more idle promises. No more happy ignorance, half measures, or appeasement-minded platitudes. The time for hard-nosed, uncompromising action hasn't merely come — it's been overdue by seven years. The voice of our brothers' blood cries out from the ground.

----------------------------------------------------

Those Who Ignore History Are Condemned To Repeat It

2009-01-22T23:45:00.003Z

From an American History student (and bearing in mind that what happens in America is likely to be repeated here in spades):-

-------------------------------------------------------

I am a student of history. Professionally. I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied it all my life. I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.

Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten - fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.

We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?

We learn just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has “loaned” two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the 700B we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of “we the people,” who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not.

We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why?

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?). We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is medicare and our entire government, our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about)–the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x ten. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.

And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska. All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more important.)

Mr. Obama’s winning platform can be boiled down to one word: change. Why?

I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.

This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.

And that is only the beginning.

And I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his “brown shirts” would bully them into submission. And then, he was duly elected to office, a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world.
He did it with a compliant media–did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and . . . change. And the people surely got what they voted for.
(Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.)

Read your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though.

Don’t forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years–a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency–it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another latte, and ignoring what is transpiring around me.

Some people scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive, or both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe–and why I believe it.

I pray I am wrong. I do not think I am.

---------------------------------------------

There is a storm coming.

Thanks be to (the Judaeo-Christian) civilisation that I have been brought up in, I have lived all of my life to date insulated from the effects of such a storm. But my children and grandchildren, and your children and grandchildren, will not have that luxury. The least that we can do is forewarn them.

Learn about Islam. Tell them about Islam at every opportunity. Make it a priority for them to learn about Islam. Don't learn about it from Muslims, who will gloss over the unpleasant, inconvenient facts. Rather, learn about it from the likes of Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald, Andrew Bostom, Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Brigitte Gabriel, Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders, Ali Sina, all of whom have published extensively in books and on the Internet.

Recognise the necessity of criticising Islam, of having an honest, rational and dispassionate discussion on the subject of Islam. To do so is not racist, bigoted or Islamophobic. After all, Islam is not a race. There is no such thing as Islamophobia. It is not irrational to be concerned about the deleterious effects that Islam is having on our society. And to discuss Islam dispassionately, with the dissecting tools that Western philosophy has granted to us, is not bigoted. It is a necessity, without which our civilisation might well fall.

The truth is out there. The best antidote to Islam is exposure to the light of truth - all we have to do is to resist the politically-correct multiculturalists who would curtail our freedoms and have us believe that Islam is simply a religion of peace.

So do it - and do it now. You owe it to future generations. And if you think that I am exaggerating, you only have to look at the history of Islam over the past 1400 years, and the fate of those civilisations that encountered it. There is no compromising with Islam. There is no bargaining with Islam. Left to its own devices, it simply will not stop - until we are all either converted, subjugated, or killed. Is that what we want? Because that's what we will get if we don't act now.

Eyeless in Gaza

2009-01-17T16:24:00.001Z

Over the past three weeks, I have been struck by the tendency of presenters in the mainstream media, and in particular the BBC, to implicate Israel in perpetrating a “disproportionate assault” that underlies the current humanitarian disaster in Gaza. While these doubtlessly well-intended individuals seek the moral high ground in calling for “an immediate cessation of hostilities,” they unfortunately ignore the realities of the situation. I would be remiss if I did not attempt to provide a clearer picture of the reality in Gaza, as the invocation of an alleged “moral voice” in the face of a complex political situation without a full understanding of the facts is irresponsible and unprofessional.

A brief chronology of the latest saga of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is crucial to a proper appreciation of the issues involved in the current war. In August 2005, after five years of fighting in the Second Intifada with no resolution in sight, Israel unilaterally withdrew all of its soldiers and citizens from the Gaza strip in hopes of fostering a lasting peace. Since the Israeli withdrawal, however, Hamas, an internationally recognized terrorist organization funded by Iran, has fired over 6,000 deadly rockets from Gaza targeting Israeli civilians. It is against these war crimes, the indiscriminate targeting of innocent civilians, that the Israeli military has been forced to respond.

As President-elect Obama asserted in a campaign visit to Israel in July 2008, "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing." After years of restraint and after exhausting all diplomatic avenues, it is this very principle of defending its civilians, one of the foundational tenets of a democratic nation, which has driven Israel to take up arms against Hamas.

There is no question that the loss of Palestinian life in Gaza is terribly tragic and that every effort should be made to avoid civilian casualties and to provide medical aid and supplies to those suffering. While no party is blameless for the tragic Palestinian death toll, the stark contrast between Israel's and Hamas' treatment of the people in Gaza must be unequivocally asserted.

Israel's defense of its own citizens has gone hand in hand with extraordinary efforts to protect the civilians of Gaza. Israel distributes leaflets, sends voicemails and text messages, and uses radio and TV announcements to warn Gazan civilians to clear areas of imminent attacks. Israel seeks to minimize civilian casualties through surgical strikes on military objectives, and frequently aborts key missions due to concerns for civilian casualties. Moreover, since the beginning of the war, Israel has transported thousands of pounds of food and medical supplies to ease the Gazans’ plight.

Unfortunately, Israel's efforts to minimize harm to the civilians of Gaza have been confounded by Hamas which consistently places civilians in the line of fire. Hamas, in clear violation of international law, gathers women and children around military targets to use them as human shields. This terrorist regime endangers the people of Gaza by using civilian homes, schools, mosques and hospitals as launching grounds for rockets fired at Israeli civilians and prides itself on the number of its own people martyred to the destruction of Israel. It preys on the moral conscience of the democratic world, which places a premium on innocent lives, knowing that Israel seeks to avoid killing the very same Palestinian civilians whom Hamas militants hide behind and deem dispensable. It is these abominable tactics of Hamas that leads to the "disproportionate" number of Palestinian civilian casualties and which should evoke international condemnation and outrage.

Obviously there are hardships and painful losses incurred by both sides of this conflict, but simplistic solutions based on distorted facts are not the answer. Blind calls for an “immediate cessation of hostilities” outside the context of a viable and sustainable security are short-sighted. While this may seem to be an attractive and “humanitarian” solution in the short term, it will not alleviate the plight of Palestinians who suffer under the policies of the Hamas regime nor bring safety to the civilians of Israel who currently live in terror of Hamas rockets.

Every decent, civilized person on the planet should rightly be pained by the death and suffering of innocent people wherever they may be. Nevertheless, espousing moral indignation in the face of a skewed and one-sided picture of an immensely complex situation simply delays finding appropriate solutions. How can presenters in the mainstream media, especially the BBC, whilst calling for humanitarian and civilian protection, point to Israel’s “brutal attacks” while ignoring the countless Israeli efforts to protect Gazan civilians? Why is it deemed irrelevant to mention the significant role of Hamas in the number of Gazan civilian deaths? How can they attempt to value the lives and security of one people over the lives and security of another, and to express solidarity with some innocents while ignoring others?

Personally, I hope for a speedy and viable resolution so that both Gazans and Israelis can live in peace and safety, but the onus is on Hamas to cease its daily rocket attacks into Israel. I’m not holding my breath, though.

A German's View of Islam

2009-01-17T15:34:00.000Z

I was recently sent this by a very good friend of mine (you know who you are!) and although I had seen it before on a number of websites, it bears repeating. If you want to do your bit in the war against the Global Islamic Jihad (not quite as catchy as the "War on Terror" I know, but far more accurate and to the point) please forward it to as many people as you can.

................................

A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

"Very few people were true Nazis 'he said,' but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

"We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history."

"It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the 'peaceful majority', the 'silent majority', is cowed and extraneous."

"Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people."

"The average Japanese individual prior to World War ll was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilian s; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet."

"And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?"

Just to put this into perspective, 1400 years of the so-called "Religion of Peace" so far has led to the deaths of over 270 million people worldwide at the hands of Muslims who were happy to kill non-Muslims in the name of Islam and for the glory of Allah. And it's not nearly over yet.

"History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun."

"Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghan is, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late."

"As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life."

"Lastly, at the risk of offending, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems of expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world wide, read this - think about it - and send it on."

...........................................

I would end by saying only that our ancestors, yours and mine, shed blood, sweat and tears to bequeath us the Western Judaeo-Christian civilisation that we have today. It may not be perfect, but it is undoubtedly better than anything that has gone before, and infinitely preferable to the nightmare that would descend upon us should Islam and Shari'ah ever come to predominate. But our civilisation, with all its drive, innovation and sophistication, is infinitely fragile, and therefore needs the defence of all decent, civilised human beings to protect it in these difficult times. This is not just our civilisation. We will bequeath it in turn to our children, our grandchildren and all future generations. They don't know it yet, but they are depending on us. What will you say to them when they ask you - "Grandad, why didn't you do more to stop the Global Islamic Jihad in the war?"

Land Of The Naive Fools

2008-12-03T19:50:00.000Z

Written nearly twenty years ago by a Muslim who emigrated to the Netherlands, this could just as easily serve as a precautionary tale for us here in the UK.

http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/heroes/faust/faust2.php

No Substitute for Victory

2008-11-18T18:06:00.000Z

A must-read article from the excellent Objective Standard.

The Fjordman Report: Defeating Eurabia, Part 5

2008-11-03T11:08:00.000Z

by Baron Bodissey

This is the final installment of Fjordman’s book Defeating Eurabia. Click here for Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

For those who wish to republish his work, please read his conditions.

For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

On Anti-White Racism

This essay is an amalgam of several posts of mine.

The violence waged by Muslim gangs in Europe is usually labelled as “crime,” but I believe it should more accurately be called Jihad. Those who know Islamic history, described in books such as The Truth About Muhammad by Robert Spencer, know that looting and stealing the property of non-Muslims has been part and parcel of Jihad from the very beginning. In fact, so much of the behavior of Muhammad and the early Muslims could be deemed criminal that it is difficult to know exactly where crime ends and Jihad begins. In the city of Oslo, it is documented that some of the criminal Muslim gangs also have close ties to radical religious groups at home and abroad.

As Dutch Arabist Hans Jansen points out, the Koran is seen by some Muslims as a God-given “hunting licence,” granting them the right to assault and even murder non-Muslims. It is hardly accidental that while Muslims make up about tem percent of the population in France, they make up an estimated seventy percent or more of French prison inmates. Muslims are overrepresented in jails in countries all over the world, and a striking number of non-Muslims in jail convert to Islam.

In the city of Antwerp, Belgium, Marij Uijt den Bogaard from 2003 to 2006 worked as a civil servant in the immigrant borough of Berchem. She noted how radical Islamist groups began to take over the immigrant neighborhoods, but was fired when she warned against this danger in her reports to the authorities:

“Many victims of burglaries in houses and cars, of steaming and other forms of violence, can testify that aggression by Muslims is not directed against brothers and sisters, but against whoever is a kafir, a non-believer. Young Muslims justify their behaviour towards women who do not wear the headscarf, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, by referring to the Salafist teaching which says that these women are whores and should be treated as such. They told me this. I wrote it down in my reports, but the authorities refuse to hear it.”

Muslim violence targets non-Muslims regardless of skin color, in Asia, Africa, Europe and elsewhere. However, some of the violence directed against people of European origins is anti-white racism, not Jihad. In March 2005, peaceful white French demonstrators were attacked by bands of black and Arab youths. One 18-year-old named Heikel added that he had “a pleasant memory” of repeatedly kicking a student, already defenseless on the ground. The sentiment was a desire to “take revenge on whites.”

Why is there so little public discussion of anti-white racism? I have heard two explanations for this. The first one is that white people are more racist than non-whites, a claim I find highly dubious these days. The other is that we should focus mainly on white racism because “white people are so powerful.” But whites are, demographically speaking, a rapidly shrinking global minority. We are even a shrinking percentage of the population in the West.

Barbara Kay of Canada’s National Post writes about a new fad called Whiteness Studies:

“The goal of WS is to entrench permanent race consciousness in everyone — eternal victimhood for nonwhites, eternal guilt for whites — and was most famously framed by WS chief guru, Noel Ignatiev, former professor at Harvard University, now teaching at the Massachusetts College of Art: ‘The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race.’“

Whiteness Studies began in the 1990s after the collapse of Communism, when some Marxists concluded that the key to Utopia was to undermine Western culture and white people, race war instead of class war, or perhaps race war as class war. Some of its inventors state their goals quite openly:

“Abolitionism is also a strategy: its aim is not racial harmony but class war. By attacking whiteness, the abolitionists seek to undermine the main pillar of capitalist rule in this country.” And: “The task is to gather together a minority determined to make it impossible for anyone to be white.”

Conservative social critic David Horowitz comments that: “Black studies celebrates blackness, Chicano studies celebrates Chicanos, women’s studies celebrates women, and white studies attacks white people as evil.” However, despite widespread criticism, at least 30 institutions — from Princeton University to the University of California at Los Angeles — teach courses in Whiteness Studies.
- - - - - - - - -
A mandatory University of Delaware program in the United States required students to acknowledge that “all whites are racist,” offering them “treatment” for incorrect attitudes regarding class, gender, religion or culture. A civil rights group cited excerpts from the university’s Office of Residence Life Diversity Education Training documents, including the statement: “A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination.” The education program also notes that “reverse racism” is “a term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege.”

I’ve been trying to understand exactly what this “white privilege” consists of. In many Western European countries, if you are a native and in the mildest terms possible object to uncontrolled mass immigration which, if continued, will render the natives a minority in their own country, you will immediately be branded a racist and vilified. Most likely, your career will be over. The natives are de facto disenfranchised and are supposed to meekly fund their own colonization. If this is “privilege”, then privilege is vastly overrated these days.

College professor Mike S. Adams writes about conspiracy theories he’s heard among students attempting to blame various social ills on white people: “The Mona Lisa was painted by an African artist and stolen from a museum in Ethiopia. Most of the great works of art are African in origin and stolen by white people. This is done to promote the myth of white cultural superiority.” Another one: “It is a proven fact that U.S. Coast Guard ships — on orders from President Bush — were seen crashing into the New Orleans levees during Hurricane Katrina. Bush did it to kill black people living in government housing projects.”

Adams presents this as funny, but I don’t think it is.

Dr. Kamau Kambon, former North Carolina State visiting professor of African Studies, told a forum at Howard University that: “We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem.…I’m saying to you that we need to solve this problem because they are going to kill us.…The problem on the planet is white people.”

Kambon may be an extreme example, but he is the product of a climate where accusing whites of the most insane things has become socially acceptable. Since the 1960s, the Western education system has become increasingly dedicated to demonizing traditional Western culture. Young people of European origins know little of their history, and what they do know they are often taught to hate. As a result, entire generations of young Westerners would find it difficult to articulate anything that’s good about their culture and makes it worth preserving.

Robert Spencer has written about the demonization of Christianity in Western media and academia. He is right about this, but I sometimes suspect that this is part of a larger trend aimed at discrediting Western culture in general, of which Christianity has traditionally been a part. Those of us who are not Christians should reject this trend. First of all because it is factually incorrect: Christianity has made many positive contributions to our civilization and does not deserve the negative reputation it has gained in recent years; and second because the demonization of Christianity is part of a wider movement aimed at discredicting our heritage.

Here is a quote from Spencer’s book Religion of Peace?:

“Attacks on Christian history and doctrine are an integral part of a larger effort to instill a sense of cultural shame in even non-Christian European and American youth — a shame that militates against their thinking the West is even worth defending. A white American student, ‘Rachel,’ unwittingly summed up this attitude when she told American Indian professor Dr. David Yeagley in 2001: ‘Look, Dr. Yeagley, I don’t see anything about my culture to be proud of. It’s all nothing. My race is just nothing… Look at your culture. Look at American Indian tradition. Now I think that’s really great. You have something to be proud of. My culture is nothing.’ Yeagley mused: ‘The Cheyenne people have a saying: A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground…When Rachel denounced her people, she did it with the serene self-confidence of a High Priestess reciting a liturgy. She said it without fear of criticism or censure. And she received none….Who had conquered Rachel’s people? What had led her to disrespect them? Why did she behave like a woman of a defeated tribe?’“

As Allen G. King, an employment defense attorney put it: “I just have to leave you to your own devices, and because you are a white male,” you will discriminate. In other words: You don’t have to do anything; you’re a racist simply because you’re white and breathe.

All people of European origins can be considered racists. In Defending the West, former Muslim Ibn Warraq criticizes Edward Said’s highly influential book Orientalism from 1978:

“In cultures already immune to self-criticism, Said helped Muslims, and particularly Arabs, perfect their already well-developed sense of self-pity. There is a kind of comfort and absolution in being told that none of your problems are of your making, that you do not have to accept any responsibility for the ills besetting your society. It is all the fault of the West, of infidels….Orientalism came at the precise time when anti-Western rhetoric was at its most shrill and was already being taught at Western universities, and when third-worldism was at its most popular. Jean-Paul Sartre preached that all white men were complicit in the exploitation of the third world, and that violence against Westerners was a legitimate means for colonized men to re-acquire their manhood. Said went further: ‘It is therefore correct that every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was consequently a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric.’ Not only, for Said, is every European a racist, but he must necessarily be so. As I have argued, Western civilization has been more willing to criticize itself than any other major culture.”

René Descartes, French philosopher and one of the key thinkers of the Scientific Revolution — a Dead White Male as Western students now learn — is famous for his statement Cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am. Apparently, if Mr. Descartes has been alive today, he’d have to rephrase that to “I’m guilty, therefore I am.”

I once heard the Dutch-Somali critic of Islam Ayaan Hirsi Ali be told that if she had been white, she would have been called a “racist.” Which essentially means that if you’re white, you’re not allowed under any circumstances to stand up for your culture, far less criticize non-whites. It doesn’t matter whether what you’re saying is factually correct. Whites have effectively been disfranchised in matters related to the preservation of their own countries.

Jews were once told to “get back to Palestine.” When they did, they were told to “get out of Palestine.” The people who said this didn’t object to where Jews lived, they objected to the fact that they existed at all. Similarly, I have noticed that while I have heard calls for people of European descent in the Americas, Australasia or southern Africa to “go back to Europe,” the natives in Europe are demonized if they resist being turned into a minority in their own countries. The problem then, apparently, isn’t where whites live; it’s that we exist at all.

As Professor Ida Magli writes in an Italian essay entitled A Nation for Sale: “Why can’t we protest? Why aren’t we allowed what every people has always had the right to say, that is that no ruler, whatever the system of government — monarchy, dictatorship, democracy — has either the power or the right to sell off the homeland of their own subjects?”

It has happened many times that a people move into an area and subdue those living there before, but the natives have at least been allowed to defend themselves. It is unprecedented in the annals of history that a people is banned by their own leaders from defending their lands from foreign colonization. The established historical pattern is that people who are conquered by others are harassed by the newcomers. When we are being told that mass immigration is “inevitable,” we are actually being told that verbal and physical abuse of our children is inevitable and that we should “get used to it.” I see no reason to accept this. If mass immigration leads to harassment of my children then it is my duty to resist it.

Observer Ole Kulterstad notes that Europeans who are against free migration are labeled as “right-wing extremists.” But common sense indicates that giving away your country to alien cultures is more extreme than merely wanting to preserve it as it once was.

I am personally tired of hearing how Islamic organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood that want to destroy my civilization are called “moderates,” whereas Westerners are “extremists” if we resist this, yet that is exactly what our media and authorities do. We are not extremists; we are subjected to policies that are extreme. Is reducing a people to a minority in their own land, without proper debate about future consequences, not to be regarded as extreme?

Some observers fear a “white extremist backlash,” but if people are so concerned about this then they should stop creating the foundations for such extremism to grow. Native Europeans increasingly get the feeling that they are being pushed into a corner and have an entirely justifiable fear of being overwhelmed. Fear leads to desperation, which sometimes leads to aggression. If we do get an outbreak of extremist political movements, this will not come about because Europeans are born evil; it will come about because they will be pushed into extremism, feel that their continued existence is at stake and that they have been abandoned by their authorities. The solution to this is to recognize that Western nations have accepted more immigration from alien cultures in a shorter period of time than any other civilization has done peacefully in history. We have reached our limit and we need a break before our entire political and economic system breaks down. The ongoing mass immigration is population dumping where less successful cultures dump their population in more successful ones. This is a form of global Communism and will generate the same disastrous effects by destroying successful communities and centers of excellence.

My ancestors have lived in this country since prehistoric times, yet we have no status as a distinct group. Pakistanis, Somalis and Kurds have the right to preserve their culture in my country, but I don’t. The only ones who are specifically denied displaying any pride in their cultural heritage are people of European origins. That’s the whole point of Multiculturalism. Our countries no longer exist as cultural entities, only as empty vessels to be filled with the “human rights” of other peoples.

Native Europeans are being told that we don’t have a culture and that we thus “gain” culture when others move to our countries. This is an insult to thousands of years of European history, to the Celtic, Germanic and Slavic legacies and the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian heritage we all share in. The next moment we are told that we do have a culture, but it consists of nothing but a long line of crimes and is not worth preserving, anyway.

My nation doesn’t have a colonial history. It gained its independence as late as the twentieth century, at which point it was a poor country, yet because I am white, I am held personally responsible for every bad act, perceived or real, committed by every person who happens to have roughly similar skin color throughout recorded history. American novelist Susan Sontag once stated that “The white race is the cancer of human history.” I am told that I am evil specifically because of my race, and five minutes later I’m told that “race” doesn’t exist, it’s socially constructed. What this means is that people of European origins can be verbally (and sometimes physically) attacked for being white, yet are systematically deprived of any means of defending themselves against these attacks or identifying the cause of them.

I do not hold Abdullah the kebab salesman personally responsible for sacking Constantinople, abducting millions of Europeans to slavery, colonizing the Iberian Peninsula, ruining the Balkans or threatening Vienna several times. I criticize Islam because Muslims have never admitted their past and will continue to commit atrocities as long as the institution of Jihad is alive. I do not believe in collective responsibility, and I do not think a person should be held responsible for actions done by his ancestors centuries ago. On the other hand, if I am to take the blame, personally, for every bad act, perceived or real, committed by any white person in the past, it is only fair that I, personally, should also take credit for their achievements.

It was to an overwhelming degree people of European stock who created the modern world. If I am to be held personally responsible for colonialism or the transatlantic slave trade, I want personal credit for the greatest advances for mankind made by any civilization that has ever existed on this planet. The next time our children are taught to feel bad for something that happened centuries ago, we should inform them that they should take pride in discovering electromagnetism and thus the telegraph, the telephone, radio, TV and the Internet, making chemistry into a scientific discipline (as opposed to alchemy), coining the concept of “gravity” and inventing rockets that could be used to explore space (Asian rockets used gunpowder and weighed a few kilograms at most), making the first accurate measurements of the speed of light, creating barometers and thermometers, thus establishing meteorology and the only mathematical temperature scales ever made by humans, inventing everything from light bulbs, refrigerators, beer cans and chocolate bars to cars, airplanes and all modern means of transportation, inventing microscopes and founding microbiology and antiseptics in medicine. We did all of these things, and much more. Nobody else did, despite how much they claim otherwise.

If current immigration continues, France will soon become an African Muslim country that just happens to be north of the Mediterranean. If non-Europeans have the right to resist colonization, shouldn’t Europeans have the same right? No Eastern European country has a colonial history and many Western European countries have only marginal ones. The Germans had a colony in Namibia. Why should they accept millions of Turks, who have a thousand years of extremely brutal colonial history of their own, because of this? There are not many Dutch people left in Indonesia, so why should the Dutch be rendered a minority in their major cities by Moroccans and others? And why should Portugal, Spain and Greece, which have suffered from centuries of Islamic colonization, have to accept Muslims into their lands? Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Norway hardly have any colonial history at all, yet are still subject to mass immigration. The truth is that immigration policies bear little correlation to past history, population density or size. Ireland, Denmark, Britain, France, Sweden, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands have one, and only one, thing in common: The natives are white, and therefore seemingly have no legitimate claim to their own countries.

People of European origins have a right to exist, too. The primary duty you have as a human being is to preserve the heritage of your ancestors and pass on to your children a country they can call their own, where they can prosper and walk the streets in a major city without being harassed for who they are. We have the right to preserve our heritage and are under no obligation to commit collective suicide or serve as a dumping ground for other countries. It has nothing to do with animosity towards others. For my part, I still love visiting other cultures, but I will love this even more if I know I can also return to my own.

The Fjordman Report: Defeating Eurabia, Part 4

2008-11-03T09:52:00.000Z

by Baron Bodissey

This is the fourth of five installments of Fjordman’s book Defeating Eurabia. Click here for Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

For those who wish to republish his work, please read his conditions.

For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

The Case of Sweden

This essay consists of bits and pieces of information from many different essays published between 2005 and 2008.

There is a disproportionate amount of Scandinavian material in this book, obviously because I am Scandinavian myself and follow the developments in Norway, Sweden and Denmark closely in the native languages. The primary reason why I write much about Sweden is because it is one of the most totalitarian countries in the Western world. It is an interesting — and frightening — example of Political Correctness and self-loathing and can as such serve as a warning to others. Most of the problems described here exist throughout the Western world, although there is a difference in degree. The second reason is that Sweden, like my own country, needs some “tough love.” Too many Swedes still cling on to the myth of the “Swedish model” while their country is disintegrating. If Sweden the nation is to be saved — if it still can be saved, I’m not so sure — then Sweden the ideological beacon for mankind must be smashed, because vanity now blocks sanity.

I was involved, along with several others, in a heated public debate with Charles Johnson of the major American “anti-Jihad” blog Little Green Footballs (LGF) from late 2007 and well into 2008, which became bitter in part because we had traditionally been allies. I won’t go into the specific details here since this isn’t interesting to most readers, but I will say something about the general situation in Sweden. Mr. Johnson criticized the inclusion of a small political party called the Sweden Democrats (and the major Flemish party the Vlaams Belang from Belgium) in a counter-Jihad conference because they supposedly are “racists.”

My answer would be that I find some of their policies to be reasonable, although I do not necessarily agree with all of them. Besides, I don’t see why we need to agree with people on everything just because we talk to them. The authorities all over the Western world meet with representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamic groups. Even quite violent groups in Third World countries are considered “freedom fighters” by many Westerners when they fight for their causes. This amounts to saying that meeting with potentially violent groups, as long as they are non-white, is OK, but meeting with non-violent groups who work peacefully within the democratic system is not OK if they stand up for their rights and happen to be white. I do not accept this double standard and refuse to submit to it.

The “white nationalist” label which LGF used is totally meaningless in Europe. Maybe it makes sense in a North American or Australian context, but not in a European one. Yes, native Europeans happen to be born white, and most of us support national sovereignty. But nobody calls Asians, Africans or others who fight for their dignity black, brown or yellow nationalists, so why should we be called white nationalists if we do the same?

Moreover, it’s just plain, factually wrong. Europeans have been waging wars against each other for hundreds of years. There is hardly a spot on European soil where a person cannot stand and say “You did this bad thing to us X number of centuries ago, and we still hate you for it.” We view ourselves as Italians, Norwegians, Poles, Irishmen etc., not as “whites.”

Europeans generally do not wish to eradicate all of our national peculiarities, and the differences between northern and southern, eastern and western Europe are profound. Let us not kid ourselves about that. However, that doesn’t mean that we never have common interests. The irony is that precisely the kind of verbal and physical attacks we are being subjected to now could potentially change things. There is an increasing amount of racist violence targeting whites. And I do mean whites, not Englishmen, Scots, Germans, Czechs, Hungarians, Catholics, Orthodox Christians or atheists. Perhaps if people feel that they are being attacked as whites they will start defending themselves as whites as well. Maybe, if this is a “post-national” age and nation states are undermined by transnational ideologies of various kinds, native Europeans will create a “transnational” ideology of their to defend themselves. This ideology would be dedicated to the defense of a shared European civilization and of the peoples who have historically created it. I don’t foresee that pre-existing national identities can or should disappear completely, but there could be another layer of “Europeanism” added on top of this: Europe as a cultural alliance rather than as a single nation.

As the Baron of Gates of Vienna put it: “Wouldn’t it be ironic if the Multicultural regime imposed by the EU and the UN actually produced that which it fears the most? A newly-forged pan-European nationalist identity, but one that rejects Multiculturalism, immigration, and Islam. Yet another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. For they sow the wind, and they reap the whirlwind…“

Regarding racism: It is perfectly plausible from a scientific point of view to speculate whether biology affects human behavior. If you believe the theory of evolution then the very concept of racism is essentially meaningless. “Racism” doesn’t mean anything other than that you recognize that there are genetic differences between groups of people (an undisputed medical fact) and ask whether these differences have practical consequences. It is even a scientifically valid question to ponder whether there is a genetic component to culture. It’s unscientific to block any debate of the subject.

I could add that in a traditional society, the worst thing you can be is not a racist but a traitor. We now have a situation where it is good to betray your people whereas those who defend their nation are evil. This needs to be reversed back to normal. We shouldn’t have to defend ourselves and say “I’m not a racist, but….” at all. When the Multiculturalists start their sentences with the words “I’m not a traitor to my people, but…,” we know we are winning.

Here is a comment by British reader DP111:

“Britain is under a threat, the likes of which it has never been under. If Napoleon or even Hitler, had conquered Britain, most of our British/Western culture, music, art etc would be unscathed. Islam on the other hand will wipe out everything. In the fullness of time, the very presence of Christianity- cathedrals, minsters, abbeys, will be demolished and razed to the ground (re: Bamiyan Buddhas). So grave is the threat to the existence, nay, the very soul of Britain, that it is not possible to rule out any policy to remove the Islam threat, just because it may harm some innocent person or group — racial, religious or secular, or ethnic, no matter how sacred. Besides, all of them can be compensated in some form at a later date, once the Islam threat has been removed. This is an existential war, and innocents will, and are being injured or killed. If this means that we need to suspend parliamentary democracy for the duration — so be it. If it means suspending constitutional monarchy — so be it. If it means banning groups from the realm — so be it. All can be reversed once the danger is eliminated. Besides, there is precedent in British history for all the above.”

I remember walking through the Vatican in Rome not too long ago, admiring all the beautiful pictorial art as well as the amazing statues. Nothing like this can or does exist in Islam. All of this priceless art will be destroyed if Islamization continues. It will happen, the only question is when. The cultural treasures of Italy survived Mussolini. The Communists were more destructive than the Fascists when it came to art, but even they didn’t destroy all the traditional art within their territory. What we are facing, the combination of Multiculturalism, mass immigration and Islam, constitutes the greatest threat European civilization has ever faced. We will simply cease to exist as distinct peoples forever if we don’t defeat this threat.

I warned Johnson and his followers that they relied upon heavily biased information provided by political enemies from countries whose politics they did not understand. Those opposing the official Multicultural policies will automatically be branded as “racists” and “extremists” by the political establishment throughout Western Europe. The state-sponsored organization Expo was treated as a credible source of information by LGF regarding Swedish politics. One of their co-founders, Tobias Hübinette, wrote this in 1996:
- - - - - - - - -
“To feel and even think that the white race is inferior in every conceivable way is natural with regards to its history and current actions. Let the Western countries of the white race perish in blood and suffering. Long live the multicultural, racially mixed and classless ecological society! Long live anarchy!”

According to his CV, Tobias Hübinette worked for Expo until at least 1997. In other words, he continued doing research for this “anti-racist” organization after having publicly advocated the extermination of whites and the violent destruction of an entire civilization. Hübinette has continued promoting “Multiculturalism,” even received awards, and was in late 2007 working for the Multicultural Centre of Botkyrka, Sweden. To some, “Multiculturalism” apparently means “death to white people and their culture,” nothing more and nothing less.

The founder and editor of Expo magazine from 1995 until his death in November 2004, Stieg Larsson, worked with Hübinette. Larsson left behind three unpublished thrillers which have become major bestsellers after his death, in Sweden and beyond. And by bestsellers I mean a Scandinavian equivalent of the Da Vinci Code. I have read several articles in the mainstream media about Larsson’s life, and they all left out his collaboration with Hübinette. Apparently, working with a person calling for the mass murder of your people is of such little significance that it doesn’t even deserve to be mentioned in a single sentence.

The EU’s official watchdog against “racism” complains that native Europeans do not censor themselves enough. The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) is a Vienna-based agency created in 2007 as the successor to the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). One of the organizations cooperating with FRA is the Swedish left-wing organization Expo, which has been treated as a credible source of information by the European Fundamental Rights Agency regarding “racist violence” in Sweden [ pdf ]. Not only is Expo linked to from the Agency’s website, it has received hundreds of thousands of Euros — presumably sponsored by European taxpayers — in direct financial support from the Agency [ pdf ]. Expo takes part in the EU’s Raxen network against racism and xenophobia.

I have never seen a single official study tracking the wave of racist violence, rapes, stabbings and murder directed against native Europeans in cities across the continent, at least the western half of it. As the EU is deliberately breaking down existing nation states through mass immigration of alien and sometimes hostile peoples, the EU is to a considerable extent responsible for triggering this wave of racist violence against the indigenous peoples of an entire continent. If the EU wants to fight against racism, it should start with abolishing itself.

The EU spends millions and millions of Euros of European tax money on funding Islamic groups in the Middle East as well as “anti-racist groups” (usually heavily infiltrated by former Communists) across much of Europe. This is done in order to facilitate the creation of Eurabia and harass “racists” who oppose the EU’s agenda and desire national sovereignty. The most dangerous thing, however, is the money going the other way, with Arab oil money sponsoring Islamic expansionism and buying corrupt officials and politicians in Western nations.

According to what appeared to be a leaked document from the fall of 2008, Expo has apparently provided some of their material on the Sweden Democrats to the largest political party in the country, the Social Democrats, for use against their political rivals from a legal opposition party which appears to be set to gain seats in parliament during the next elections. I cannot say with certainty whether this document is genuine, but it is not impossible that it is. Expo is treated as a respectable organization by the political class, and their material has been reprinted by leading newspapers Expressen and Aftonbladet, among others.

Unfortunately, Expo has demonstrated a willingness to “share information” with radical groups of “anti-Fascists” in Antifascistisk Action (AFA). The thugs of AFA in the spring of 2008 destroyed the car of an elderly woman and wrote “nasse“ (Nazi) on top of it. As it turned out, they picked the wrong car. Yet years of such attacks against private citizens have not prompted the authorities to crack down on their activities.

Leading newspaper Aftonbladet has close ideological ties to the Social Democrats, the country’s dominant party for most of the past century. Helle Klein, its political editor-in-chief from 2001 to 2007, during a demonstration organized by Islamic and anti-racist organizations in December 2006 stood in front of a banner which read “A Sweden for all — Stop the Nazi violence“ and held a speech warning against Islamophobia in the media. Klein has voiced sympathy for terrorist organization Hamas in her editorials while warning against the threat posed to world peace by Israeli aggression and the Christian Right in the USA. Hamas is a Fascist organization openly calling for mass murder of Jews. Violent attacks against Jews in Europe in 2008 are to an overwhelming degree caused by Muslim immigration, which is encouraged by the EU and the national political elites. The irony of warning against “Nazi violence” while showing sympathy for an organization that wants to finish what the Nazis started apparently doesn’t strike Ms. Klein. She still blogged at Aftonbladet‘s website as of early 2008.

One of Klein’s fellow columnists at Aftonbladet, the long-time Communist Robert Aschberg, is the publisher of Expo magazine. Leading Expo member Charles Westin in October 2007 published the book Brunt! (“brown,” as in “Fascist”), where he let members of AFA contribute some of their intelligence regarding “right-wing extremists,” among them people associated with the legal party the Sweden Democrats. In addition to Mr. Westin, the book was co-authored by Mats Deland, who is a journalist in Aftonbladet. Why is it considered OK that a representative of one of Scandinavia’s largest newspapers, with ties to the country’s largest political party, thus associates himself openly with an organization known for physically assaulting members of a legal opposition party, even in their private homes?

Before the elections in 2006, the established parties cooperated in boycotting the Sweden Democrats and other “xenophobic” parties. In one of many similar incidents, which extreme Leftists bragged about on the Internet, around 30 members of the SD were attacked during a peaceful, private party outside the town of Växjö. The brave “anti-Fascists” threw tear gas into the building, forcing people outside where they were beaten with iron bars and axes. Open, aggressive and sometimes violent harassment of critics of the country’s immigration policies has been going on for years while the authorities have largely turned a blind eye to the problem. Still, the SD’s press spokesman Jonas Åkerlund has said such attacks have become less common, and in 2008 the party does seem to be treated slightly better.

Seemingly encouraged by the silence from the establishment to political violence, extreme Leftists have stepped up their attacks to include mainstream parties, such as the Centre Party’s offices in Stockholm. Newspaper Expressen warned against the “low-intensity terrorism” conducted by extreme Leftists and neo-Nazis. But they were honest enough to admit that the extreme Leftists have tended to get away with their violence because it has been directed against despised right-wingers. Political scientist Peter Esaiasson has done research into every election movement in Sweden since 1866. According to him, the organized attempts at disrupting meetings during the 2006 elections have no parallels in modern history.

AFA are Marxists and convinced that progress can only be made through violent struggle: “If we want to fight against capitalism, the working class needs to be united, and in order to be so intolerance cannot be tolerated. However, if we want to fight against intolerance we have to defeat capitalism as an extension of that struggle. Hence anti-fascism, feminism and the struggle against homophobia go hand in hand with the class struggle!”

If you protest against Muslim immigration, you suffer from Islamophobia, which is almost the same as xenophobia, which is almost the same as racism. And racists are almost Fascists and Nazis, as we all know, and they shouldn’t be allowed to voice their opinions in public. Hence, if you protest against being assaulted or raped by immigrants, you are evil and need to be silenced. Natives who object to a mass immigration that will render them a minority in their own country within a couple of generations have already been classified as “racists,” and racists are for all practical purposes outside of the protection of the law. According to Politikerbloggen, AFA have produced a manual about how to use violence in order to paralyze and hurt their opponents, and they encourage their members to study it closely.

The “respectable,” state-funded organization Antirasistisk Senter, the Antiracist Center in Norway, at their home page as of 2008 link to AFA Stockholm, which they call “militant Swedish anti-Fascists.” So they know that they are “militant,” but not so much that they won’t link to them. They also link to Antifaschistische Aktion (AFA) in Berlin, some of whose members were probably among the brave “anti-Fascists” who assaulted “racist” old ladies and Jewish “Nazis” during the peaceful anti-Islamization demonstration in Cologne, Germany in September 2008. The other organizations mentioned indicate that these are recommended and not just “relevant” links. This is met with silence from the mass media and the political class.

The girlfriend of a politician from the Sweden Democrats was attacked at her home outside Stockholm. The young woman was found bound with duct tape in the apartment block where she lives with Martin Kinnunen, chairman of the youth wing of the SD. Three men had forced their way into the couple’s apartment and held the 19-year-old at knife point. Kinnunen tells of several threats and anonymous phone calls to the family. He blames the media for systematically portraying the SD as monsters and thus for legitimizing aggression against them, and claims that the Swedish democracy is a sham.

text14|News website The Local states that members of the only significant (but still small) party in Sweden critical of mass immigration live under constant threat of violence. Sweden is witnessing the greatest explosion of street violence in its history, and a woman is raped every two hours. Expo, which is backed by the media and the major parties, has been campaigning against the Sweden Democrats for years. Daniel Poohl from the unelected organization Expo states that it’s “not undemocratic” to deny the SD access to political influence.

According to Jonathan Friedman, an American working in Sweden for years, “no debate about immigration policies is possible, the subject is simply avoided. Sweden has such a close connection between the various powerful groups, politicians, journalists, etc. The political class is closed, isolated.” The elites are worried to see their power slip away and therefore want to silence critics, for instance the Sweden Democrats, a small party opposed to immigration: “It is a completely legal party, they just aren’t allowed to speak.…In reality, the basis of democracy has been completely turned on its head. It is said: ‘Democracy is a certain way of thinking, a specific set of opinions, and if you do not share them, then you aren’t democratic, and then we condemn you and you ought to be eliminated. The People? That is not democratic. We the Elite, we are democracy.’ It is grotesque and it certainly has nothing to do with democracy, more like a kind of moral dictatorship.”

As Bruce Bawer writes in the article While Sweden Slept: “Sweden Democrats have been the targets of events that recall China’s Cultural Revolution. Staged ‘people’s protests’ by members of the ‘youth divisions’ of other parties have led to the firing of Sweden Democrats from their jobs. A few weeks ago, a junior diplomat was dismissed when it became known that he was a member of the party and had criticized his country’s immigration policy. On several occasions, thugs loyal to the ruling parties have broken up SD meetings and beaten up party leaders.”

A judge who hears migration appeals had his house vandalized by left-wing extremists. Threats were sprayed on the walls, red paint was poured over the steps and an axe was left outside his home. “When a judge in a Swedish court has his home vandalized in this way, it is of course very serious,” said Ingvar Paulsson, head of the Gothenburg District Administrative Court. The group Antifascistisk Action (AFA) wrote on its homepage that the attack was motivated by the plight of Iraqi asylum seekers. The Swedish Board of Migration has ruled that they should be deported if they cannot show that a threat exists against them personally.

Sweden alone in 2006 accepted almost as many asylum applications from Iraqis as all other European countries did combined. Native Swedes, who live in a country which was one of the most ethnically homogeneous nations in the world only 30 years ago, will be a minority in their own country within a few decades if current trends continue. Sweden is self-destructing at a pace which is unprecedented in history (although other Western nations are trying hard to beat them to it), but for the extreme Left, even this isn’t fast enough.

I have seen a TV program from the city of Malmö, the third-largest in Sweden, where a veiled Muslim girl told how much she loved it there; it was just like some Arab city. A large proportion of the incoming Iraqis have settled in Södertälje, which vies with the soon-to-be majority Muslim Malmö as the town with the highest percentage of social welfare recipients. However, in Södertälje there is a much larger amount of Assyrian Christians. Interestingly enough, the native population are still harassed by immigrant gangs. This demonstrates that sometimes this is not about Jihad; it’s about racist violence against the white population by various immigrant groups from developing countries. Consequently, the only way to stop this is to halt or severely limit all mass immigration, not just Muslim immigration.

In the fall of 2008, a girl in Södertälje was brutally assaulted and beaten unconscious (they continued beating her even after she was unconscious) by a group of more than twenty armed young men dressed in black. The attackers were immigrants (which the newspaper article actually stated; Swedish media usually don’t mention this if a crime involves immigrant perps) and screamed “f**king Swedish whore!” while they beat the girl and her friend and kicked her while she was lying on the ground. The good news is that another group of five young men (native Swedes) intervened. That took real courage since they were unarmed and greatly outnumbered. They got badly beaten up but probably saved the girl’s life.

As blogger Baron says, “What makes Södertälje unusual is that most of the immigrants causing trouble are not Muslims, but Assyrian Christians. The example of Södertälje highlights the fact that the issue in Sweden and other parts of Europe is not just Muslim immigration, but all mass immigration, especially from the Third World. Even though the Assyrians are Christians, like their Muslim counterparts they have brought with them violence, crime, the disinclination to assimilate, and a widespread disregard for the laws and customs of their adopted country. These are hard lessons to learn, but it’s important to see the problem clearly: mass immigration into a country tends to cause disruption of civil society and lawlessness. It also tends to erode respect for the authority of the state, on the part of immigrants and natives alike.”

Swedish blogger Daniel Eriksson has made a report from Södertälje, which is one of the towns in Sweden with the highest portion of immigrants. A very large number of them are Christian Assyrians, who have clans and even run their own courts:

“Mafia-like criminal networks, many of the members of which are Assyrians, threaten policemen, officials, and small businesses. In classic mafia style, restaurants are offered ‘protection’. Professional criminals work at the entrance, which enables them control how much money comes in and to take what share they want. An alcohol inspector got a bomb put on the outside of his car. Threats are regularly issued against policemen — ‘your house will be burnt down, we know where you live’, etc. It is generally believed that the fact that the Assyrian group is so dominant it a major reason for the problems. In more diverse multicultural areas, people don’t stick as much to one another as the Assyrians do in Södertälje. The diversity makes it less easy for criminals to co-operate, less easy to construct a parallel justice system, and people are also more prone to integrate into Swedish society. The Assyrians in Södertälje don’t need that; they have set up their own self-contained society in Södertälje.”

Following the September 2006 election, Fredrik Reinfeldt became Prime Minister of Sweden, presiding over a centre-right coalition government. This is, in my view, positive. Sweden has been described as a “one-party state,” since the Social Democrats had been in power for 65 of the previous 74 years and had more or less merged with the big labor unions and some government agencies. It is healthy that other parties are in power for a while.

However, the differences between the left-wing and the right-wing in Sweden are not always that big. The last time these parties were in power, under the leadership of PM Carl Bildt from the Swedish “conservative” party in the early 1990s, they presided over massive immigration, and have not been vocal in their opposition to the immigration policies since. Bildt, now Foreign Minister in Reinfeldt’s government, as a UN Commissioner to the Balkans called for recognizing Islam as a part of European culture. These parties are slightly more sensible in economic policies than the Social Democrats, but not much better when it comes to Multiculturalism. Mass immigration continues at full speed.

The “conservative” PM Reinfeldt has stated that the traditional Swedish culture was merely barbarism. He said this following a visit to an area called Ronna in Södertälje, near Stockholm. In an earlier incident, a police station in Södertälje was hit by shots from an automatic weapon following a confrontation between immigrant youths and police. Apart from police staff, two civilian Swedish women were in the police station. They were being questioned about harassment earlier in the day. Three young men who had been identified by the women were suspected of making illegal threats. The three men were released in the evening, but the arrests provoked strong reactions. A group of immigrants advanced on the police and attacked them with stones. The trouble in Ronna started after a native Swedish girl had been called a “whore” by some immigrants and she reacted to this.

Such incidents are part of the increasingly extreme sexual and physical violence targeting native whites by immigrant gangs. This is way beyond just “crime,” it can hardly be labeled anything other than ethnic warfare. It has been met with almost total silence from the “anti-racist” organizations, many of which are dominated by white Marxists more than by immigrants. They appear to be totally uninterested in racism against their own people, and indirectly encourage it by telling immigrants that they face a system of repressive “white racism” designed to hold them down, thus whipping up hatred against whites.

Expo has ties to extreme left-wing organizations. For instance, one member of their staff in 2008, Kenny Hjälte, was until recently an active member of the Left Party, the “reformed” Communist party. Just how “reformed” this party is has been a matter of controversy. Their leader Lars Ohly called himself a “Leninist” as late as 1999, a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Following media exposure regarding his party’s links with the repressive Communist regimes of Eastern Europe during the Cold War, he said that he would no longer call himself a Communist but still supported the Marxist ideals of a classless society.

The seminar “Arguments against the Sweden Democrats” in October 2007 was moderated by a person representing Internationalen, the newspaper of Socialistiska partiet, the representatives of Trotskyist Communists in Sweden. It was co-organized by Arbetaren (“The Worker”), a Socialist newspaper, with Kajsa Lindohf from Expo and journalist Mats Deland from major newspaper Aftonbladet as participants. Several prominent Swedes have a background from Arbetaren, among them the author Liza Marklund. She cooperates professionally with the writer Jan Guillou, whose story about the fictional character Arn Magnusson, placed during the Crusades (with a heavy anti-Christian and pro-Islamic bias), in 2007 was turned into the most expensive film production in Scandinavian history.

Jan Guillou refused to honor the victims of the Jihadist attacks of September 11, 2001 with three minutes of silence because the attacks were “an attack on U.S. imperialism.” Responding to a study showing a vastly disproportionate amount of Left Party (former Communist party) supporters among journalists, the Socialist Jan Guillou admitted that “The statistics are true.” Guillou has boasted about the fact that unlike their neighbors, Sweden doesn’t have a significant political party critical of mass immigration. This is, according to him, because the intellectuals have stuck together to prevent such “Islamophobia and racism” from gaining ground. It is curious that he brags about curtailing freedom of speech regarding mass immigration, since from 2000 to 2004 he was the chairman of the Swedish Publicists’ Association, which is supposedly dedicated to free speech in the mass media.

To give some perspective on just how biased the Swedish political and media establishment is, here is a blog post from February 2008 by the Scandinavia-based American writer Bruce Bawer, author of the international bestseller While Europe Slept:

“Dagens Nyheter, Sweden’s largest newspaper, contains a piece by Andreas Malm about While Europe Slept, Bat Yeor’s Eurabia, Walter Laqueur’s Last Days of Europe, and Mark Steyn’s America Alone. (But mostly about While Europe Slept.) It’s more of the usual mischief: instead of seriously addressing the facts and analyses in these books, Malm is regally dismissive and derisive, relentlessly mocking the authors and caricaturing their arguments.”

Who is Mr. Malm? According to Bawer he’s “a former member of Syndicalist Youth (no, it’s not a Swedish boy band), a regular contributor to a syndicalist weekly called Arbetaren, and a founder of the Swedish branch of the International Solidarity Movement. A couple of years ago he wrote a piece for Expressen explaining why he supports Hizbollah. In this corner of the world, it’s only par for the course for a major newspaper to invite a person with such a résumé to write about books like While Europe Slept.”

The Syndicalist Youth see themselves as a part of the “revolutionary Left” and champion a “stateless and classless” society. They are supporters of the Palestinian intifada because it “shows the way for the millions of workers in the West and for us revolutionaries who are fighting in the heart” of “US-led imperialism.” As Norwegian journalist Jens Tomas Anfindsen notes, it is difficult to believe that a person with a history of revolutionary activism could be awarded a job in this “paper of record” unless they knew about his background and maybe considered it an asset. Dagens Nyheter is a “center-right” newspaper by local standards. A supporter of the Islamic terrorist organization Hizbollah and of a global stateless world thus gets to write about “Islamophobia” in a leading “conservative” newspaper.

In contrast, Lennart Eriksson worked at the Swedish Migration Board for more than 20 years. In 2007 he was ousted from his job as unit manager, allegedly because he ran a website in which he gave his opinions on various issues and because he is a political Conservative and pro-Israeli. On his website, he voiced appreciation of the US and Israel as thriving democracies and praised US general Patton as a hero of World War Two. He never spent work-time on his website and never used his work computers for this purpose. Neither do his employers contend that he ever did so. Eriksson sued the Migration Board. He maintains he has in effect been fired from his job as asylum assessment unit manager, camouflaged in the form of a transfer, and feels that there is no legal or justifiable cause for the move. The Migration Board confirms that Lennart Eriksson has been transferred as a result of the opinions he expressed on his private website. The case will be settled in October 2008, but as far as I know, it was not yet resolved when this book was completed, on October 13 2008.

In Sweden, you risk your job if you are a pro-Israeli, pro-American conservative or an “Islamophobe,” but ridiculing Christianity or supporting Islamic terrorist organizations is OK; it may even enhance your career prospects. Criticizing Multiculturalism and mass immigration will not only make you lose your job (there have been several cases of this), but could make you a victim of physical attacks, perhaps in your private home.

At the same time as Eriksson’s case was scheduled for court, Swedish Academy supremo Horace Engdahl denounced the “ignorance” of authors from the United States and claimed that the reason why not many Nobel Prizes for Literature are awarded to Americans is that Europeans are more open-minded. Americans “don’t really participate in the big dialogue” of ideas. Which dialogue is he referring to? The only dialogue self-appointed intellectuals in his country are interested in is with hardline Marxists, Islamic Jihadists and others who believe Western civilization is evil and should be destroyed.

When Andreas Malm wrote about the “Islamophobia” of Bruce Bawer, Bat Ye’or and Canadian writer Mark Steyn, he was echoing an article written by Expo. In late 2007 Expo released the publication [ pdf, in Swedish] “The war against Islam,” in which they worried about an increasing trend towards “organized Islamophobia” in the West. They specifically singled out the Brussels anti-Jihad conference of October 2007 for attention, and compared criticism of Communism, which has killed perhaps one hundred million people, to criticism of Islam. Expo’s founder Stieg Larsson was pro-Communist and met his future wife during a support meeting for the pro-Communist National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam.

As we speak, Muslims are driving Christians out of the birthplace of Jesus Christ, Bethlehem, but Western media choose to blame this on the Jewish state of Israel, a fellow victim of Jihad. The Christian population has dwindled from more than 85 per cent in 1948 to 12 per cent of its inhabitants in 2006. The few remaining non-Muslim communities in the Middle East are being systematically eradicated. Overall, the Middle Eastern Christian population has dropped from 20 percent in 1900 to less than 2 percent today, and is declining by the day. Why do “anti-racists” hardly write a single word about global Muslim infidelophobia when they are so concerned about Islamophobia?

On the International Women’s Day, March 8 2008, the columnist Marte Michelet in left-wing Multicultural Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet attacked “brown” Feminists. And no, by that she did not mean Feminists with a dark skin, but those championing “Fascist,” racist and Islamophobic forces, which she took to mean virtually the same thing. One of them would be Hege Storhaug from the organization Human Rights Service, who has worked for the rights of immigrant women. After Ms. Michelet got many angry responses from readers who are fed-up with Islam, she wrote another article arguing that “Islamophobia is the most dangerous ideology of our time” and referred to Expo’s work in Sweden. According to her, “The amateur historian Bat Ye’or [is] the author of the Islamophobic Bible, the book Eurabia, which warns of a Muslim conspiracy against Europe. The book is probably as trustworthy as the anti-Semitic idea of the Jewish conspiracy ZOG.”

Columnist Marte Michelet is the daughter of the Communist writer Jon Michelet and was until 1998 the leader of the Red Youth, the country’s “revolutionary youth league.” For my part, I find it very interesting how many Marxist Feminists, who have for generations worked to break down Christianity and the nuclear family in the West, now passionately embrace Islam, the most repressive religion on earth. Marxists do not care about “women’s liberty.” They do not care about anybody’s liberty. They support anything that can destabilize the West. The fact that a newspaper that has been at the forefront of radical Feminism for generations now suddenly warns against “Islamophobia” and “prejudice” against the world’s most anti-female religion is highly revealing.

Ethnologist Maria Bäckman, in her study “Whiteness and gender,” has followed a group of Swedish girls in the suburb of Rinkeby outside Stockholm, where natives have been turned into a minority of the inhabitants due to immigration. The subjects “may encounter prejudices such as the idea that Swedish girls act and dress in a sexually provocative way or that blonde girls are easy.” Bäckman relates that several of the Swedish girls she interviewed stated that they had dyed their hair to avoid sexual harassment. They experienced that being blonde involves old men staring at you, cars honking their horns and boys calling you “whore.”

A report from organization Save the Children told that Swedish girls are scared of being raped, a possibility that appears very real to them. A survey carried out among ninth-grade boys in the immigrant-dominated suburb of Rinkeby showed that in the last year, 17% of the boys had forced someone to have sex, 31% had hurt someone so badly that the victim required medical care, and 24% had committed burglary or broken into a car. Sensational statistics, but they appear to have been published only in a daily newssheet that is distributed free on the subways.

“It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl,” says Hamid, in an interview about a gang rape involving a Swedish girl and immigrant perps. “The Swedish girl gets a lot of help afterwards, and she had probably f**ked before, anyway. But the Arab girl will get problems with her family. For her, being raped is a source of shame. It is important that she retains her virginity….It is far too easy to get a Swedish whore…girl, I mean;” says Hamid, and laughs over his own choice of words. “I don’t have too much respect for Swedish girls. I guess you can say they get f**ked to pieces.”

In an article from June 2007 with the title “Summertime — rape time,” Aftonbladet, one of the largest dailies in Scandinavia, linked the spike in rapes during the summer to the warm weather. The official number of rape charges in Sweden has more than quadrupled during one generation, even more for girls under the age of 15. If this is due to the warm weather, I suppose the Scandinavian rape wave is caused by global warming? The fact that a greatly disproportionate number of the suspects have an immigrant background according to statistics from neighboring Norway and Denmark is purely coincidental, no doubt.

According to journalist Karen Jespersen, Helle Klein, the political editor-in-chief of Aftonbladet from 2001 to 2007 and a former leading member of the Social Democratic Youth League, has stated that “If the debate is [about] that there are problems caused by refugees and immigrants, we don’t want it.” Opinion polls have revealed that two out of three Swedes doubt whether Islam can be combined with Swedish society, yet not one party in parliament has been genuinely critical of the immigration policies.

The rape numbers are being heavily manipulated by the authorities and the media, who claim that the massive increase in rapes is caused by:

A.		The warm weather
B.		Alcohol,
C.		Internet dating sites, and
D.		A technical increase due to the fact that women suddenly report rape more frequently than before.

These are the explanations that are mentioned. There is no other. Suggesting that it has something to do with mass immigration of alien and aggressive cultures is quite literally banned by law. In March 2007 during a rally supported by SSU, the Social Democratic Youth League, a man carried a sign reading, “While Swedish girls are being gang raped by immigrant gangs the SSU is fighting racism.” He was promptly arrested and later sentenced to a fine because he “expressed disrespect for a group of people with reference to their national or ethnic background.” The local court rejected the man’s free speech argument because even free speech has its limits, and he had clearly acted in a too provocative manner.

In September 2008, while an anti-Islamization demonstration was interrupted in Germany, clashes between police and demonstrators broke out as Malmö played host to the European Social Forum, with assorted groups of international left-wingers. Rocks were thrown at the police, windows were broken and a woman was raped as 800 people demonstrated against climate change. One group of Leftist blackhoods carried a banner with the inscription: Yes we are dreamers, Yes we believe in socialism, But we are more numerous than you think, and we have weapons. AFA Youth Malmö (AFA=Antifascistisk Aktion). This is a group which has assaulted critics of immigration for years, even judges and public officials, yet they can demonstrate openly in the streets and brag about how well armed they are. That doesn’t mean that free speech doesn’t have its limits. It clearly does.

Dahn Pettersson, a local politician, has been fined 18,000 kronor for writing that 95 percent of all heroin brought in comes via Albanians from Kosovo. “It is never ethnic groups that commit crimes. It is individuals or groups of individuals,” prosecutor Mats Svensson told the court, which found Pettersson guilty of “Agitation Against a Minority Group.” Svante Nycander, former editor of daily Dagens Nyheter, stated that “the ruling in Malmö District Court is damaging to freedom of expression. Many will take it as proof that the authorities are afraid of uncomfortable truths, and that lacking reasoned counter-arguments they punish those who speak plainly.” In Sweden, saying that Muslim Albanians are behind much of the drug traffic in Europe (a fact) is a crime. Making derogatory statements about the native population, however, is just fine.

Feriz and Pajtim, members of the group Gangsta Albanian Thug Unit in Malmö, explain to a journalist how they mug people downtown. They target a lone victim. “We surround him and beat and kick him until he no longer fights back,” Feriz says. They are always many more people than their victims. Isn’t this cowardly? “I have heard that from many, but I disagree. The whole point is that they’re not supposed to have a chance.” They don’t express any sympathy for their victims. “If they get injured, they just have themselves to blame for being weak,” says Pajtim and shrugs. “Many of us took part in gangs which fought against the Serbs in Kosovo. We have violence in our blood.” They blame the politicians for why they are mugging, stating that they are bored. If the state could provide them with something to do, maybe they would stop attacking people. But is a lack of leisure pursuits the only reason why they assault people? “No, it’s good fun as well,” says Feriz.

The wave of robberies the city of Malmö has experienced is part of a “war against Swedes.” This is the explanation given by young robbers from an immigrant background in interviews conducted by sociologist Petra Åkesson: “When we are in the city and robbing we are waging a war, waging a war against the Swedes. Power for me means that the Swedes shall look at me, lie down on the ground and kiss my feet. We rob every single day, as often as we want to, whenever we want to.”

Swedish authorities have virtually done nothing to stop this. On the contrary, they continue the policies that created these problems and ban opposition to this as “racism.” Sweden has absolutely no public debate about mass immigration, yet the natives are victims of an unprecedented wave of violence. While this is going on, the number one priority for the political class is demonizing neighboring Denmark for its “brutal” and “xenophobic” debate about immigration. During the immigrant riots in France in 2005, the Social Democratic Prime Minister Göran Persson criticized the way the French handled the unrest: “It feels like a very hard and confrontational approach.” He rejected the idea of more local police in Sweden. “To start sending out signals about strengthening the police is to break with the political line we have chosen to follow,” he said.

Police officers in 2007 protested against a new uniform designed to make them appear less aggressive by replacing boots with shoes, making guns less visible and changing the shirts to a softer, gentler color. Jan Karlsen from the Swedish Police Union warns that the underfunded police force will not be able to keep up with organized crime and rising levels of ethnic tensions for much longer. Meanwhile, Sweden has all but abolished its armed forces. According to Professor Wilhelm Agrell, Sweden now has a security policy based on the assumption that national territorial defense is no longer needed. The few soldiers they do have are stationed in faraway places.

Don’t Swedes pay famously high tax rates? Yes, they do. But tens of billions of kroner are spent on propping up rapidly growing communities of immigrants. Sweden has become the entire world’s welfare office and its celebrated welfare state the world’s largest pyramid scheme, an Enron with a national flag. The Danish People’s Party have suggested that Denmark should limit the right to settle in other Nordic countries and claim benefits because they fear that the Swedish welfare state could break down due to immigration, triggering a flood of welfare tourists to neighboring countries. “Sweden will have to make dramatic cuts in social security benefits unless they want their welfare system to come crashing down,” says Søren Espersen from the DPP.

In the New York Times May 10, 2006, Alan Cowell wrote an article from Sweden entitled “An Economy With Safety Features, Sort of Like a Volvo.” In all fairness, Mr. Cowell does mention potential problems, not the least that massive immigration is rapidly changing what was once a very ethnically homogeneous nation state. Still, he concludes that “the economy prospers — even though taxes here remain high and big government administers cradle-to-grave social programs that absorb more than half of the national output” and that “compared with some other parts of Europe, there is still some optimism here.”

This is sloppy journalism. Cowell states that “Sweden’s official unemployment rate of 4.8 percent, many economists say, is distorted by the omission of people in government-financed retraining programs. The labor unions calculate the real figure at closer to 8 percent.” In fact, some Swedes have suggested that true unemployment was more in the ballpark of 20-25%. In June 2006, think tank McKinsey Global Institute claimed that Sweden’s real unemployment rate was 15 percent, and that “If nothing else changes, the resulting increase in welfare costs would become too large to finance through the current tax system in only 10 to 20 years.”

500,000 people are on early retirement, 68,000 of whom are between the ages of 20 and 40. “If the sick-leave levels in Sweden really were an indicator of how sick we are, we would be facing a plague here,” as one commentator put it. Johnny Munkhammar of free market think-tank Timbro thinks the Scandinavian model is not all it’s cracked up to be. Sweden had the second highest growth rate in the world from 1890 to 1950, but since the tax rate later rose drastically it has fallen behind. It was the fourth richest country per capita in the world in 1970 whereas now it is number 14, and falling.

More immigrants should be allowed in to safeguard the welfare system, said finance minister Pär Nuder in 2005. However, unofficial estimates indicate that immigration costs at least 40 to 50 billion Swedish kroner every year, probably much more. A cost of 225 billion kroner in 2004, which is a high but not impossible estimate, would equal 17.5% of the tax income in a country where the overall tax burden between 1990 and 2005 on average was 61%. Exact numbers are impossible to come by, as the authorities refuse to make such calculations out of fear that it would contribute to “racism and xenophobia.”

Parallel with mass immigration from Third World countries, more people are leaving Sweden than at any time since the late 19th century. This trend is similar to that of the Netherlands, Germany, Britain and other countries where well-educated natives leave while they are being displaced by immigrants from developing countries. This policy of population replacement clearly cannot be economically beneficial to the countries in question. It is difficult to see any other logic behind this policy than a desire to crush existing Western nation states by all means necessary. In the 19th century Swedes left because of poverty. In the 21st they leave because their country is systematically being taken away from them by their own authorities.

Doesn’t this mean that the Swedish state and its elites are indirectly responsible for driving their own people away from their homes? I think it does, and I think future generations will view this policy as an example of pure evil. I also think they will find it difficult to understand how those who are vilified could in this case be the majority population, not a minority. There are several reasons for this, but I find it hard to believe whether this would have been possible without the incessant demonization of people of European origins and their culture that has become an established part of the mainstream ideology in many countries.

An unofficial survey among 52 Swedish municipalities indicated that at least 114 cases of arson against schools were registered within the first half of 2006, but accurate numbers were hard to come by. At least 139 schools suffered attempted arson during 2002 alone. Firefighter Björn Vinberg from the Malmö area says it is degrading to put out fires again and again in the same immigrant areas, with school kids laughing at them and lighting a new one just afterwards. No doubt, this must be a protest against the institutionalized and pervasive racism in Swedish society. By 2008, firefighters in Malmö demand police escorts on calls. They have had enough of threats in some of the city’s rougher areas. The firemen were attacked twice in a week during calls to the Muslim-dominated Rosengård suburb. In one case a “youth” pelted a fireman with stones, while another was attacked by a barrage of raw eggs. None of this has discouraged the political elites from continuing mass immigration, however.

Writer Nima Sanandaji states that “The Social Democratic party has started fishing for votes with the help of radical Muslims clergies.” They have been working with the influential Muslim leader Mahmoud Aldebe, president of Sweden’s Muslim Association, which is widely believed to be inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood. In 1999 Aldebe proposed that sharia should be introduced in Sweden. The Social Democrat Ola Johansson has referred to the book Social Justice in Islam by Muslim Brotherhood member and influential Jihadist ideologue Sayyid Qutb as proof that Socialist ideology can find common ground with Islamic ideas. After the elections in 2002, the Muslim Association sent a congratulation letter to the re-elected Social Democratic Prime Minister Göran Persson, hoping that his party would work for implementing some of their sharia demands in the future.

In 2006, the Muslim Association demanded in a letter, signed by its leader Aldebe, separate family laws regulating marriage and divorce, public schools with imams teaching homogeneous classes of Muslim children their religion and the language of their original homeland, and a “mosque in every municipality to be built through interest-free loans made available by the local municipalities.” This to demonstrate “Islam’s right to exist in Sweden” and to “heighten the status of and respect towards Muslims.” The demands were rejected by the Social Democrats then, but we shouldn’t be surprised if we see calls for the use of sharia in family matters by this “feminist” party. The British Labour Party has already accepted this.

In 2007 Broderskapsrörelsen (“The Brotherhood”), an organization of Christian members of the Social Democratic Party, decided to establish a network for cooperation with people of other faiths, which largely seemed to mean Muslims. The Social Democrats narrowly lost the elections in 2006 and appear to have decided that the way to regain and maintain power is to import voters; a strategy adopted by many of their sister parties in Western Europe.

According to journalist Salam Karam, “For the Muslim Brotherhood, Sweden is in many ways an ideal country, [and it] shares the ideals of the Social Democrats in their view of the welfare society. Leading figures in Muslim congregations are also active within the Social Democratic [Party], and have very good relations with Sweden’s Christian Social Democrats — Broderskapsrörelsen. The Social Democrats have, in turn, and perhaps as thanks for the support they receive from the mosque leadership, shown a tendency to shy away from the fact that there is extremism in some of our mosques. This has given the Muslim Brotherhood the freedom to force its ideology upon [the mosque’s worshippers].”

The Swedish Social Democrats were pro-Fascist and pro-Nazi during the 1930s and 40s, appeased the Communists during the Cold War and cooperate with radical Islamic organizations today. They have consistently supported or appeased some of the worst societies and ideologies in human history. Yet they are the good guys, the poster boys of the political Left throughout the world.

Why do they get away with this? How come Socialists can ally themselves openly with some of the most violent and repressive movements on earth and still manage to portray themselves as beacons of goodness? I am tempted to agree with former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky: The West didn’t win the Cold War, at least not as decisively as we should have done. The belief-system we were up against has been allowed to mutate and regain some of its former strength. We haven’t defeated Socialism (or Multiculturalism) until we stage a Nuremberg trial and demonstrate clearly that the suffering, repression and massacres by regimes from Vietnam via the Ukraine to the Baltic were a direct result of Socialist doctrines.

Many former Marxists have become passionate Multiculturalists, so much so that we need to analyze what these doctrines have in common. How come so many white Marxists are aggressively hostile to their own civilization and almost seem to derive pleasure from the idea of wiping out their own people? Is Globalist Multiculturalism on some level a replacement Communism or is it in fact a direct continuation of Communism? In traditional Communism the “oppressive class” should be forced out of power, stripped of their assets and perhaps physically eliminated. If we assume that whites, and by that I mean people of European stock, are seen collectively as the “global oppressive class” who uphold the capitalist system and prevent a just world order, breaking down whites becomes the road to implement equality. Perhaps if traditional Communism put its emphasis on economic differences, this new form of Communism puts emphasis on breaking down cultural and genetic differences in order to achieve global equality. It could thus be thought of as cultural and genetic Communism.

If we assume that the ideology of Globalist Multiculturalism has totalitarian tendencies, we should remember that totalitarian ideologies usually have a Villain Class, a group of evil oppressors that can be blamed for all the ills of society. If the ruling ideology falls somewhat short of producing the Perfect Society it has promised, this will be followed by even more passionate attacks on the Villain Class, be that the Jews, the capitalists, the bourgeoisie, etc. The Villain Class of Multiculturalism seems to be European culture and persons who happen to be born with a white skin. Any problems will automatically be blamed on “white racism.” One of the hallmarks of a Villain Class is that its members can be verbally or even physically abused with impunity. The Villain Class is subject to public scorn and has de facto or de jure less legal protection than other groups.

The radical feminist Joanna Rytel wrote an article called “I Will Never Give Birth to a White Man,” for the Swedish daily Aftonbladet, stating things such as “no white men, please… I just puke on them.” After receiving a complaint because of this, Swedish state prosecutor Göran Lambertz explained why this didn’t qualify as racism: “The purpose behind the law against incitement of ethnic hatred was to ensure legal protection for minority groups of different compositions and followers of different religions. Cases where people express themselves in a critical or derogatory way about men of ethnic Swedish background were not intended to be included in this law.”

In 2006, Chancellor of Justice Göran Lambertz discontinued his preliminary investigation regarding anti-Semitism at the great mosque in Stockholm. He wrote that “the lecture at hand contains statements that are strongly degrading to Jews, among other things, they are throughout called brothers of apes and pigs.” Furthermore a curse is expressed over the Jews and “Jihad is called for, to kill the Jews, whereby suicide bombers — celebrated as martyrs — are the most effective weapon.” Lambertz thought that the “recently mentioned statements in spite of their contents are not to be considered incitement against an ethnic group according to Swedish law.” His conclusions were that the preliminary investigation should be discontinued because this incitement against Jews could be said to originate from the Middle East conflict.

It is illegal to suggest that certain groups are worse than others. If you criticize oppression of women, you should be careful to state that all men are equally bad and that Western men are at least as bad as Muslim men. The Marxist politician (from the “reformed” Communists) Gudrun Schyman in a 2002 speech posited that Swedish men were just like the extremely brutal Islamic Taliban regime. A male columnist in newspaper Aftonbladet immediately agreed with her: Yes, Western men are like the Taliban.

A note to Ms. Schyman: A feminist culture will eventually be squashed because the men have either become too demoralized and weakened to protect their women, or because they have become fed-up with incessant ridicule. If Western men are pigs and “just like the Taliban” no matter what we do, why bother? Western women will then be squashed by more aggressive men from other cultures (whom women often voted to let in because of their “kind and compassionate” Socialist sympathies), which is exactly what is happening in Western Europe now. The irony is that when women launched the Second Wave of Feminism in the 1960s and 70s, they were reasonably safe and, in my view, not very oppressed. When the long-term effects of feminism finally set in, Western women may very well end up being genuinely oppressed under the boot of Islam. Radical feminism thus leads to oppression of women.

In 2005, a TV program which caused some stir quoted Irene von Wachenfeldt, chairwoman of ROKS, The National Organization for Women’s Shelters, as saying: “…when war breaks out, it is fully ok to use violence openly. I sometimes say that we are involved in a civil world war, a gender war. Men are animals.” In the organization’s magazine, the extreme feminist Valeria Solana was hailed in a review. She writes in her manifesto: “To call a man an animal is to flatter him: He is a machine, a walking dildo, a biological mishap.” In the TV documentary, Irene von Wachenfelt was asked whether she agreed with Solana, and she did. ROKS has received millions in public funding.

In Sweden, you cannot say that certain ethnic groups are more involved in crime than others. That’s hateful and banned by law. But you can say that all men are animals, and you will get state support for doing so. You can also belittle the traditional culture of the natives. This is not just allowed but encouraged. As mentioned before, the “conservative” Prime Minister Reinfeldt has stated that the native culture was merely barbarism and that everything good has been imported from abroad. Had a public figure said something similar about the culture of an immigrant group, he or she would have had to resign immediately and most likely would have faced a trial for hate speech and racism.

Jonathan Friedman, an American Jew living in Sweden, mentions that the so-called Integration Act from 1997, two years after Sweden joined the European Union, proclaimed that “Sweden is a Multicultural society.” The Act implicitly states that Sweden doesn’t have a history, only the various ethnic groups that live there now. Native Swedes have formally been reduced to just another ethnic group, with no more claims to the country than the Iraqis who arrived there last Thursday. As Friedman puts it, “it’s almost as if the state has sided with the immigrants against the Swedish working class.”

“Exit Folkhemssverige - En samhällsmodells sönderfall“ (Exit the People’s Home of Sweden — The Downfall of a Model of Society) is a book from 2005 about immigration and the welfare state model called “the people’s home,” written by Jonathan Friedman, Ingrid Björkman, Jan Elfverson and Åke Wedin. According to them, the Multicultural elites see themselves first of all as citizens of the world. In order to emphasize and accentuate “diversity,” everything associated with the native culture is deliberately disparaged. Opposition to this is considered racism: “The dominant ideology in Sweden, which has been made dominant by powerful methods of silencing and repression, is a totalitarian ideology, where the elites oppose the national aspect of the nation state. The problem is that the ethnic group that are described as Swedes implicitly are considered to be nationalists, and thereby are viewed as racists.”

Jens Orback, Minister for Democracy, Metropolitan Affairs, Integration and Gender Equality from the Social Democratic Party said during a debate in Swedish radio in 2004 that “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”

This was a government which knew perfectly well that their people risked becoming a minority in their own country, yet did nothing to stop this. On the contrary: Pierre Schori, Minister for Immigration, during a parliamentary debate in 1997 said that: “Racism and xenophobia should be banned and chased [away],” and that one should not accept “excuses, such as that there were flaws in the immigration and refugee policies.”

In other words: It should be viewed as a crime for the native white population not to assist in wiping themselves out from the lands where their ancestors have lived since prehistoric times. The state is turned into a committed enemy of the very people it was supposed to serve and protect. Swedes pay some of the highest tax rates in the world, and for this they get runaway crime rates and a government that is actively hostile to their interests.

Mona Sahlin has held various posts in Social Democratic cabinets, among others as Minister for Democracy, Integration and Gender Equality. Sahlin has said that many Swedes are envious of immigrants because they, unlike the Swedes, have a culture, a history, something which ties them together. Notice how Swedish authorities first formally state that Swedes don’t have a history or culture, and then proceed to lament the fact that Swedes don’t have a history or culture. A neat trick: First you break down the traditional values of your nation; then you proclaim that it needs to import values from abroad because it doesn’t have any.

Sahlin has stated that “If two equally qualified persons apply for a job at a workplace with few immigrants, the one called Muhammad should get the job….It should be considered an asset to have an ethnic background different from the Swedish one.” This is another way of saying that the natives according to Multicultural doctrines are second-rate citizens of their own country. In 2004 she was quoted as saying that “A concerted effort that aims at educating Swedes that immigrants are a blessing to their country must be pursued,” stressing that her compatriots must accept that society is Multicultural. “Like it or not, this is the new Sweden.” Mona Sahlin was elected leader of the Social Democratic Party in 2007.

Only a week after members of Antifascistisk Action (AFA) harassed a Swedish judge and vandalized his house, AFA members demonstrated alongside the Swedish police, the Swedish government and the Swedish media establishment during Pride Week, Stockholm’s annual gay celebration, in August 2007. At the very end of the Pride Parade marched a group of black-clothed and masked blackhood or blackshirt representatives of AFA, ready to beat up anybody deemed to be insufficiently tolerant (they did hospitalize at least one person that day, according to their website). Adjacent to them marched a number of policemen, including members of the Swedish Gay Police organization.

According to journalist Kurt Lundgren, Mona Sahlin, expected to become Prime Minister in the future, was a participant in the Pride Festival in 2007 where she was graduated, after several questions about orgasms, to the F**king Medal Award. Has she given some thought to what effect this will have in a country with exploding rape statistics ? According to the leading blogger Dick Erixon, the number of reported rapes in Sweden is now three times as high as in New York City. NYC has roughly the same number of inhabitants but it is a metropolis, whereas Sweden is a country with mostly rural areas and villages. Swedish girls are called “whores” on a regular basis and are increasingly scared to go outside, yet the nation’s arguably most powerful woman takes the F**king Medal Award. How will this be perceived?

Moreover, how will these views on “sexual liberation” be reconciled with her party’s cozy relationship with groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, since several of its international leaders have indicated that gays should be killed? Top Brotherhood cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi discussed at the Arabic satellite channel al-Jazeera various punishments he said were appropriate for homosexuality, including being thrown from heights or burnings: “Some say we should burn them, and so on. There is disagreement.” Mona Sahlin thinks that the right-wing opposition party the Sweden Democrats are “a misogynistic” party. I suppose the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t? What about her party’s immigration policies, gang rapes of native girls and honor killings of immigrant girls? The Swedish Church has announced that it will allow gay couples to marry in church. Will the Social Democrats make sure that gay couples will be allowed to marry in mosques controlled by the MB? More interestingly, will the left-wing extremists of AFA attack them for homophobia if they refuse?

Kurt Lundgren in May 2007 had a noteworthy story on his blog. Lundgren reported about a magazine aimed at preschool teachers who take care of children between the ages of 0-6 years old. It included recommendations to promote “gender equality” and “sexual equality.” He said that in a kindergarten in Stockholm, parents were encouraged by the preschool teachers to equip their sons with dresses and female first names. There are now weeks in some places when boys HAVE TO wear a dress. Lundgren considers this sexual indoctrination to be worse than political propaganda:

“To give sex education to preschool children, to force them to have an opinion on gay sex and queer (lesbians, transsexuals, bisexuality, fetishism, cross over, sex change etc.) I regard as abuse of children.…Little children, we are talking about three to six-year-olds here, cannot in the preschool protect themselves from these sexual assaults. Their parents are not there, the children are totally left to themselves.”

One comment left by a blog reader stated: “My 13-year-old son had ‘equality day’ [in school] and had to listen to a transvestite. I have myself never encountered or talked to one during my considerably longer life. Why is this important? Today’s children know nothing about the crimes of Communism, but everything about the sexual orientation of transvestites.”

This is quite literally true. A poll carried out on behalf of the Organization for Information on Communism found that 90 percent of Swedes between the ages of 15 and 20 had never heard of the Gulag, although 95 percent knew of Auschwitz. “Unfortunately we were not at all surprised by the findings,” Ander Hjemdahl, the founder of UOK, told website The Local. In the nationwide poll, 43 percent believed that Communist regimes had claimed less than one million lives. The actual figure is estimated at around 100 million. 40 percent believed that Communism had contributed to increased prosperity in the world. Mr. Hjemdahl states several reasons for this massive ignorance, among them that “a large majority of Swedish journalists are left-wingers, many of them quite far left.”

In Norway, a specialist in early childhood education stirred debate by supporting “sexual games” for children of pre-school age. Family therapist Jesper Juul conceded that “many are disturbed by children’s sexuality, but I think it’s important to put it on the agenda.” Most Norwegians send their children to kindergartens before they begin school at age six, and many average citizens were shocked by this. “I thought at first that this was a joke,” said Karin Ståhl Woldseth, a spokesman for the right-wing Progress Party. “Children don’t need more exposure to this in kindergartens. We think it will damage their health.” Child psychologist Thore Langfeldt in an interview publicly admitted that sex games were encouraged by those who fear that people could become infected by the ideas of conservative groups and therefore want to make children immune from Christian morality as early as possible.

I do not believe sex in itself is sinful or bad. However, being civilized means precisely that you learn to control your urges and natural impulses, sexual, violent or otherwise. Moreover, sex in this situation isn’t “natural;” it is specifically used for destructive ideological purposes. This sexualization of childhood is increasingly prevalent all over the Western world.

The Frankfurt school of cultural Marxism, with such thinkers as Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs, aimed at overthrowing capitalist rule by undermining the hegemonic culture. According to Gramsci, the Socialist revolution, which failed to spread following the Russian Revolution in 1917, could never take place until people were liberated from Western culture, and particularly from their “Christian soul.” As Lukacs said in 1919, “Who will save us from Western Civilization?” This could be done through breaking down traditional Christian morality and family patterns and undermining the established culture from within by a long march through the institutions. In 2008, we can see that this strategy has been successful in Western media and academia, which are not only lukewarm in defending our civilization but in many cases actively side with our enemies. The irony is that most Westerners have never heard of Gramsci, yet ideas similar to his have had a huge impact on their lives.

Mona Sahlin, leader of the Social Democratic Party, confirmed in early October 2008 that her party and the Greens want to form a coalition government in 2010. What kind of policy will such a government follow? Miljöpartiet de Gröna, the Swedish Green Party, state on their official website that the education system should start working for “gender equality” at an early age; children need counterweights to the gender roles which girls and boys are raised into. Therefore teachers and personnel in child care services must finish an education in equality before they are given their exams. They also want to abolish grades in schools.

The Green Party favor ideological Globalism in its purest form. They want a “world citizenship” to replace the national citizenship, totally free migration on a global basis, global taxes and a strengthened United Nations to ensure a just world order. Their political program is so radical that I almost wish I had time to translate it all into English, just to document it:

“We do not believe in artificial borders. We have a vision of unrestricted immigration and emigration, where people have the right to live and work wherever they please….We want Sweden to become an international role model by producing a plan to implement unrestricted immigration.”

They have a strong focus on anti-discrimination and racism, and desire harsh and swift penalties for “discrimination” yet soft penalties for many other crimes. They want “religiously neutral” holidays (no Christmas or Easter) and education against racism and discrimination to be taught in schools. No “bigotry” against any group of people (except whites presumably, and white men in particular) will be allowed, and all forms of bigotry should be banned by law regardless of where it is voiced. Among the forms of racism they specify should be aggressively stamped out is “Islamophobia.” However, they understand that racism cannot be totally stamped out until we have dismantled the “racist world order” and replaced it with a just world order where none suffer and the poor are no longer exploited.

The Swedish Green Party state explicitly that the concepts male and female are “socially constructed” and forced upon all human beings. In order to reach the new world order, it is paramount that all such artificial identities are broken down. This should be facilitated by the education system and specially trained teachers. They believe that “all human beings” should be free to choose whatever name they desire. By this they appear to mean “gender” as well. They want everything to be “gender neutral,” not only marriage ceremonies but identity cards.

I assume this means that I should be able to choose a female name on my identity card and that the state is oppressing me if it doesn’t allow this. Since employing artificial categories such as “male” and “female” contributes to upholding the exploitative world order of poverty and global warming, one must assume that children will starve in the Sudan if I cannot call myself “Mary” or “Christine” on my driver’s license. After all, I may have a penis, but it’s a socially constructed penis and it contributes to an unjust capitalist system.

Just for the record: In 2007, protests from female soldiers led to the Swedish military removing the penis of a heraldic lion depicted on the Nordic Battlegroup’s coat of arms. The armed forces agreed to emasculate the lion after a group of women from the rapid reaction force lodged a complaint to the European Court of Justice. This is obviously funny, but the serious side to this is how women are trying to castrate their own men, in this case literally, at the same time as their country has one of the highest rape frequencies of any Western country. This is caused by Multiculturalism and runaway immigration, both policies which are disproportionally supported by female voters. So the femininization of society supported by the feminists makes women less safe, not more. The same can be said of all Western nations.

And no, not all differences between men and women are “socially constructed.” Professor Helmuth Nyborg at Aarhus University in Denmark did research which revealed that there are differences between the sexes when it comes to intelligence. This triggered massive resistance. According to him, “Within the realms of psychology you are not allowed to talk about intelligence. You cannot measure intelligence and you cannot rank people according to intelligence. The entire field of intelligence is a so-called ‘no-go-area.’“ If you still choose to proceed, you are a bad person. If you look at differences between groups of people, you are viewed as immoral and plain evil.

According to Professor Annica Dahlstrom, an expert in neuroscience, men are found at the extremes of high and low intelligence. Although female geniuses do exist, they are much less frequent than male ones. She believes children should be left primarily in the care of their mother during their first years of living. The feminist establishment in Sweden claims that she has misused her position as a scientist to reinforce gender stereotypes. As Dahlström says, “The difference between boys and girls, in terms of their biology and brain, is greater than we could ever have imagined.” Differences between the sexes emerge in fetuses and are clearly recognizable at the age of three. The centers of the brain dealing with verbal communication, the interpretation of facial expressions and body language are more developed in girls even at this early age. Forcing boys to behave like girls are vice versa is unnatural and will inevitably hurt them. Such a policy could even be viewed as “mental abuse” of children in her view. Yet this is exactly what is happening, and sometimes with government support.

The British historian Roland Huntford wrote a book in the early 1970s about Sweden called The New Totalitarians. He noted how equality between the sexes was aggressively promoted from the late 1960s and early 70s. This was closely linked to a campaign for sexual liberation:

“Indeed, the word ‘freedom’ in Swedish has come to mean almost exclusively sexual freedom, product perhaps of an unadmitted realization that it is absent, or unwanted, elsewhere. Through sex instruction at school for the young, and incessant propaganda in the mass media for the older generations, most of Sweden has been taught to believe that freedom has been achieved through sex. Because he is sexually emancipated, the Swede believes that he is a free man, and judges liberty entirely in sexual terms.…The Swedish government has taken what it is pleased to call ‘the sexual revolution’ under its wing. Children are impressed at school that sexual emancipation is their birthright, and this is done in such a way as to suggest that the State is offering them their liberty from old-fashioned restrictions.”

By old-fashioned restrictions, read Christian morality. Huntford noted that this came together with efforts to downplay or attack Western culture prior to the French Revolution. As Mr. Olof Palme, who was Swedish Socialist Prime Minister from the late 1960s until 1986, said: “The Renaissance So-called? Western culture? What does it mean to us?”

The teaching of history was severely curtailed in Swedish schools because it was “impractical.” Religion, and Christianity in particular, was presented as superstition designed to fool the masses, who had been liberated from this ancient oppression by the labor movement. As he noted, “Scrapping historical knowledge deprives pupils of the instrument for criticizing society here and now. And perhaps that is the intended effect.”

“The State,” in the words of Ingvar Carlsson, then Minister of Education, “is concerned with morality from a desire to change society.” Mr. Carlsson, who was Swedish Prime Minister as late as 1996, also stated that “School is the spearhead of Socialism” and that it “teaches people to respect the consensus, and not to sabotage it.”

“We have no ethical standards in education, and no rules for sexual behaviour,” in the words of Dr Gösta Rodhe, the then head of the department of sexual education in the Directorate of Schools, and thus in some ways the executive officer of government sexual policy. “You see, since there’s a lack of tension in Swedish politics, younger people have got to find release and excitement in sexual tension instead.”

Mr. Huntford ended his book with a warning that this system of soft-totalitarianism could be exported to other countries. This was in the early 1970s, and he has been proven right since:

“The Swedes have demonstrated how present techniques can be applied in ideal conditions. Sweden is a control experiment on an isolated and sterilized subject. Pioneers in the new totalitarianism, the Swedes are a warning of what probably lies in store for the rest of us, unless we take care to resist control and centralization, and unless we remember that politics are not to be delegated, but are the concern of the individual. The new totalitarians, dealing in persuasion and manipulation, must be more efficient than the old, who depended upon force.”

For my own part, I find it interesting that the same people who in the 60s and 70s broke up the traditional family structure in Western countries and warned people against the dangers of overpopulation, telling people to lower their birth rates, came back a few years later and said that we had to import millions of immigrants because we have such low birth rates.

“As political and economic freedom diminishes” said Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, “sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase.” This fits perfectly with Huntford’s description. The state strips away your personal, economic and political freedom, yet grants you sexual freedom in return, boldly hailing itself as your liberator. Sweden in 2008 is a society with no real freedom of speech if you deviate from the ruling ideology. The more crushing ideological censorship and political repression become, the more frantic the displays of “sexual freedom” get. Sex is freedom; freedom means sex, and only sex.

State authorities present this as liberation of women and sexual liberation, but it is actually about breaking down rival sources of power: The traditional Christian culture and the nuclear family. This leaves the state more powerful since it can regulate all aspects of life and, most importantly, can indoctrinate the nation’s children as it sees fit, without undue parental interference. The state replaces your family, raises your children and cares for your elderly.

The social engineers have discovered that despite decades of state-sponsored gender equality propaganda, boys and girls still behave differently. Instead of concluding that maybe there are innate differences between the sexes, they have decided to indoctrinate children more thoroughly, starting at an even earlier age, to eradicate “gender differences.”

The Swedish Consumers Association reacted angrily to a star-shaped, pink ice-cream because it represented gender-profiling. “Girlie, GB’s new ice pop, is pink and has make-up inside the stick. It says a lot about what GB thinks about girls and how they should be,” the association said in a statement. Sweden does not need more products that reinforce existing prejudices about sex roles, so they asked the producer to make the product less gender specific. A bus driver in the increasingly Muslim-dominated town of Malmö was fired from his job following revelations that he stopped a woman from boarding his bus because she was wearing full Islamic face-covering, which made her hard to identify. In Sweden, it is unacceptable if girls are presented with pink ice-creams because this reinforces “gender stereotypes,” but the burka is just fine.

Meanwhile, the country is in the midst of the most explosive rape wave in recent history, largely caused by immigration. While Swedish girls are called “whores” by immigrants, Swedish boys are told to be as “gender neutral” as possible. Traditionally, a nation has been defended by masculine men who take pride in their heritage. By removing cultural pride and any sense of masculinity among native men, the country is rendered effectively defenseless. And maybe that was the intention?

In Western Europe, great emphasis is placed on destroying the heritage of the native population and instilling whites with a guilt complex and shame designed to alienate them from their own history. They are supposed to abase themselves in front of immigrants and tell them how worthless and evil their culture is, or alternatively how much they lament the fact that they don’t have a culture.

While Christianity has been ridiculed for generations, so much so that Christians complain about persecution, Islam is presented in textbooks as a benevolent religion and granted a high degree of respect in the public sphere. Maybe I have a conspiratorial mindset, but the way Multiculturalists condemn Christianity and praise Islam is so consistent that I cannot help but ask whether some of them have deliberately set out to uproot the plague of Christianity from our culture once and for all. They ridicule it at any given opportunity and at the same time import a rival religion and groom it as a replacement. When the day comes when people have gotten sufficiently tired of nihilism, Christianity will have become so discredited as to have been eliminated as a viable alternative, and people will be left with Islam. Or maybe it’s simply about eradicating anything and everything associated with European culture.

Sweden has been known as a “model country” with an economic system as a third way between capitalism and Socialism, or enlightened Socialism as it has been called. In 2008, the “Swedish model” no longer refers to an economic success story (and the Swedish economy grew rapidly before the welfare state was established), but to a horror story of cultural suicide, Gramscian cultural Marxism, ideological censorship and repression of dissent. Sweden is not unique. Similar trends are evident all over the Western world. But Political Correctness is unusual in its severity here, in part because Sweden already viewed itself as an “ideological state,” and the country is definitely ahead of the curve in ideological repression. Those of us who still have some love for aspects of what once was traditional Swedish culture can only hope that some of it is still alive and can re-emerge once the current ideological paradigm has disintegrated. The question remains, though, how much will be left of the Swedish nation once we get to that point. What is certain is that rough times are ahead, not just for Sweden but for the entire Western world, as Multiculturalism facilitates the slow disintegration of our societies.

The Fjordman Report: Defeating Eurabia, Part 3

2008-11-03T09:44:00.001Z

The Spanish and the Portuguese — Once and Future Dhimmis?

This essay was first published at the Gates of Vienna blog in June 2008. It is republished here with some additions.

In May 2008, the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, stated that Islam is part and parcel of Europe and condemned the concept of a clash of civilizations. “Islam today is part of Europe. It is important to understand this. One should not see Islam as outside Europe. We already have an important presence of Islam and Muslims among our citizens,” Barroso told a press conference after a dialogue between EU leaders and twenty high-level representatives of Christianity, Judaism and Islam in Europe. The Grand Mufti of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Dr. Mustafa Ceric, responded that Islam is indeed part of Europe but unfortunately Turkey is not yet part of Europe. “Following this logic Europe has to prove that Islam is part of Europe by not delaying the acceptance of Turkey to the EU,” he said.

I find this especially sad since Mr. Barroso, prior to becoming the unelected leader of the EU, was Prime Minister of Portugal, a country that was for centuries under the Islamic yoke. Do the Portuguese miss their past status as dhimmis? The reaction of the Nordic countries to mass immigration and Muslim intimidation, with the exception of Denmark, has been pathetic. I’m certainly not proud of it, but at the very least countries such as Norway, Finland and the Baltic nations have had little historical exposure to Muslims. The Portuguese and the Spanish do not have this excuse, after centuries of Islamic occupation and hard struggles to regain control over their lands, which makes their current actions all the more difficult to understand.

Some Portuguese readers assured me that the situation was worse in other Western European countries than in Portugal, partly because other nations have more developed welfare states and are thus more attractive for those seeking welfare payments. I admit I know less about the situation in Portugal than in Spain, which is why I will concentrate mainly on Spain here. I do of course not believe that all Portuguese are like Barroso, just like not all Spaniards are like Zapatero (thank God). If all Europeans were like are so-called leaders, we would already be lost. But on the other hand, I haven’t seen anything indicating that Portugal is immune from the problems of the rest of Western Europe.

Observer Soeren Kern thinks that “Since Spanish Socialists (more often than not) have trouble winning arguments on their own merit, the preferred tactic is to demonize their opponents instead.” He’s undoubtedly correct about that, although I do no see how that makes Spanish Socialists different from their counterparts elsewhere. According to Kern:

“Italian voters in April [2008] returned Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to a third term in office. The center-right leader was given a strong mandate to crack down on runaway immigration and spiraling street crime, two hot-button issues that are intrinsically linked, not just in the minds of Italians, but in those of many other Europeans too, especially in Spain. As a result, Spanish Socialists are (rightly) worried that Berlusconi’s get-tough approach will jeopardize their own fantastical vision of turning Europe into a post-modern multicultural utopia. It therefore comes as no big surprise that Spanish Socialist Deputy Prime Minister María Teresa Fernández de la Vega, who is also commonly known as Spain’s high-priestess of political correctness, recently lashed out at the no-nonsense immigration policies of the new Italian government. Her pontifical rebuke declared that the Spanish executive ‘rejects violence, racism and xenophobia, and therefore cannot agree with what is happening in Italy.’“ Moreover, “By rewarding illegal immigrants with Spanish (and thus European) documentation, Zapatero has unleashed what is known as the ‘ call effect ‘ to people as far away as Kashmir who now believe that Spain is an easy gateway into Europe.”

Gustavo de Aristegui, the foreign affairs spokesman for the conservative (but in my view still a bit too soft) Popular Party, explains in his book The Jihad in Spain: The obsession to reconquer Al-Ándalus that, in schools throughout the Muslim world, maps are used with Spain and Portugal colored green because they are still considered part of dar al-Islam, or the House of Islam. According to antiterrorist sources, eight Jihadist groups have settled in Spain, located mostly in Catalonia, Madrid, Andalusia and Valencia. Their threat is real, since most of these sleeping cells “can be activated at any time and perpetrate criminal attacks.”
- - - - - - - - -
As AMDG from the blog La Yijad en Eurabia says: “The fact that Spain is one of the targets of the Third Jihad is not surprising. Muslims have the religious obligation to expand Islam — mostly political Islam; conversion can be forced later on in many ways — and in particular they have the compelling obligation to retrieve those lands on which Islam once ruled. Al Andalus — that is Spain, and not only the south of Spain, the modern Andalucía — was once under Mohammedan yoke and is therefore among the priorities of the Jihad. The answer by Spaniards to this threat cannot be more discouraging. Spanish government withdrew its troops from Iraq immediately after the first terrorist attack, even if they were not combat troops. Their next initiative was the proposal of the Alliance of Civilizations.”

The Socialist PM José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero was swept to power by the Jihadist train bombings in Madrid in March 2004, the largest peacetime attacks in Spain’s modern history. He has been surrendering his country to Muslims every day since then. Zapatero, who has said that “sexual equality is a lot more effective against terrorism than military strength,” appointed a pregnant woman as Minister of Defense in April 2008, thus signaling to everybody that his country has no intentions of defending itself.

There are serious plans afoot to create a tunnel linking Spain (and thus Europe) physically to Morocco and Muslim North Africa. The great project of the tunnel under the Strait of Gibraltar will be presented by the two countries to the European Union in mid-October 2008. The announcement was made by Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos at the end of a meeting held in Tangier with his Moroccan counterpart, Tayeb Fasi Fihri. The project presentation said that this was “a very ambitious project” which will unite Africa and Europe. According to the most optimistic forecasts, the first railway carriages might pass under the Strait by 2025. As soon as the project is approved by the EU, it is expected to be funded by the World Bank, the European Investment Bank and several Arab investment funds.

As usual in Western countries, Socialists who undermine their own countries are de facto allies with Big Business interests, the same business interests that have championed the borderless EU common market, who desire bigger markets and an abundant supply of cheap labor, and tend to view defended national borders as an obstacle to both. According to a study by the Group for Reflection and Proposal on Business and Immigration, Spain “needs” over two million new foreign workers until 2020, many of whom will undoubtedly be Muslims.

In June 2008, it was announced that an “ interfaith meeting “ sponsored by Saudi Arabia was to be held in Madrid. The dialogue would be held by the Saudi-based Muslim World League. “Prominent figures among followers of the divine messages will take part in dialogue concerning life in human societies, international cooperation, human rights, and issues of security, peace and living together in the world,” said a statement by the agency. Yet while the Saudi king promotes interfaith dialogue, Saudi school textbooks still teach hatred and intolerance of everything and everyone non-Islamic.

As the Middle East Media Research Institute ( MEMRI ) says, “According to an article in the London daily Al-Hayat, the Arabic language held sway during the Saudi-sponsored interfaith World Conference on Dialogue, held July 16-18, 2008 in Madrid. It is noteworthy that the conference brought Saudi Arabia to the center of the European and international political scene, after France had, one week previously, brought Syria and Qatar to the forefront of politics during the Mediterranean conference in Paris [proposing the creation of a Mediterranean Union; My note].”

Here are some excerpts from the Al-Hayat article:

“At Madrid’s international airport, the invitees to the international interfaith dialogue conference were greeted in Arabic; airport officials at passport control and security personnel at the Auditorium Hotel spoke fluent Arabic; [Arabic was spoken at] all conference activities and at the reception held for the occasion. It can [therefore] be said that the Spanish capital, Madrid, speaks Arabic… At the conference, [jointly] sponsored by Saudi King ‘Abdallah bin ‘Abd Al-’Aziz and Spanish King Juan Carlos, the language of the Koran held sway…The Muslim greeting al-salam ‘aleykum was the expression most frequently used by the participants, who were of all kinds and from all backgrounds. Over 250 Arabic speakers — senior officials, organizers, diplomats, members of the press — were present at the conference, organizing and running [its activities]. Spain has embraced the Arabs and espoused their culture and language. Dialogue, upon which people all over the world have pinned their hopes, may reshape the world.”

These people are obviously not interested in “mutual understanding” on equal terms; they are gloating over what they perceive as a European nation once again submitting to Islamic rule. As I’ve stated in my online essay Socratic Dialogue vs. Islamic Dialogue, Muslims understand the term “dialogue” in a way that differs sharply from that of Westerners. For them, “dialogue” does not mean an open-ended attempt to rationally debate a topic in order to arrive at the truth. Truth is already given: It’s called sharia, and the only “dialogue” that is acceptable is one that will lead to the implementation of sharia, one way or the other. When they invite to a “dialogue,” they mean that we should negotiate our surrender, or else…

According to Soeren Kern, the “interfaith conference” was organized by the Saudi-sponsored Muslim World League, which happens to be the principal agent for the propagation of Wahhabi Islam in Europe. Zapatero (like his Saudi counterparts, but for different reasons) “views Judeo-Christianity as public enemy number one because it is the main impediment to the realization of his vision for a socialist multicultural utopia in which everything goes. And he hopes his pact with Islam will accelerate Spanish history. Zapatero and his socialist advisors believe Muslims are the ‘useful idiots’ of the left. And Muslims believe Zapatero and his socialist friends are the ‘useful idiots’ of Islam. Such is the future of Spain.”

Poul E. Andersen, former dean of the church of Odense, Denmark, warns against false hopes of dialogue with Muslims. During a debate at the University of Aarhus, Ahmad Akkari, one of the Muslim participants, stated: “Islam has waged war where this was necessary and dialogue where this was possible. A dialogue can thus only be viewed as part of a missionary objective.” When Mr. Andersen raised the issue of dialogue with the Muslim World League in Denmark, the answer was: “To a Muslim, it is artificial to discuss Islam. In fact, you view any discussion as an expression of Western thinking.”

Since its inception, Islam has been waging an aggressive war against the rest of mankind with the purpose of bringing every single human being on earth under Islamic rule. Infidels have been presented with three options: Convert to Islam, die, or submit under Islamic rule as a dhimmi, a second-rate citizen in your own country subject to serious financial pressure, constant verbal humiliations and frequent physical abuse. Islam hasn’t changed much. Unless we are prepared to accept conversion or dhimmi status, we have to fight back. The Spanish and the Portuguese knew that once. One can only hope that they will remember it again.

Let me conclude by adding some words about infiltration of the democratic system. In July 2008, the congress of the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) in Madrid was scheduled to approve a motion to propose voting rights to immigrants in local elections, organization secretary and second in the ranks of PSOE, Jose Blanco, said in an interview. According to PSOE’s calculations, quoted by El Pais, the measure will concern 1,300,000 immigrants coming from Muslim countries such Morocco and from Latin America. The new voters might change the political equilibriums in cities where they have a strong presence, like Madrid and Barcelona, and presumably tilt the scales permanently towards the Socialists.

There are setbacks to this strategy. In 2008, when a right-wing coalition brought PM Silvio Berlusconi back to power in Italy, the Northern League and its secretary Umberto Bossi said: “The workers don’t vote for the Left any more. The Northern League is the new workers’ party.” Nevertheless, it remains true that immigrants from developing countries vote overwhelmingly for left-wing parties that support a generous welfare state. Mass immigration has already tipped the scales in favor of Socialist parties in a number of European elections.

I described this phenomenon in my essay Electing a New People: The Leftist — Islamic Alliance. Since this was published in the spring of 2006, some of the specific details are outdated, but the general conclusion is not: In every single country I have surveyed, from Norway and Denmark via Britain, Germany, Holland and Belgium to Spain, immigrants lean heavily towards the political Left, which means that left-wing parties can simply import a new people to stay in power, at least until immigrants form parties of their own.

Bertolt Brecht (who was himself an apologist for Communist dictatorships) wrote a satirical poem after the 1953 East German risings:

“The solution
After the uprising of 17 June
The Secretary of the Writers’ Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the People
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?”

At the beginning of the 21st century, electing a new people seems to be exactly what Socialist parties in Europe are doing. Perhaps the greatest idea of the left-wing parties after the Cold War was to re-invent themselves as Multicultural parties and start importing voters from abroad. In addition to this, they have managed to denounce the opposition as racists, bigots and extremists. A new alliance of convenience between Leftists and Muslim immigrants is taking shape. I think the deal is that the Leftist parties get a number of new clients, or voters, in return for giving Muslims privileges and subsidies, as well as keeping the borders more or less open for new Muslims to enter. As one Muslim put it: “I vote for the Socialists because they give me more money.” The Leftists are, in essence, electing a new people, replacing the one already there with one more supportive of their agenda.

There is, of course, nothing new in buying votes and “clients” by promising them access to other people’s money. This was the essence of Leftism in the first place. However, although this is probably a flaw in the democratic system, democracy has still functioned within the borders of stable nation states. This flaw gets a lot more dangerous when combined with massive immigration, where certain political parties import people from other nations, even vocal enemies of their country, to shore up their short-term support in elections. This will in the longer term breed resentment among the native population, who will in this way be forced to fund their own colonization. In the context of Europe, Muslim immigration could turn democracy into a self-defeating system that will eventually break down because native Europeans — correctly, I might add — no longer feel that it serves their interests.

Leftists and Muslims have a mutual short-term interest in keeping the Leftist parties in power, and a mutual long-term interest in weakening the traditional Christian culture of Europe, which Socialists at best view with indifference, at worst as an obstacle blocking the road to their Utopia. Besides, Socialists traditionally place little ideological importance on such trivial matters as national borders. I believe Lenin once said that borders between Soviet Republics were unimportant, as Socialism would transcend all national and religious boundaries and render them a thing of the past, anyway. The idea has never entirely disappeared.

The same collaboration happened in Iran, where popular “reformers” such as Ali Shariati in the years before the 1979 revolution infused Islam with aspects of Western thought and made the Marxists believe that they could coexist with Islam. So they cooperated in overthrowing the Shah — and then all the godless Socialists were the first ones to hang from lamp posts around the country when Khomeini and his Islamic cronies seized power. The secular Leftists in Europe know fully well that they do not agree with religious Muslims on some issues, but they believe they are the senior partners in the alliance and that they can “ride the tiger.” That may be true now, but for how long will the situation remain like this? Who is using whom?

In Denmark, writers Helle Merete Brix, Torben Hansen and Lars Hedegaard believe that the Muslim immigration and the increasing clashes we are witnessing are part of the third Islamic Jihad, a third attempt to conquer and subdue the West. The fist one came with the Arabs more than a thousand years ago, the second with the Turks in the early modern era. Will three times be the charm for Muslims? Will they succeed this time?

During the first Jihad, Charles Martel, “The Hammer,” founder of the Carolingian Empire, the first Western power after the fall of Rome, defeated the Arabs in the Battle of Tours in 732, thus saving Western civilization, and by extension much of the world, from Islam.

During the second Jihad, the Turks did manage to conquer Constantinople and much of south-eastern Europe, but Jan Sobieski, king of Poland, routed the Ottoman armies that had laid siege to Vienna in 1683. Leading a combined force of Polish, Austrian and German troops, Sobieski attacked a numerically superior Turkish army until their lines were broken and the Turks fled in confusion. This was the last time Muslims came close to threatening the West in traditional warfare. They now prefer demographic warfare through migration combined with terrorism, and they have in some ways been more successful at infiltrating the democratic West peacefully than they ever were at conquering the pre-democratic West by force. Muslims are already inside Vienna, quietly taking over, and no Sobieski is in sight. In Vienna, Austria in December 2006, Santa Claus was removed from kindergartens. Municipal officials insisted that the sight of a strange bearded figure would evoke fear in kids, but many observers accused them of kowtowing to a growing Muslim population.

The third Jihad started with the oil embargo, the influx of Saudi petrodollars and the beginnings of Eurabia and Muslim immigration to the West in the 1960s and early 70s. During the third Jihad, Leftists all over Europe seem to be opening the gates of Europe from within. “You want to conquer Europe? That’s ok. Just vote for us and help us get rid of capitalism and eradicate the Christian heritage of Europe, and we’ll let you in. In the meantime, you can enjoy some welfare goodies, and we will ban opposition to this undertaking as racism and hate speech.”

In addition to a destructive ideology of Globalism, the concept that all national borders should be erased and that this is a positive good, an ideology held only by the Western world, the situation is made worse by the fact that globalization of transportation has put severe pressure on our nations in a manner which was unthinkable only a few decades ago. When the Christian Gospels were written down at the end of the first century AD, the population of the Roman Empire was perhaps 60 million people, give or take a few million. This mirrors the annual global population growth in the early twenty-first century. In other words:

The global population grows by another Roman Empire every single year. Our current political and economic system wasn’t designed to cope with such numbers. It needs fundamental change, or it will soon collapse into civil wars or dictatorships or both.

We have a situation where some parties deliberately import Muslims because they vote overwhelmingly for left-wing parties. A political system where it pays to import enemies isn’t sustainable. Any political system must first and foremost ensure the survival and continued physical existence of the community and nation it serves. After that comes ensuring the prosperity and liberty of this community in the best possible way. However, when I look at the situation in Western countries today, I cannot see that democracy always ensures our liberty and prosperity, and in many cases it functions so poorly that it threatens our survival.

Currently, the democratic system is in my view not working properly in any Western country. It is more or less dead in Western Europe, where most of the real power has been transferred to the unelected organs of the European Union, anyway. Virtually all Western countries have lost control over their borders. This is not a sustainable situation. You can call your political system a democracy, a dictatorship, a republic, a monarchy or whatever you want, but a country that does not control its territory will eventually die.

The most important thing to realize is that democracy is a tool, a means we use to achieve an end. Too many people today confuse it with the end itself. “Democracy” has come to mean something that is good, something everybody wants, a bit like sex or chocolate. But there is no rational reason to assume that democracy of universal suffrage is uniformly good and can be applied with equal success in all circumstances, a huge mistake Americans made in a predominantly Muslims country such as Iraq, where “democracy” and majority rule simply means sharia and state-sponsored harassment of minorities.

Leading Islamic scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and others have hailed the coming Islamic conquest of Rome, just like Constantinople was conquered in 1453. “Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor, after being expelled from it twice. Islam entered Europe twice and left it… Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies.” The Saudi Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd Al-Rahman Al-’Arifi, imam of the mosque of King Fahd Defense Academy, concurred: “We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it. Yes, the Christians…will yet pay us the Jizya [poll tax paid by non-Muslims under Muslim rule], in humiliation, or they will convert to Islam…”

Unless native Europeans rebel against the unholy alliance of power-hungry left-wingers, selfish and short-sighted businessmen and treasonous EU elites who continue to import Muslims to our shores, Mr. Qaradawi could end up being right in his predictions.

The Fjordman Report: Defeating Eurabia, Part 2

2008-11-02T17:45:00.000Z

by Baron Bodissey

This is the second of five installments of Fjordman’s book Defeating Eurabia. Part 1 is here.

For those who wish to republish his work, please read his conditions.

For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

Ten Reasons to Get Rid of the European Union

This text was published at the Gates of Vienna blog in early October 2008. It is published here with some later additions.

The EU Promotes Crime and Instability

The EU does not protect the peace in Europe. On the contrary, it undermines stability in the continent by dismantling border controls at a time of the greatest population movements in human history, with many migrants coming from politically unstable countries whose instability spills over to European states. Through its senseless immigration policies, the EU could become partly responsible for triggering civil wars in several European countries. Maybe it will be remembered as the “peace project” which brought war to Europe, again.

The European Union has created a borderless region from Greece to France and from Portugal to Finland, yet the citizens of these countries still pay most of their taxes to nation states whose borders are no longer upheld. It is ridiculous to pay up to half of your income to an entity that no longer controls its own territory or legislation. Unless national borders are re-established, the citizens of EU member states no longer have any obligation to pay taxes at all.

The EU promotes a ridiculous amount of laws and regulations, yet street crime largely goes unpunished. Laws are used to punish the law-abiding while real criminals rule the streets, although this flaw is admittedly shared with many national governments. European authorities make a mockery out of the social contract every single day as they fail to uphold law and order. Unless the relevant authorities improve their efforts against crime drastically, we can expect to see normal European citizens acquire arms for their own protection in rapidly increasing numbers. One can’t blame them, for in several countries, like the UK, Sweden or the Netherlands, the authorities are more concerned with enforcing speech codes and Political Correctness than with dealing with criminals in a forceful way. We need confidence in our police force or we will have to find other means to protect our lives and property.

The EU does not give Europeans a “voice” on the international arena. It’s a bureaucratic monster at best, a dangerous Utopian project at worst. It makes our enemies take us less seriously, not more. It is not about giving anybody a voice; it is about silencing the voices we already have, by depriving us of any say regarding our future and the destinies of our peoples.

Joschka Fischer, ex-German foreign minister, warns that Europe risks becoming a “playground” for upcoming superpowers in the 21st century. He wants more EU cooperation to remedy this. But we already are a playground for foreign nations, for Muslim ones in particular, who can dump their unsustainable population growth in our countries. This is actively encouraged by the EU. It is going to be interesting for future historians to unveil how many European leaders and officials have been bought and paid for by Saudi oil money.

The idea that the EU is going to become a superpower is laughable. Europe at the dawn of the 21st century is a global joke, a decadent and weak continent, despised by its enemies and viewed with pity by its friends. Outsiders don’t expect Europe to generate anything new, quite a few will be surprised if it even survives. This image will not be improved by leaders who attack their own people, sell out their historical legacy to their worst enemies and muzzle those who object to this. It is ridiculous to believe that this ramshackle, top-heavy Frankenstein monster is going to make Europe more competitive.

The EU Weakens Europe’s Cultural Defenses

The EU is systematically surrendering the continent to our worst enemies. When French, Dutch and Irish voters rejected the EU Constitution, the EU elites moved on as if nothing had happened. When the Islamic world says that the EU should work to eradicate “Islamophobia,” they immediately consent to do this. When an organization ignores the interests of its own people yet implements the interests of that people’s enemies, that organization has become an actively hostile entity run by a corrupt class of abject traitors. This is what the EU is today.

Those inhabiting the European continent are first and foremost Germans, Poles, Italians, Hungarians, Portuguese etc. “Europe” has existed mainly to protect the continent against Islamic expansionism. Charles Martel created Europe in the modern sense when he defeated the Arab invasion in the seventh century, aided by people such as Pelayo, who started the Reconquista in the Iberian Peninsula, John Hunyadi and Lazar of Serbia who fought against the Turks in the Balkans and John III Sobieski, King of Poland, who beat the Ottomans during the 1683 Battle of Vienna. The EU is actively working to undo everything Charles Martel and these men achieved. This makes it the anti-European Union.
- - - - - - - - -
Immigrants are a “protected class” for Multiculturalists, who need them as a battering ram to destroy existing identities and forge a new “pan-European” identity (and eventually a “global identity,” I suspect). I found this quote in the magazine Signandsight.som from June 2008. Journalist Arno Widmann witnessed a meeting between Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and theorist Jürgen Habermas. Widmann was extremely impressed by Ramadan: “The Irish are first and foremost Irish, the Danish are Danish, the Germans Germans and the Belgians are primarily Flemish or Walloon. Immigrants who are prevented from becoming Irish, Danes and Germans but who are called upon to be more European that Europeans ever were, have no option other than to become Europeans. They will be the first true Europeans. No Europe without Muslims [emphasis in the original].”

The EU is deliberately destroying the cultural traditions of member states by flooding them with immigrants and eradicating native traditions. This is a gross violation of the rights of the indigenous peoples across an entire continent. Europe has some of the richest cultural traditions on the planet. To replace this with sharia barbarism is a crime against humanity. The European Union is currently the principal (though not the only) motor behind the Islamization of Europe, perhaps the greatest betrayal in this civilization’s history. Appeasement of Islam and Muslims is so deeply immersed into the structural DNA of the EU that the only way to stop the Islamization of the continent is to get rid of the EU. All of it.

The EU Promotes a Bloated Bureaucracy

A study released by the organization Open Europe in August 2008 found that the EU employs an “army” of bureaucrats, and that the actual number of individuals required to run the EU is close to 170,000 — more than 7 times the 23,000 figure sometimes cited by the Commission.

According to them, “The legislative process of the EU is an extremely complex and opaque system, making it very difficult to identify how many people are actually involved in formulating, implementing and overseeing legislation. However, research by Open Europe, using limited available information, shows that just to draft and work out how to implement legislation the EU requires a bureaucratic staff of around 62,026 people. This figure reveals where the EU’s real legislative work is actually done: in committees, behind closed doors and out of the public eye. Most of the work takes place away from the core institutions within Expert Groups, Council Groups, and what are known as Comitology committees.”

Notice how this closed and secretive process of drafting legislation for half a billion people resembles that of a dictatorship. The EU follows a strategy of hide in plain sight and conceals the real power behind layers of bureaucratic complexities. This strategy was also followed with the drafting of the ridiculously long European Constitution.

If somebody presented you with a contract of hundreds of pages of more or less incomprehensible technical language which was to govern all aspects of your life and that of your children and grandchildren, and that person told you to just take his word for it that it is good and could you please sign on the dotted line, would you have accepted it? That is essentially what the EU has done regarding the fate of an entire continent, not just a single family. When some annoying people, such as the Dutch and the Irish, were unkind enough not to consent blindly to their new serfdom, the EU decided that they were bound by the contract they just rejected, anyway. It’s arrogance on a monumental scale, if not plain treason.

The EU is not yet a true, totalitarian entity, but it already holds most of the tools required in order to become one. It has managed to corrupt the national elites to sell out the freedom of their peoples by inviting them to take part in the world’s largest racket, paid for by European taxpayers. The growing pan-European nanny state now interferes with every aspect of social and economic life, governed by an unaccountable, arrogant and often hostile minority of social engineers who wish to impose their way of thinking on the majority.

Excessive Regulation and Centralization is bad for Freedom and for Prosperity

Europe once became a dynamic continent thanks to competition at all levels. It is now virtually impossible to find a sector of society that is untouched by the often excessive EU regulations. The EU functions as a huge superstate centrally directed by statists obsessed by regulations. They have learnt little from history, where central planning has been an almost universal failure. Here is what Nathan Rosenberg and L.E. Birdzell Jr. say in How The West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation Of The Industrial World:

“Initially, the West’s achievement of autonomy stemmed from a relaxation, or a weakening, of political and religious controls, giving other departments of social life the opportunity to experiment with change. Growth is, of course, a form of change, and growth is impossible when change is not permitted. Any successful change requires a large measure of freedom to experiment. A grant of that kind of freedom costs a society’s rulers their feeling of control, as if they were conceding to others the power to determine the society’s future. The great majority of societies, past and present, have not allowed it. Nor have they escaped from poverty.”

Moreover, “Western technology developed in the special context of a high degree of autonomy among the political, religious, scientific, and economic spheres of social life. Is this high degree of autonomy indispensable to the successful application of technology to economic welfare? Few Western scientists would disagree with the proposition that a high degree of autonomy of the scientific sphere from political or religious control is essential to scientific advance. It is almost as clear that a similar autonomy, in much the same degree, is essential to the economic process of translating scientific advances into goods and services. The technological capability of a society is bound to be degraded if control of either scientific inquiry or innovation is located at points of political or religious authority that combine an interest in controlling the outcome of technological development with the power to restrict or direct experiment. In all well-ordered societies, political authority is dedicated to stability, security, and the status quo. It is thus singularly ill-qualified to direct or channel activity intended to produce instability, insecurity, and change.”

The European Union cannot be anything but anti-liberty because it concentrates far too much power in a centralized bureaucratic system that is almost impossible for outsiders to understand. As the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek warned in The Road to Serfdom:

“To imagine that the economic life of a vast area comprising many different people can be directed or planned by democratic procedure betrays a complete lack of awareness of the problems such planning would raise. Planning on an international scale, even more than is true on a national scale, cannot be anything but a naked rule of force, an imposition by a small group on all the rest of that sort of standard and employment which the planners think suitable for the rest.”

The Lack of a Real Separation of Powers Invites Abuse of Power

The pompous former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing declared that the creation of the EU Constitution was Europe’s “Philadelphia moment,” alluding to the Philadelphia Convention or Constitutional Convention in the newly formed the United States of America in 1787. The USA has its flaws, but if Mr. Giscard d’Estaing had actually understood the American Constitution, he would have discovered that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and others took great care to implement checks and balances in their new state. This is sorely lacking in the EU. The American constitution is relatively short and understandable whereas the EU Constitution is hundreds of pages long, largely incomprehensible and displays an almost sharia-like desire to regulate all aspects of human life.

Madison, Jefferson, George Washington and the American Founding Fathers acted in the open and were generally elected by their peers. Contrast this with Jean Monnet, who is credited with having laid the foundations of the EU despite the fact that most EU citizens today haven’t heard of him. He was never elected to any public office, but worked behind the scenes to implement a secret agenda. I read an interview with a senior Brussels lobbyist who dubbed Monnet “the most successful lobbyist in history.” To this day, the EU capital of Brussels is dominated by lobbyists. Washington D.C. has its fair share of lobbyists, too, and this can be problematic at times. You can make a good case for claiming that the American system is in trouble and no longer works as it was intended to in the early twenty-first century. Nevertheless, the difference is that the EU capital is dominated only by lobbyists and unelected bureaucrats, with very little real popular influence.

We should study the work of the great eighteenth century French thinker Montesquieu, who admired the British political system. He advocated that the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government should be assigned to different bodies, where each of them would not be powerful enough to impose its will on society. This is because “constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go.” This separation of powers is almost totally absent in the European Union, where there is weak to non-existent separation between the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches, and where all of them function without the consent of the public. In short, a small number of people can draft and implement laws without consulting the people, and these take precedence over the laws passed by elected assemblies. This is a blueprint for a dictatorship.

In 2006, the European Commission (the EU’s government) announced that it would send its proposals for EU laws to national parliaments for comment — but it made clear that Brussels would only “take note” of national parliamentarians’ wishes. The European Union’s concept of “consultation” is that the people or their representatives should give their “advice,” and then the EU’s leaders should be free to ignore this advice.

In 2007, former German president Roman Herzog warned that parliamentary democracy was under threat from the EU. Between 1999 and 2004, 84 percent of the legal acts in Germany — and the majority in all EU member states — stemmed from Brussels. According to Herzog, “EU policies suffer to an alarming degree from a lack of democracy and a de facto suspension of the separation of powers.” Despite this, the EU was largely a non-issue during the 2005 German elections. One gets the feeling that the real issues of substance are not subject to public debate. National elections have become an increasingly empty ritual. The important issues have already been settled beforehand behind closed doors.

Free citizens should obey laws that are passed with the best long-term interests of their nation and people in mind. Most of the laws within the EU’s area are no longer passed by elected national representatives, but by unaccountable EU bureaucrats, some of whom could potentially have been bought and paid by our Islamic enemies with Arab oil money. As such, the citizens of these nations no longer have any obligation to obey these laws.

As Montesquieu warned, “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.” He also stated that “Useless laws weaken the necessary laws.” The current problem with the EU is not just the content of laws and the way they are drafted and passed, but also their sheer volume. The 10 new members who joined the EU in 2004 were required to transpose into national law 26,000 items of legislation or 75,000 pages of text. Law-abiding citizens are turned into criminals by laws regulating speech and behavior, while real criminals rule the streets in our cities. This situation will either lead to a police state, to a total breakdown in law and order, or both.

The Lack of Transparency Leaves the EU Vulnerable to Hostile Infiltration

There will no doubt be debates among future historians about how EU leaders could do something as stupid as the creation of the Eurabian networks. I suspect one of the answers will be: They did it because they could. I have heard some Socialists argue that the Communist system of the Soviet Union could have worked if it didn’t end up with a leader like Stalin. This view is fundamentally flawed, for the system itself invited a Stalin, or a Mao; there were no real restraints on the power of the rulers. As Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The same goes for the EU.

At least two conditions must be fulfilled in order to prevent the arbitrary use of power. The first is a system of formal and informal checks and balances, giving the possibility of peacefully removing officials who are not doing their job. The second is transparency, so people know what their representatives are doing. The EU deliberately ignores both these conditions. Vast quantities of power have been transferred to shady backrooms and structures the average citizen hardly knows exist. Eurabia was created through such channels. The reason why European leaders could commit a betrayal as large as this was not only because EU authorities are not formally subjected to the popular will, but because they have made the decision-making process incredibly complicated and moved real power out of the public view.

There is every reason to believe that some of those claiming to be our representatives have been bribed and/or blackmailed by Muslim countries and other enemies to implement agendas hostile to our interests. No system is perfect, but a non-transparent system such as the EU is particularly vulnerable to infiltration from outsiders and hostile foreign interests.

The “anti-discrimination laws” we now see in Western Europe are an indication that the democratic system no longer works as intended. These laws come from a small group of self-appointed leaders who respond to pressure from the Islamic world, not from their own people. The European political elites increasingly risk being seen as collaborators and puppets for our enemies because that’s in many cases how they act.

The EU Leads to Less Freedom of Speech

The EU does nothing to promote freedom in Europe, but rather spends a great deal of time trying to stamp out what’s left of it. The EU, in cooperation with Islamic countries, is rewriting school textbooks across the European continent to present a more “positive” image of Islam. The EU increasingly views the media and the education system simply as a prolonged arm of the state. This is the hallmark of a totalitarian state, which is what the EUSSR is gradually becoming. One gets the feeling that the EU’s concept of a “united Europe” means one nation, one people — and one allowed opinion. It is tempting to say one allowed religion as well: Islam.

According to British writer Daniel Hannan, “Eurocrats instinctively dislike spontaneous activity. To them, ‘unregulated’ is almost synonymous with ‘illegal’. The bureaucratic mindset demands uniformity, licensing, order. Eurocrats are especially upset because many bloggers, being of an anarchic disposition, are anti-Brussels. In the French, Dutch and Irish referendums, the MSM [mainstream media] were uniformly pro-treaty, whereas internet activity was overwhelmingly sceptical. Bruno Waterfield recently reported on a secret Commission report about the danger posed by online libertarians: ‘Apart from official websites, the internet has largely been a space left to anti-European feeling. Given the ability to reach an audience at a much lower cost, and given the simplicity of the No campaign messages, it has proven to be easily malleable during the campaign and pre-campaign period.’ The EU’s solution? Why, to regulate blogs!”

At the time of writing, it looks like the most radical proposals to regulate independent websites have been watered down, but there is no doubt that the EU will make new attempts to censor the Internet, especially since the organization has successfully bribed much of the traditional media. In 2007, the EU agreed to make incitement to racism and xenophobia a crime across the 27-nation bloc. Under the new law, offenders will face up to three years in jail for “public incitement to violence or hatred, directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.” The term “inciting hatred” against “religion” will no doubt be used to silence critics of Islam, of the EU’s pro-Islamic policies and of mass immigration in general.

Every single action the EU has taken vis-à-vis these subjects have led to more restrictions of free speech, online and offline. There is no reason not to expect that trend to continue, especially since the EU tries consistently to placate Muslims and other immigrant groups in every way possible. The EU’s attempts to crush dissent and silence criticism of its ideas will become increasingly aggressive and hard to ignore.

The EU Fails to Consult its Citizens and Insults Them When Doing So

The Irish referendum in 2008 on the proposed EU Constitution/ Lisbon Treaty is a powerful testimony to the evil nature of the European Union. Before the referendum, a number of EU leaders made it perfectly clear that the Lisbon Treaty was virtually identical to the European Constitution which had been rejected by Dutch and French voters in 2005, and which should then presumably have been dead.

Former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing (the chief drafter of the Constitution) said: “the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary.” D’Estaing also said: “Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly… All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.” Spanish PM José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero said: “We have not let a single substantial point of the Constitutional Treaty go…” Italian President Giorgio Napolitano said: “Those who are anti-EU are terrorists. It is psychological terrorism to suggest the specter of a European superstate.”

Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen admitted that he had not read the Lisbon Treaty in full, but nonetheless assured his people that it was good and that Irishmen should vote “yes” based on this assurance. He said that voters were being asked to give the EU a “more effective and efficient decision-making process.”

If a dictator decides to ignore the opinion of everybody else and implement policies as he sees fit without consulting anybody, this could be seen as a “more efficient” decision-making process from a certain point of view. Is it this kind of “efficiency” the EU is promoting? Mr. Cowen doesn’t say, but it’s tempting to speculate that the answer is “yes.” According to the words and actions of the EU elites, the will of the people is merely an annoying speed bump which slows down the implementation of their supremely enlightened policies.

After the referendum, when it was clear that the Irish would have none of this trick, the Irish EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy revealed that he had not read the Lisbon Treaty himself: “I would predict that there won’t be 250 people in the whole of the 4.2 million population of Ireland that have read the treaties cover-to-cover. I further predict that there is not 10 percent of that 250 that will understand every section and subsection,” he said. “But is there anything different about that?” said the Commissioner, adding: “Does anyone read the finance act?” referring to the lengthy documents he drew up when he was finance minister in Ireland.

Let us repeat this again. This man stated — probably correctly — that not more than a couple of dozen people among millions of citizens actually understood the document they were supposed to vote over, yet he saw nothing inherently wrong with this. The EU Constitution/ Lisbon Treaty would finalize the transfer of authority to a new pan-European superstate with almost unlimited powers to direct the affairs and lives of half a billion people in dozens of countries, from Finland to France and from Ireland to Poland. The Irish responded in the only sensible manner, but European leaders made it perfectly clear that they would press on with the project of dismantling European nation states regardless of popular resistance.

French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel issued a joint statement saying they “hope that the other member states will continue the process of ratification.” The German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said: “The ratification process must continue. I am still convinced that we need this treaty.” The British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said the UK would press on with ratification: “It’s right that we continue with our own process.”

The President of the European Parliament Hans-Gert Pöttering stated: “The ratification process must continue” because “the reform of the European Union is important for citizens, for democracy and for transparency.” In other words: The reason the EU is tossing aside the verdict of the Irish people, as well as the French and Dutch people and numerous others who never got the chance to voice their opinion at all, is for “democracy.”

According to writer Martin Helme, it was always clear that the power elites were not going to accept an Irish “no.” After the first shock they would simply continue carrying out plan A:

“One of the most disgusting and outrageous talking points already being peddled by the Eurocrats and their friends in the liberal mainstream media is that 862,415 Irish voters have no right to block the desired goal of some 450 million Europeans. This distortion of truth should never go unchallenged. First of all, those few million Irish were actually the only citizens in Europe who were asked for their opinion. The rest of the 446 or so millions were never consulted. How can any politician claim that their voters want the ratification of EU constitution/Lisbon Treaty when the entire political class emphatically insisted on not asking the people? In fact, in many countries politicians openly admit that their voters would have done the same as Irish did, i.e. vote against the rotten thing. So it is not the few million Irish voters blocking the will of hundreds of millions of other European voters but very clearly a mass of Irish voters against a few thousand politicians and bureaucrats who make up the European power elite. Secondly, what happened to those 20 million French and Dutch voters who said no to the same document three years ago?”

The European Commission in April 2008 presented a new plan aimed at increasing EU citizens’ involvement in the decision-making process of the 27-nation bloc, as well as making it more popular. “We must consult citizens,” said the Swedish Commissioner Margot Wallström then. She is famous for her remark in 2005 that Europeans needed to approve of the proposed EU constitution or risk a new Holocaust. Three years after the Constitution was first rejected, and still with no Holocaust in sight, the EU no longer pretends to care about the will of the people. When Eurocrats talk about “consulting” citizens, they mean insulting them.

In April 2008, a demonstration comprising people from all walks of life and from most political parties convened in front of the famous and beautiful Staatsoper (State Opera) in the center of Vienna to demonstrate against the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in the Austrian Parliament, which later occurred without holding a referendum. Opinion polls showed that a majority of Austrians were convinced, as they should be, that policy is determined almost exclusively by Brussels. They see local politicians as largely deprived of any power, and many of them were reluctant to grant even more power to the unaccountable EU.

Opinion polls from mid-2008 showed that a strong majority of the Dutch were still against the Lisbon Treaty, which is virtually identical to the Constitution that Dutch voters rejected by 62 to 38 percent in the 2005 referendum. Nevertheless, the Netherlands is going ahead with the ratification of the Treaty even after the Irish rejected it, said Premier Jan Peter Balkenende. The political elites are determined to continue a process which will essentially dismantle their country and reduce it to just another province in an emerging Eurabian superstate, and openly ignore their own people in order to implement this.

As Helme states, “Governments have willfully and knowingly gone against the will of the people, trashed their own constitutions, corrupted their courts to go along with it (thus trashing the rule of law) and started to govern without the consent of the people or the rule of law….This is the path that leads to revolution. Good! As Thomas Jefferson said ‘The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.’ I have a feeling that more and more people around Europe are ready for it. How about the politicians?”

The EU Undermines Political Legitimacy and Connections between Rulers and the Ruled

Proponents of the European Union claim that it is a “peace project.” But the EU is not about peace, it is about war: A demographic and cultural war waged against an entire continent, from the Black Sea to the North Sea, in order to destroy European nation states and build an empire run by self-appointed bureaucrats. This is supported by national politicians in order to enhance their personal power, by creating a larger political entity than their individual nation states and by ridding themselves of the constraints of a democratic society. The EU corrupts national political elites into betraying the people they are supposed to serve and protect.

The EU is increasingly dictatorial, but it is a stealth dictatorship whose most dangerous aspects are largely invisible in everyday life. What the average person sees is that it makes it easier for him to travel to other countries without a passport, and use the same Euro currency from Arctic Lapland in Finland to Spain’s Canary Islands off the African coast. This appears convenient, and on some level it is. But it comes at the price of hollowing out the power of national institutions and placing it into the hands of an unelected oligarchy conspiring to usurp ever more power and rearrange the lives of half a billion people. That’s a steep price to pay for a common currency. But people do not clearly see this is their daily lives, and seeing is believing. The enemy that clearly identifies himself as such is sometimes less dangerous than the enemy who is diffused and vague, since you cannot easily mobilize against him.

The insightful British philosopher Roger Scruton in his excellent little book The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat, some of which is available online for free, warns that the gradual transfer of legislative powers to “international law” embodied in organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union undermines the traditional system of law in Western nations. The ideology and project of Globalism (Scruton does not use this term, but I do) — for it is a deliberate project, make no mistake about it — is presented to Western citizens as an “inevitable” process. Those disagreeing with this are evil racist or ignorant bigots standing against the tide of history. As Scruton says:

“We have reached the stage where our national jurisdiction is bombarded by laws from outside…even though many of them originate in despotic or criminal governments, and even though hardly any of them are concerned with the maintenance of peace. Even so we, the citizens, are powerless to reject these laws, and they, the legislators, are entirely unanswerable to us, who must obey them….The despotism is coming slowly: the anarchy will happen quickly in its wake, when law is finally detached from the experience of membership, becomes ‘theirs’ but not ‘ours’ and so loses all authority in the hearts of those whom it presumes to discipline….our political elites speak and behave as though there were no such choice to be made — just as the communists did at the time of the Russian Revolution. They refer to an inevitable process, to irreversible changes, and while at times prepared to distinguish a ‘fast’ from a ‘slow’ track into the future, are clear in their minds that these two tracks lead to a single destination — the destination of transnational government, under a common system of law, in which national loyalty will be no more significant than support for a local football team.”

Anthony Coughlan, a senior lecturer at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, states the following in an essay at the EU Observer:

“At a national level when a minister wants to get something done, he or she must have the backing of the prime minister, must have the agreement of the minister for finance if it means spending money, and above all must have majority support in the national parliament, and implicitly amongst voters in the country. Shift the policy area in question to the supranational level of Brussels however, where laws are made primarily by the 27-member Council of Ministers, and the minister in question becomes a member of an oligarchy, a committee of lawmakers, the most powerful in history, making laws for 500 million Europeans, and irremovable as a group regardless of what it does. National parliaments and citizens lose power with every EU treaty, for they no longer have the final say in the policy areas concerned. Individual ministers on the other hand obtain an intoxicating increase in personal power, as they are transformed from members of the executive arm of government at national level, subordinate to a national legislature, into EU-wide legislators at the supranational.”

EU ministers see themselves as architects of a superpower in the making, and can free themselves from scrutiny of their actions by elected national parliaments. According to Coughlan, EU integration represents “a gradual coup by government executives against legislatures, and by politicians against the citizens who elect them.” This process sucks the reality of power from “traditional government institutions, while leaving these still formally intact. They still keep their old names — parliament, government, supreme court — so that their citizens do not get too alarmed, but their classical functions have been transformed.”

The European Union is basically an attempt by the elites in European nations to cooperate on usurping power, bypassing and abolishing the democratic system, a slow-motion coup d’état. Ideas such as “promoting peace” or “promoting free trade” are used as a pretext for this, a bone thrown to fool the gullible masses and veil what is essentially a naked power grab.

The European Union is deeply flawed in its basic construction and cannot function as anything other than an increasingly totalitarian pan-European dictatorship, run by a self-appointed oligarchy. Indeed, there is reason to fear that it was designed that way. Power is concentrated heavily in institutions that are above the formal restraints of public consent and above the informal restraints of public scrutiny and insight. EU authorities can do more or less whatever they want to, as they do in relations to the Arab and Islamic world.

The EU Spreads a Culture of Lies and Corruption

In 2005 (and again in 2006), the EU’s financial watchdog refused to approve the EU’s accounts for the 11th year in a row because they were so full of fraud. The European Court of Auditors refused to give a statement of assurance on the EU’s $160.3 billion budget for 2004. “The vast majority of the payment budget was again materially affected by errors of legality and regularity,” it said. It specifically refused to approve the budgets for the EU’s foreign policy and financial aid programs, many of which are geared towards Arab countries. Half of the project budgets approved by the European Commission were inadequately monitored.

The European Commission, frequently diffused through a complicated web of innocent-sounding organizations, create agreements with Arabs and then quietly implement them as federal EU policy. This is accomplished because billions of Euros are floating around in a system with little outside control, and with a few powerful individuals and groups pulling the strings. Native Europeans are in effect financing their continent’s merger with, in reality colonization by, the Islamic world without their knowledge and without their consent. It must be the first time in human history that an entire continent is being culturally eradicated with bureaucratic precision. This represents perhaps the greatest betrayal in the history of Western civilization, yet is largely ignored by the mainstream media in most Western nations.

After Irish voters had clearly rejected the Lisbon Treaty (the slightly changed, but otherwise recycled version of the European Constitution which had been rejected by French and Dutch voters earlier), Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark said Ireland should be given less than nine months to work out its problems with the Lisbon Treaty prior to the EU’s parliamentary elections in 2009. Rasmussen said that the Irish “no” vote to the Constitution should not stop further work by the Union toward getting the treaty ratified. European leaders, including Danish ones, have generally preferred ratification of the EU Constitution without popular referendums because they know there is powerful resistance to it in many countries. It is meaningless to have referendums if they only come when the elites want them to, and these elites can ignore them if they dislike the results.

Mr. Rasmussen is a great example of how the European Union slowly destroys the democratic system and is deliberately designed to do so. He is supposed to follow the will of and interests of his people, but his actual loyalty lies with the rest of the EU oligarchy. He’s by no means the worst person among EU leaders; this isn’t about his personal flaws, it’s about the EU and how it eventually corrupts even otherwise decent individuals.

The EU is a slow-motion coup d’état conducted against dozens of countries simultaneously. It is designed to empty all organs subjected to the popular will of any real power and transfer it into the hands of an unelected oligarchy. In fact, it’s worse than a coup d’état because this traditionally implied that a group of people seized control over a country. The EU doesn’t just want to seize control over nation states; it wants to abolish them. The EU is organized treason.

The EU elites react as one when faced with challenges to their power base from ordinary people. Participants at every level of the system get well-paid jobs for taking part in it, which means that their pragmatic interests lie with maintaining it. Most of those who know the true nature of the EU have been bribed by the system and remain silent regarding its abuses because they personally benefit from it. Their loyalty has been bought — with the tax money of European citizens — and transferred from their people, where it theoretically should be, to the EU. The EU is their pension plan. When you challenge the EU, you thus constitute a direct threat to their personal financial interests, and they will respond accordingly. The EU can bribe the national elites by appealing to their vanity and sense of importance, by elevating them from a national to an “international level” and by giving them nice cars and fancy jobs with power unrestrained by silly prosaic things such as the will of the people. Just like the Soviet Union, the European Union promotes a culture of lies and corruption which starts at the top and filters down to society as a whole.

Dutchman Derk-Jan Eppink, who has worked behind the scenes of the European Commission, sees a number of similarities between the European Union and the late Soviet Union. The EUSSR, just like the USSR, is administered by a self-appointed political elite from a single bureaucratic center. Its leaders profess belief in a Utopian state. The Soviet Union saw Socialist integration as an irreversible process. The European Union sees integration as a means for an “ever closer Union.” The Soviet Union claimed to act on behalf of a mythical worker. The European Union has its mythical citizen. Eppink concluded the comparison: “All in all, the Soviet Union lacked the self-correcting forces and the self-criticism which are proper to the democratic process. The European Union lacks these properties in the same way. By setting targets which are either too far away or unrealistic, you are undermining the legitimacy of the project and of the institutions which have to implement these policies. With this book, I want to warn for imperial overstretch and for the creation of expectations which are far-fetched and unrealistic. Sometimes I have the impression that the European Union is moving towards the same trap that finished the Soviet Union.”

According to writer Christopher Booker, “when Richard North and I were writing a history of the European Union, trawling hundreds of books and thousands of documents, nothing struck us more than how consistently this grandiose project has been built on deceit as to its true nature (hence our title, The Great Deception). It is more than 60 years since one of its progenitors, Altiero Spinelli, wrote that its aim should be stealthily to assemble the components of a supranational government and only to declare its true purpose at the end of the process by unveiling a ‘constitution’. It is more than 50 years since another founder, Paul-Henri Spaak, advised Jean Monnet, who was above all ‘the Father of Europe’, that the only way to achieve their goal — a politically integrated Europe — was to pretend that it was only a ‘Common Market’.”

Danish EU-critic Henrik Ræder Clausen, who is behind the Europe News website, has reviewed the book The Great Deception by Christopher Booker and Richard North. In the early stages, Jean Monnet was seemingly always at the right place and with the right contacts. The first ideas for a European Union were born after the senseless destruction brought about during the First World War, but they were only implemented after the Second World War:

“The initial ideas for the European Union stem from the period after WWI (not WWII), where the catastrophe just experienced had made a deep impression, and had seeded the ground for trying out new ideas. The League of Nations was one such idea, creating an intergovernmental body to deal with international conflicts, and hopefully to preserve the peace. The various players, Monnet, Salter, and later Spinelli, drafted their first ideas immediately after WWI, in an effort to preclude a repeat of this, possibly the most meaningless war in history. Even the basic structure of the Union, modeled after the League of Nations, was drafted out at this early stage.”

Monnet, who had been doing business and making contacts during WW2, resumed his efforts after the war. He eventually realized that there was little opportunity to make European citizens give up their nation states voluntarily, so in 1954 he changed his strategy. Instead of aiming directly for a supranational Union, Monnet and his allies opted for an Economic Community instead, which gradually evolved over several decades.

According to Clausen, “At this point (the Maastricht Treaty), we are faced with one of the most significant deceptions of the European Union project: It was sold to the European citizens as an economic community, not as a political union. By implementing the political union in small steps, and not making the final goal clear to the public except at a very late stage, the Community founders had pulled off one of the greatest deceptions in history, effectively decoupling the progress from democratic scrutiny and criticism. 1992 marks the end of the European Economic Community and the (troubled) birth of the European Union.”

Is the European Union exclusively bad? There are two schools of thought: Those who believe that the EU represents an idea that was initially good but went awfully wrong somewhere along the way, and those who believe the EU was flawed from its very inception; most people just didn’t see it for what it was. I am willing to listen to the arguments of both camps, but the lies by Mr. Monnet and others do indicate that the EU was steeped in lies and deception from the very first moment of its creation. Either way, this question is by now of secondary importance. What matters at the moment is that the EU has become a monster which threatens the very continued existence of European civilization in any recognizable form.

I am not in any way suggesting that the EU is the only cause of the challenges we are now facing; merely that it constitutes our biggest problem, blocks the solution to other problems and adds several new ones. Political Correctness, suicidal Multiculturalism and Globalism rule the entire Western world, and the low birth rates we have among native Europeans are not caused by the EU. There is a new sense of European solidarity which can be useful in the future. It is quite possible that we could indeed benefit from some form of European cooperation in defense of a shared civilization, but not in the form of the EU as it exists today.

I would like to reform the EU if I could, but I fear that Vladimir Bukovsky is right and that it is the kind of structure which cannot be reformed. There is an incredible amount of frustration, fear and anger simmering among ordinary people across much of Western Europe which is artificially held down by the authorities and the media. There is a possibility that there will be a counter-reaction once the EU is dismantled, but I don’t think we have much of a choice in the present situation. I would liken it to having emergency surgery in order to save your life. If you have the choice between certain death now and possible complications later, you would normally choose possible complications later.

The European Union is not about cooperation for protecting the best interests of Europeans; it is about turning the entire continent into a Multicultural theme park while the natives get culturally deconstructed and demographically crushed. The EU is a large-scale social experiment conducted on hundreds of millions of people. It is not about economics of scale, it is about stupidity of scale. The EU system corrupts virtually everybody who comes close to it. It cannot be reformed, it can only be dismantled.

The EU and the Globalist Alliance

This essay was first published at the Gates of Vienna blog in August 2007. It is republished here with some changes.

One of my challenges when analyzing what’s wrong with the modern West has been trying to figure out the doctrines of Multiculturalism. In Marxism you have the writings of Marx, Engels and others which provide a (seemingly) coherent idea system. In contrast, there is no Multicultural founding document or philosophy. Multicultural doctrines are remarkably inconsistent. The only thing consistent about them is a seeming desire to break down European culture and Western nations. It is possible to trace elements of it to the Frankfurt school of cultural Marxism, to Rousseau’s noble savage etc., but in the end it’s remarkably vague. Perhaps Multiculturalism was intended to sound vaguely positive but confusing, a convenient smokescreen for the project, imposed from above, of dismantling Western nation states. It is plausible that some groups used it as a cover for implementing sweeping changes that could not be openly debated and were frequently the exact opposite of the stated goals. Mass immigration was presented as “enriching our culture.” In fact, it diluted it, and that was probably the point. However, as with all ideologies there were both True Believers who really believed in its ideas and cynics who used it for ulterior motives.

Here is an interesting comment about Multiculturalism posted at a website in, of all places, Bangladesh:

“Multiculturalism is an unnatural and unhealthy condition that can only afflict countries in national decline.… Greed and corruption will characterise the government coupled with oppressive measures directed against its citizens. Lies and deceit will be the stock and trade of media, politicians, and educational institutions.” It “is used to prevent a national consensus among the electorate. It erodes values, cultures, beliefs, religions, ethnic habits, etc. ensuring a swirling river of discontent upon which the multiculturalists rides. It is a perfect method of ensuring that there can never be accord, unity, or a commonly shared destiny among those ruled.”

In other words: Multiculturalism is a tool for divide and conquer. Is there then any point in trying to comprehend its logic at all? Maybe it was just a convenient excuse used for disrupting the established order of nation states by flooding them with mass immigration under the cover of “cultural diversity” or historical inevitability. If that is the case, there never was any coherent logic behind it, so we shouldn’t waste our time looking for one.

This was undertaken by a coalition of different groups with a shared Globalist goal of undermining Western nation states. I heard supporters of mass immigration a generation ago state that all this talk about how it would change our societies into the unrecognizable was scare-mongering and racism. Now, the same groups are saying that yes, our societies have been changed forever. It’s good, and it’s anyway too late to do anything about it, so get used to it! Their propaganda was used to deceive the public and keep it off balance in order to implement potentially irreversible changes with little real debate. They knew they would never get the permission to destroy their own countries, so they simply didn’t ask.

By dismantling national borders, the EU has facilitated the largest migration waves in European history. When Poland became a member, many Poles moved to Britain, Germany etc. This left Poland with a labor shortage. They are now considering importing workers from the Ukraine and Russia to compensate for the Poles that left. At the same time, native Brits are fleeing to Spain because they don’t feel at home in Britain anymore. By such moves, you unleash a chain migration that will eventually smash nations that have existed for ages. Yet this intra-European migration pales in comparison to the immigration from developing nations. The end result will — supposedly — be an entire continent of people without any strong sense of cultural identity or national loyalty, who will be divided, disoriented and presumably easier to control. Stalin did similar things in the Soviet Union, moving large population groups around to unsettle the state and keep it disunited. The European Union has learned a lot from Stalin.

The First World War laid the foundations for the Second World War because it sowed the seeds of resentment in Germany; seeds which bloomed after the Great Depression started in 1929 and led to the rise of the Nazis. It also led to the Russian Revolution and thus to the establishment of Soviet Communism and the Cold War. The combined legacy of the anti-nationalism born out of WW1, the principle of total non-discrimination established after WW2, and the model of an artificial, post-Christian, authoritarian superstate inherited from the Soviet Union are all embodied in the European Union.

Less than a generation after the Cold War ended we are entering a new world war, caused by Western weakness and the resurgent Jihad. The connection between the Cold War and the current world war is not as strong as between WW1 and WW2, but it exists. The West in the 1990s was relieved that the prospect of a global nuclear war was over. We let our guard down because we were reluctant to engage immediately in another ideological confrontation, and this allowed Muslims the opportunity to quietly infiltrate our countries. Hard-Leftists groups within the West, some of which had been actively encouraged by the Soviet Union and the KGB during the Cold War, also regrouped after the latter’s collapse. Moreover, Arabs had been supported by the Soviet Union in the 1970s against Israel and the USA, and Muslims had in return been supported by the Americans against the Soviets in the 1980s in Afghanistan, where Jihadists such as Osama bin Laden learned their trade. Jihad was thus for a while pandered to by both superpowers.

At the American Thinker, James Lewis writes that “Europe has given up on electoral democracy” at the highest and most powerful levels. “For the elites, the emerging EU-SSR is great, because rather than being a minor bureaucrat in London you get the chance to rule all of Europe, with bigger salaries, better food, and richer lobbyists, right across the Channel in the trendy new Euro-capital of Brussels. All you need is to make your regulations so complicated that nobody can understand them.” He believes Europeans are in a state of quiet mourning because of the planned euthanasia of their nation states: “Wall-to-wall elite propaganda has accomplished what a thousand years of European wars and treaties never did. Europe is being hammered and melded into an artificial unity.” This sense of doomed national identity puts a different light on the anti-American neurosis that runs through much of European media.

Lewis dubs the EU “government by hyper-complexity.” Former Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato, one of the chief architects behind the EU Constitution, admits that the “amending treaty” that is supposed to replace the rejected Constitution (yet is 95% identical to it) was deliberately drafted to make it too complicated for the average citizen to understand: “They [EU leaders] decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception.”

Western Europeans had already accepted steadily increasing powers to the national nanny states for decades. All the EU had to do was to connect these established bureaucratic machineries on a supranational level into a complicated web virtually impenetrable to the average person. Only the skilled specialists and bureaucrats can maneuver within this maze, leaving great, and largely unrecognized and thus formally and informally unrestrained power, in the hands of the few on top pulling the strings.

According to José Manuel Barroso, the Portuguese President of the European Commission, the EU is “the first non-imperial empire” the world has ever seen, which makes me wonder whether he has ever read the tale of The Emperor’s New Clothes by Hans Christian Andersen. If the EU is an “empire” of anything, it is above all an empire of bureaucrats, made possible because it was established in a culture where bureaucrats already ruled.

Another person with grandiose ideas about the EU (and himself) is former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing, who has compared his role in drafting the EU Constitution to that of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Unfortunately, Mr. Giscard is no Thomas Jefferson or James Madison and has apparently understood very little of the American Constitution. Precisely because some Americans were concerned that too much power was granted to the federal government, the Bill of Rights was instituted to ensure the rights of individual citizens. On balance, the US Constitution does create a powerful federal government, but it has decentralized rule and leaves large room for individual liberty. Simply put, the citizens grant the state the right to perform certain tasks on their behalf.

Contrast this with the massive EU Constitution where the state “grants you” certain rights, not including the right to genuine free speech. The Americans and the British have their flaws but I admit I am in favor of the traditional Anglo-American model of limitations on state power, not the French one. I don’t like the idea of an all-powerful state that “grants” you rights. If the state “grants” you rights, it can presumable also revoke them at a later point. It tells you something about the perceived relationship between citizens and the state: The state isn’t here to serve us. We are here to serve the state.

The Canadian newspaper columnist David Warren writes about the “charter of fundamental rights” included in the proposed EU Constitution:

“It is time people realized that ‘human rights codes’ are a weapon employed by the state to suppress disapproved behaviour by the individual. They cannot be wielded by the individual against the state, as independent civil and criminal courts could be. They are star chambers used, and designed to be used, to mount show trials, in which persons who fail to snap to attention when commissar issues the latest political corrections may be publicly demonized. By removing all of their victims’ established legal protections — presumption of innocence, the right to know one’s accuser, to be tried by a jury of one’s peers, et cetera — they put a jackboot directly in the teeth of the tradition of human liberty descending from Magna Carta. The tribunals are created, always, by bureaucratic fiat. Democracy is not quite dead in Europe, but getting that way. The cumbersome, incompetent, ridiculously corrupt, incredibly arrogant, and unelected Euro-bureaucracy is already in a position to dictate trans-European policies that by-pass all national legislatures.”

Stanley Kurtz of the National Review Online reviews historian Walter Laqueur’s book The Last Days of Europe: Epitaph for an Old Continent:

“Laqueur returns several times to the failure of Europe’s authorities to consult with the public on immigration. Instead of putting the matter up for debate, government and corporations quietly and unilaterally set policy. Europe’s elite had a bad conscience, given memories of refugees from Nazi Germany who’d been turned away decades earlier. There was also the omnipresent ‘fear of being accused of racism.’ This bizarre combination of multiculturalism and complete disregard for the significance of culture opened up a huge gulf between Europe’s elite and the public — a gulf that emerged openly when France and The Netherlands rejected the proposed EU constitution (in part over concerns about Muslim immigration and the accession of Turkey to the EU). There was, says Laqueur, ‘a backlash against the elites who wanted to impose their policies on a population who had not been consulted.’“

Kurtz wonders what the European elites were thinking when they implemented these policies: “To the question ‘Did they imagine that uncontrolled immigration would not involve major problems?’ Laqueur responds that it is unanswerable. (My guess is that, like today’s market-based immigration advocates in America, European leaders were focused on the immediate need for labor and gave little if any thought to long-term social consequences.)”

Initially in the 1960s, the first trickle of Muslim and other immigration probably wasn’t planned by anybody. It was an accidental result of de-colonization and a desire for short-term labor in booming economies. As I have demonstrated before, this turned into a far more organized cooperation between European and Muslim countries from the 1970s onwards.

Why do ordinary Europeans put up with this? Are we perfectly content with allowing others to run our lives as long as we have food on our table and can still go for a weekend holiday to some exotic resort every now and then?

The primary weapon of the EU has always been deceit, hiding behind labels such as peace and free trade zone. This has worked rather well. I know from personal experience that most Europeans honestly don’t have any idea just how elaborate the Eurabian networks are, or how much EU authorities are selling them out. Many believe it is a crazy conspiracy theory if you point it out to them, just like it was dismissed as scare-mongering earlier if you claimed that this “free trade zone with a few added extras” would eventually morph into a superstate that is subverting the democratic system and unsettling the stability of the entire continent.

Still, the EU-federalists must rely on something else in those cases when this proves insufficient. Their secondary weapon is first of all the common Western respect for law. The reluctance to stage rebellions could be counted upon to prevent serious opposition, especially if combined with a high degree of bureaucracy-induced apathy. Western Europeans have been subjected to an explosion of regulations of every kind. This matters little to those who come from cultures where laws are only abided by if backed up by brute force, but to Westerners, restrained by their cultural sense of fair play, and to Western Europeans emasculated by state propaganda and bureaucracy, this has had a damaging effect.

Western Europeans were used to laws being passed with their best interests in mind, because by and large they had been. Within a few years, all of this has changed. Laws are now passed by EU bureaucrats who don’t give a damn about their interests and by elites who view them as potential stumbling blocks for the new Multicultural society. Yet Europeans, by and large, still adhere to the laws and regulations that are passed by the state because they were accustomed to doing so. Ordinary Europeans are thus held hostage by their own law-abiding nature while the state turns increasingly hostile. This situation may not last forever, though.

The system in Western Europe is based on a minimal use of force. In fact, the armed forces are so weak that in a different age these countries would have been conquered long ago. The situation has only remained stable because of the American military umbrella in Europe, which has provided Western Europeans with an artificial sense of security and aided the growth of Utopian and unsustainable ideologies.

The EU is frequently described as toothless and impotent, but this is inaccurate. It is both unwilling and unable to defend Europeans against external aggressors, but the system is quite capable of subverting the freedom of Europeans. The problem isn’t that the system is powerless, but that it rewards those who use violence while punishing those who don’t. Native Europeans will be ignored or silenced if they try through peaceful means to protest against mass immigration or the ever-expanding pan-European superstate. Violent Muslims, at home and abroad, will get immediate concessions and respect while Europeans are treated with increasing contempt and hostility from those who are supposed to be their leaders.

Lee Harris warns against those who dismiss the idea that Jihad constitutes a serious threat to the West because we are technologically superior to the Islamic world:

“…fear of anarchy — the ultimate fear for those who embrace the politics of reason — can be used to paralyze the political process to the point at which the established order is helpless to control events through normal political channels and power is no longer in the hands of the establishment but lies perilously in the streets….The jihadists do not need to ‘win’ in the battle against the West; it is enough if they can force the West to choose between a dreaded plunge back into the Law of the Jungle and acceding to their demands. This is a formula that has worked many times before and may work again.”

Harris calls this approach the crash of civilization.

If left unchanged, this could sooner or later lead to an outbreak of violence among native Europeans because the system itself rewards violence, and a system that does so invites more violence. If this results in a popular explosion, I don’t think future generations will wonder why it happened; they will wonder why it didn’t happen sooner. At some point, people are going to turn to somebody, anybody, promising to protect their lives, property and culture.

An online document from 2005 written by Traugott Schoefthaler, Executive Director of the Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue between Cultures, one of the EU’s most important instruments for Eurabian cultural cooperation, states the following:

“Theodor W. Adorno and Alfred Horkheimer, in their studies on ‘The Authoritarian Personality’ published shortly after 1945 as a first analysis of the cult of power and violence in Nazi Germany, went deep into psychological terminology of ego- and ethnocentrism. Javier Pérez de Cuéllar and Amin Maalouf come to similar conclusions: Cultural policies need to avoid schematic concepts such as the popular distinction between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’. They even warn against further using the term of ‘The Other’ which is standard in almost all intercultural education concepts, since it opens the gate for imposing collective identities on the individual. There is no viable alternative to their proposal of adopting a rights-based approach in dealing with cultural diversity.”

The document further states that the objective of “learning to live together” (one of the Eurabian slogans) “was outlined by the World Commission on Education for the 21st Century chaired by the former President of the European Commission Jacques Delors. Formal education systems are to be geared towards learning environments, teachers from instructors to organisers of learning, schools to centres for daily practice of tolerance by giving way to others’ points of view.”

Moreover, in line with the report by Mr. Delors, the influential French President of the EU Commission from 1985 to 95, “values… cannot be taught in the strict sense: the desire to impose from the outside predetermined values comes down in the end to negating them.”

In plain words: European schoolchildren should be taught to “give up” their cultural identity. Since it is unlikely that it will be required, or accepted, by Muslims to do the same thing, this amounts to unilaterally stripping the cultural identity away from Europeans, thus leaving them defenseless when confronted with a demographically expanding Islamic community.

According to this logic, “identity” in the widest possible sense is the root cause of all conflicts. Consequently, one must assume that if you erase all racial, religious, national and cultural differences, you will end wars. This is strikingly similar to the view of Communists, who envisioned that by erasing economic differences you would end wars. All peoples should gradually be merged into one, if necessary against their will, starting with Western nations.

Richard N. Gardner, Globalist thinker, former US ambassador and currently a professor of law, in Foreign Affairs in 1974 outlined a strategy for gradually eroding national sovereignty through creating “institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership.” Gardner thought that such “an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece” would “accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.” He was a member of the Trilateral Commission, which consists of hundreds of powerful individuals from Europe, Asia and North America devoted to promoting closer ties between states, from 1974 to 2005.

I keep bashing Marxists in my writings, and they usually deserve it. I honestly believe it is impossible to write anything meaningful about what ails Europe without taking the prolonged and highly destructive influences of Marxism into account. Still, Marxists are simply not powerful enough by themselves to generate all the problems we are now facing. You would have to be pretty blind not to see the importance of business ties in relations between the West and the Islamic world, certainly in the case of Europe and the Middle East, but also with the United States and Saudi Arabia. Money makes the world go around, after all.

One does not have to be a Socialist to see that the short-term interests of Big Business are not always identical to the long-term interests of the nation as a whole, especially not when it comes to immigration. Multinational corporations, which by their very definition have loyalty towards no nation, should not be allowed to direct national immigration policies.

There are several perspectives one can use when trying to understand the European Union. One is that it is somehow related to the unaccountable bureaucracy of the Soviet Union. This does make some sense, but on the other hand, the EU cannot be properly understood simply as a Marxist organization. It has always held the backing of Big Business interests who want easy access to greater markets. They do not always care about national sovereignty or borders, which are vital to the continued existence of any free society. I am particularly concerned over attempts by various Western corporations to appease Islamic demands for censorship. Both with the Danish cartoons and Geert Wilders’ movie Fitna, business interests were among the most prominent in denouncing these attempts to defend our freedom because they care only about their market shares and not about the wider issues.

According to the intelligent American blog reader Queen, “What we have today is not ‘capitalism!’ It’s fascism. The word fascism is used so much today that we have forgotten it’s original meaning. The real meaning is simply an economic system in which corporations, labor unions and governments all cooperate to create a totalitarian state. In which case, the government gets all totalitarian so it can screw the multi-nationals’ competitors and potential competitors, as well as us, ‘the little guy.’ In the 1930s, it was supposed to be the ‘Third Way’ between liberal capitalism and Communism. No coincidence then that Tony Blair called his system of government, which combines elements of cultural Marxism with corporate fascism, the ‘Third Way.’“

Mass immigration of unskilled people from developing countries is not beneficial for the country as a whole in the long run. The borderless world benefits the super-rich, who can exploit cheap labor and gain access to greater markets. They can spend some of the money they earn from this to retreat, at least for a while, into gated communities to escape the rising insecurity and ethnic tensions brought about by mass immigration. Being mobile, they can move their fortunes formally to nations with low tax levels and let average citizens, the vast majority of the population, foot the bill in the form of rising tensions and rising taxes to pay for health care and education for unskilled immigrants.

This is similar to left-wing parties importing voters and undermining Western nations in favor of whatever version of Utopia is fashionable at the time. It is more than a little ironic that Socialists and the super-rich are allies, not adversaries, in undermining nation states. In general, it is useful to think of an alliance between global capitalism, global Marxism as well as what could be termed global authoritarianism in the sense of unelected individuals working towards a world federal government. It is not just a conspiracy theory; I have read several EU adherents who stated that if we can create a government on a pan-European level, we can create a government on a global level.

Many members of the Western political elites don’t identify with their nations. Left-wingers tend to believe that society should be similar to a non-governmental organization (NGO) and run by a world government, a strengthened version of the United Nations. Some business-oriented right-wingers consider the ideal to be a multinational corporation and think that a country should be run the same way. Just as you in a corporation should be allowed to hire whoever you want, you should be allowed to import whoever you want in this ex-nation-state-turned-corporation.

It is as if the entire political, economic and cultural establishment throughout the Western world, left, centre and right, woke up one day and decided that we now live in the global age, that all cultural and religious differences are irrelevant and that the age of nation states is over. Consequently, we shouldn’t even try to uphold our borders. Those suggesting otherwise are racists and bigots.

To say that the USA currently has a border resembling a Swiss cheese is an insult to Swiss cheese. The “conservative” President George W. Bush doesn’t care one whit about the United States as an actual nation, only as an abstract idea, which puts him squarely in the mainstream of Western leaders. Was he bribed by business interests to keep the border open? Do his family and members of his administration have too close business ties to the Saudis to do anything substantial about Islam? Mr. Bush appears to get positively offended when people suggest that he should do more to uphold the country’s borders against illegal immigration.

This is one scenario that the US Founding Fathers did not foresee: They were scared of the short-sightedness of the average and presumably unenlightened citizen, which is sometimes justified. However, the mass immigration that is now destabilizing the West has been pushed more by the political and cultural elites than by average citizens. Those in favor of the 1965 Immigration Act assured the public that it wouldn’t change the demographic make-up of the USA, but it did, and some of them were probably fully aware of this. They just lied.

When I criticize democracy, this should not be taken as an indication that I believe in elitist rule. I criticize it because it clearly doesn’t automatically ensure freedom of speech and security for life and property, which is the hallmark of true liberty. Another problem is that it isn’t always the best system for long-term decisions because people tend to prefer short-term gains. I still believe, however, that there should be a powerful element of real public influence, to curtail the potential for absolute rulers and abuse of power. We have clearly veered too far in the direction of the latter with the EU, where the ruling elites have skillfully eliminated any constraints on their power.

British philosopher Roger Scruton thinks that “buying and selling of citizenship, often to people who think of it purely as a right and never as a duty, is common throughout Europe. The political élite sees nothing wrong in people collecting passports as they might collect memberships of clubs.” Members of our liberal élite may be immune to xenophobia, but there is an equal fault which they exhibit in abundance, which is the repudiation and fear of home. Scruton calls this oikophobia:

“The rise of oikophobes has led to the growing crisis of legitimacy in the nation states of Europe. The ordinary people of Europe are now deeply anxious about their future. …If the liberal élite will not discuss the matter, and continue to put all blame for the growing anxiety on the xenophobia of the indigenous population while ignoring the oikophobia which is an equal contributory cause, then the likely long-term effect will be a popular explosion.”

The democratic system has significant flaws, but it worked to some extent as long as there was sense of being a demos, a people with a shared identity and common interests. What we are witnessing now is the gradual breakdown of this demos, starting from the top down. Powerful groups frequently have more in common with the elites in other countries than they have with the average citizen in their own. If you no longer believe in your nation as a real entity with a specific culture, it simply becomes a tool for obtaining power, a stepping stone for your global career. Without a pre-political loyalty, emotional ties or even a pragmatic interest in supporting nation states, the democratic system becomes a vehicle for distributing favors to your friends at home and abroad, for fleecing the voters while in power and hopefully ensuring a lucrative international career along the way. You will have few moral inhibitions against importing voters from abroad for maintaining power or because your business buddies who give you financial support desire this. This process has gone further in the self-loathing West than in any other civilization.

Average citizens who still identify with their nation states thus keep electing people who betray their trust. Since the elites identify little with the nations they are supposed to serve, more power to them will only make matters worse, as it already has in Europe. Corrupt and incompetent individuals will always exist. If you get a corrupt leader every now and then you are dealing with a flawed individual. If you constantly, again and again, get corrupt leaders you are dealing with a flawed system.

Our political system is now deeply flawed. The problem is that I cannot easily see how to fix it.

The Immigration Tsunami, Part 2

by Baron Bodissey (Gates of Vienna) October 12, 2008

I wrote last month about the growing immigration crisis in Southern Europe. In the weeks since that post the emergency hasn’t abated; if anything, it has increased. Every day brings a fresh batch of news stories about illegal immigrants landing in Lampedusa, or overwhelming holding facilities in Malta, or being drowned at sea. Despite the acknowledged problem of illegal migrants, Spain is actually inviting farm laborers into the country — this during a recession, and with unemployment reaching new levels.

The material below is compiled from various articles which will appear in tonight’s news feed. It’s important to remember that this is just one day’s selection. News stories like them appear almost every day, although most of them won’t be found in the European MSM [mainstream media].

The EU has actually recognized that it has an illegal immigration problem, and is attempting to cope with it. The latest effort involves a European Coast Guard, which is intended to replace a previous effort which was acknowledged a failure:

“The creation of a European Coastguard is one of the hypotheses the EU must take into consideration to deal with the illegal immigration emergency in the Mediterranean. The Prime Minister of Greece, Kostas Karamanlis, said this during a joint press conference with the Premier of Malta, Lawrence Gonzi, during his 2-day State visit to the island. “Frontex must be reinforced, not abandoned” said Karamanlis, in response to a question in which he was asked to comment the recent statements of mission leader Illka Laitinen, who in an interview admitted that the joint patrols have “failed”. Karamanlis underlined the importance of more cooperation between the EU member States in dealing with the immigration emergency, inviting European partners to start a discussion on the possibility to create a European Coastguard.”

If the EU has designated the current situation an “emergency”, can you imagine how bad it must be?

Part of the problem is that all this immigration from Africa is actually planned; it’s just that the immigrants are jumping the queue a little bit. According to The Daily Express:

“More than 50 million African workers are to be invited to Europe in a far-reaching secretive migration deal, the Daily Express can reveal today. A controversial taxpayer-funded ‘job centre’ opened in Mali this week is just the first step towards promoting “free movement of people in Africa and the EU”. Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will ‘need’ 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the “demographic decline” due to falling birth rates and rising death rates across Europe…’Having sufficient people of working age is vital for the economy and for tax revenue.’ [emphasis added]”

This is the crux of the matter: tax revenue. Despite all the statistical evidence indicating that immigrants absorb more tax revenues than they generate, the elites that run the system persist in the belief that the influx is economically necessary.

Their larger goal is the preservation of the system over which they preside. Those who have children surely want their offspring to partake of the same privileges that they enjoy, and perhaps someday set their hands to the same levers of power. In order to do that, the lumpen proletariat must remain a part of the system, and it matters not a whit if they are “brown” and Muslim, just so long as the power and perks continue to accrue to those at the top of the heap.

Ms Castex said: “It is urgent that member states have a calm approach to immigration. To say ‘yes’, we need immigration … it is not a new development, we must accept it.”

WE MUST ACCEPT IT.

It is pre-ordained. We do not have a choice. What has been decided is what will come to be. No voice crying in the wilderness will deflect us from the plan.

So: we (that is, native Europeans) have agreed to replace ourselves gradually with Muslim immigrants from Africa.

The news article above terms the plan “secretive” rather than “secret”, because it’s not a secret. It may not be blazoned on the front pages of the continent’s newspapers, or printed up on handbills and pasted on lampposts, but it’s not a secret. The plans are part of the public record, buried in cubic miles of the bureaucratic bumf that has emerged from all the planning sessions in Strasbourg or Brussels.

It’s EuroMed, a.k.a. the Mediterranean Union, a.k.a. the Barcelona Agreement of 1995, a.k.a. Eurabia. And if you’re a European, it’s coming to your city, town, or village, no matter how far you are from Lampedusa, or Valletta, or Gibraltar.

The impoverished indigenes of Africa have caught wind of what lies ahead, and they’re not waiting for an official invitation: they’re coming to Europe now:

“51 illegal Moroccan immigrants arrived yesterday in Barcelona on an Italian passenger ship and tried to enter into Spanish territory with false documents and were arrested when they got off the ship by national police officers.”

And they’re willing to take some risks getting to the promised land:

“Searches are taking place along the coastline of Spain on the lookout for around 50 migrants of Moroccan origin, who (according to a survivor) were involved in a shipwreck. The survivor was found on a beach 40 kilometres north of Rabat, near to the body of a man — presumably one of the victims of the wreck. According to Moroccan security sources cited by EFE news agency, the survivor is a young man — originally from Sale (Rabat). According to his testimony, the boat had fifty people on board when it set sail from the Moroccan coast at around 11.30pm on Tuesday night.”

Those numbers were in the dozens; how about hundreds ?

“A large boat with 260 immigrants on board was aided 40 miles south of Lampedusa by Police patrol boats. The boat, 15 meters long was pointed out by the Sirio patrol boat that had previously collected another 143 non EU citizens on three other boats. With the arrival of the last 400 migrants on the island the situation remains critical in the centre where this morning about 1500 people were hosted in a structure that has a capacity for 700 people.”

Or even tens of thousands:

“A total 30,000 illegal immigrants have entered Italy so far this year, the country’s Interior Minister, Roberto Maroni told the Parliament on Thursday, adding that migration has risen “exponentially”. The Government has allocated seven million euros for the construction of new reception centres for illegal immigrants and over 109 million euros to run these centres, said Maroni. On top of these sums, the Government has earmarked 747,000 euros to handle the arrival of illegal immigrants at Italy’s borders, he said.…Migration to Italy has risen “exponentially” from 500,000 people in 1987 to almost 3.5 million this year, Maroni noted. He was speaking the same day that Italy’s central statistics agency ISTAT released data showing a record 3,432,651 foreigners were resident in Italy on 1 January this year, an increase of 16.8 percent over 2007.”

So many immigrants are flooding into Malta that their rate of arrival exceeds the local birth rate:

“The impact of immigrant arrivals on the island-state of Malta is so high that for the first time it has surpassed the birth rate. The statistics which were supplied by the Immigration Commission show that in Malta there are 40 immigrants for every square kilometre, an average that surprisingly surpasses the population density per square kilometre in Finland.”

And remember: this sort of thing is happening every day, day after day, all along the Mediterranean littoral of Southern Europe.

Nothing approaching this has ever happened in peacetime during all of recorded history. No civilization has peacefully allowed itself to be supplanted by migrants.

So there’s no way foretell exactly how all of this will shake out. Still, I feel confident in making a single prediction:

This will not end well.

Stupidity Without Borders — The Alliance of Utopias

The bulk of this essay was published in July 2006. It is republished here with some changes.

“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” — Former Algerian President Houari Boumedienne in a speech at the UN in 1974.

“Soon we will take power in this country. Those who criticize us now, will regret it. They will have to serve us. Prepare, for the hour is near.” — Belgium-based imam in 1994.

The 20th and the beginning of the 21st centuries have witnessed the most spectacular population growth in human history, most of it in Third World countries. The world’s population, estimated at 6.4 billion in 2006, grows by more than 70 million people per year. In sixty years, Brazil’s population has increased by 318 per cent; Ethiopia’s by 503 per cent. There are now 73 million people in Ethiopia — more than the population of Britain or France.

At the same time, many of the most economically successful countries, both in the East and in the West, have problems with ageing or declining populations. At its peak around 1910, one-quarter of the world’s population lived in Europe or North America. Today the percentage has probably declined to about one-eighth. South Korea’s birthrate has dropped to the point where the average Korean woman is expected to have only one child throughout her life. The U.S. still has a birthrate of more than two, while the U.K. saw births inch up from 1.63 to 1.74 and Germany from 1.34 to 1.37 in the same period. The low birthrate problem in Asia is rooted in women’s rising social and economic standing. Japan’s birthrate was 1.28, comparable to Taiwan’s 1.22, and Hong Kong’s 0.94.

“Europe and Japan are now facing a population problem that is unprecedented in human history,” said Bill Butz, president of the Population Reference Bureau. Countries have lost people because of wars, disease and natural disasters but never because women stopped having enough children. Japan announced that its population had shrunk in 2005 for the first time, and that it was now the world’s most elderly nation. Italy was second. On average, women must have 2.1 children in their lifetimes for a society to replenish itself, accounting for infant mortality and other factors. Only one country in Europe — Muslim Albania — has a fertility rate above 2. Russia’s fertility rate is 1.28.

Writer Spengler in the Asia Times Online commented that demography is destiny: “Never in recorded history have prosperous and peaceful nations chosen to disappear from the face of the earth. Yet that is what the Europeans have chosen to do. Back in 1348 Europe suffered the Black Death….The plague reduced the estimated European population by about a third. In the next 50 years, Europe’s population will relive — in slow motion — that plague demography, losing about a fifth of its population by 2050.”

Historian Niall Ferguson reveals how Islam is winning the numbers game. “If fertility persisted at such low levels, within 50 years Spain’s population would decline by 3-4 million, Italy’s by a fifth. Not even two World Wars had inflicted such an absolute decline in population.” “In 1950 there had been three times as many people in Britain as in Iran. By 1995 the population of Iran had overtaken that of Britain. By 2050, the population of Iran could be more than 50 per cent larger. At the time of writing, the annual rate of population growth is more than seven times higher in Iran than in Britain.”

We thus have a situation with an explosive population growth in failed countries, while many of the most economically and technologically advanced nations, Eastern and Western, have stagnating populations. This strange and possibly unprecedented situation, which could perhaps be labelled “survival of the least fit”, will have dramatic consequences for the world. It is already producing the largest migration waves in history, threatening to swamp islands of prosperity in a sea of poverty.

Lenin stated that “Marxism is based on internationalism or it is nothing.” “The emancipation of the workers is not a local, nor a national, but an international problem,” wrote Marx. Karl Marx has defined the essence of Socialism as abolishing private property. Let’s assume for a moment that a country can be treated as the “property” of its citizens. Its inhabitants are responsible for creating its infrastructure. They have built its roads and communications, its schools, universities and medical facilities. They have created its political institutions and instilled in its people the mental capacities needed for upholding them. Is it then wrong for the citizens of this country to want to enjoy the benefits of what they have themselves created?

According to Marxist logic, yes.

Imagine you have two such houses next to each other. In House A, the inhabitants have over a period of generations created a tidy and functioning household. They have limited their number of children because they wanted to give all of them a proper education. In House B, the inhabitants live in a dysfunctional household with too many children who have received little higher education. One day they decide to move to their neighbors’. Many of the inhabitants of House A are protesting, but some of them think this might be a good idea. There is room for more people in House A, they say. In addition to this, Amnesty International, the United Nations and others claim that it is “racist” and “against international law” for the inhabitants of House A to expel the intruders. Pretty soon, House A has been turned into an overpopulated and dysfunctional household just like House B.

This is what is happening to the West today. Europe could become a failed continent itself, importing the problems of Africa and the Islamic world. The notion that everybody should be free to move anywhere they want to, and that preventing them from moving into your home is “racism, xenophobia and bigotry,” is the Communism of the 21st century. And it will probably have the same effect, only on an even large scale.

Communism creates poverty because when people don’t own property, they cannot plan for the future. If you and your children cannot enjoy the fruits of your efforts and work, but have to watch others take it away, you will no longer bother to go the extra mile or mobilize your full creativity to generate improvements.

Unrestricted immigration from failed states will eventually destroy global centres of excellence, the same way Communism did. This is definitely bad for the people who will lose what were once functioning countries, but in the long run bad for everybody else, too. It will deprive the inhabitants of Third World countries of the incentives needed to change their own nations if they can simply move somewhere else and refrain from confronting the reasons for their failures.

Many pro-immigrationists use slogans such as “No human is illegal” to argue that immigrants who have entered a country illegally should be allowed to stay. But countries which don’t differentiate between citizens and non-citizens cannot long survive. A favorite quotation in the US is from the poem The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus; a sonnet written in 1883 that is now engraved on a wall in the base of the Statue of Liberty:

“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

It’s a great poem, but it’s just that, a poem. The global population today is 6.5 billion, and will rise to 8, 9 or even 10 billion in the near future. The “poor and wretched” of the earth make up literally billions of people. Should they all move to the USA? How many people can Americans take in before their country falls apart?

The mantra that “diversity is enriching” does not have any real basis in facts. There are more than 20 member countries in the Arab League. Does “cultural diversity” increase globally if, say, Denmark becomes Arabized due to immigration? You would then get just another Arab country, while the only Denmark in existence would be erased. If “cultural diversity” is our yardstick, today’s Muslim immigration to Europe is a disaster. We are replacing unique cultures developed over centuries with burkas and sharia.

Moreover, many politicians and intellectuals fail to appreciate just how much communication technology has changed the rules of the game. When people praise immigration that took place a hundred or two hundred years ago, they are talking about a world that no longer exists, like generals planning for the last war. Modern technology means that immigrants can live in Western countries as if they never left home, visit their original homeland frequently, watch satellite TV in the language of their parents instead of the language of their adopted country, and stay in touch with their relatives back home through the Internet.

Globalization has made it easier than ever not just to move physically to the other side of the world, but also to live one place physically and on the other side of the world mentally. The full implications of this technological revolution are too complicated to be properly predicted or understood by any one individual, but they are bound to have far-reaching and sometimes unsettling consequences for the nations involved, especially if combined with a deliberate, open-border ideology.

Observer Mac Johnson points out that in the past, admission into the USA was regarded as a very rare and generous gift. Today, admission into the US or any Western democracy “is regarded by many as something between a civil right and an entitlement. Indeed, many seem to believe that the host population should be grateful to them for having arrived. Many immigrants, therefore, arrive as colonists, wishing only to set up a slightly wealthier version of their homeland.” He also points out that until the mid-20th Century, immigration to America occurred from a very restricted pool of nations. “For all our celebration of the great melting pot, America was mostly melting European peoples in that pot. These peoples shared a great deal of cultural inheritance before ever setting foot in America.”

Besides, it is not clear whether experiences from the USA, Canada or Australia can easily be transferred to Europe. The colonization of and immigration to these countries was indeed violent and unacceptable by today’s moral standards. To put it in a brutal way: A country can only become a “successful immigration society” if the indigenous population has been marginalized. In the USA today, only about 3% (the number is disputed) of the population is made up of Native Americans; the rest are all descendants of immigrants.

British commentator Anthony Browne, author of the book “Do We Need Mass Immigration?,” points out that the migration waves we are witnessing now are unique. “What is happening now is the result of sustained migration pressure the likes of which the world has never seen before….The revolution in ‘human rights’ means that as soon as anyone gets past passport control they are pretty much guaranteed to stay. 47,000 illegal immigrants were detected in 2000, but just 6,000 were sent home….A hundred years ago, most people in the west rarely moved even to the next village; now whole villages from Bangladesh are relocating to northern England.”

He quotes the then president of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, who in 2000 was asked by the Los Angeles Times how the country was going to feed, clothe, house and employ the expected doubling of her population by 2050. She replied: “We’ll send them to America. Globalisation will take that problem away, as you free up all factors of production, also labour. There’ll be free movement, country to country. Globalisation in its purest form should not have any boundaries, so small countries with big populations should be able to send population to countries with big boundaries and small populations.”

Browne confronts the assertion that “mass immigration is normal, irreversible and beneficial to host societies” as a “damaging illusion. Rather, the current experience of developed western countries, faced with huge inflows of people…is unprecedented and damaging. The process can and should be stopped, in the interests of the rich diversity of nations it will otherwise crush….In 1924, the US government passed legislation that effectively closed the door on European immigration, opening the door to immigration from poor countries with new legislation only in 1965. Australia has shown in recent years that tough policies can reduce illegal immigration to virtually zero….Pro-immigration campaigners who tell the people of Europe that ‘mass immigration cannot be stopped’ are adopting the policies of despots through history of quelling opposition by telling opponents that resistance is futile. All that is needed is political will.”

American military historian and columnist Victor Davis Hanson talks about how mass immigration is the product of a de facto alliance between the Libertarian Right and the Multicultural Left. The economic Libertarians can be represented by Swedish writer Johan Norberg, author of the book In Defence of Global Capitalism. Norberg can have valuable insights into the flaws of the Scandinavian welfare state model. However, his commitment to a “free market, open border” ideology blinds him to the threat posed by Muslim immigration, an ideological blind spot that is almost as big as the ones we find in Marxists. According to him, “at the moment there is a problem. The right supports one part of globalisation — the free movement of capital and goods — while the left tends to support another part, the free movement of people.”

Norberg believes immigration is already so extensive it would be unwise to halt it. Pointing out there were 15 million Muslims in Europe, he noted in a 2003 article: “If we close the borders, if we alienate this substantial minority, we risk creating resentment between ethnic and religious groups, and only the fundamentalists would gain….If people were allowed to cross borders at will, they would take their ideas and their labour and skills with them. This is all part of free trade, and it’s a paradox that many liberals don’t see this.”

Japan has a declining and ageing population, Yemen and Pakistan have booming populations. Does anybody seriously believe that it would be “good” for the Japanese to open their doors to millions of Muslims from Yemen? “Do you have any education?” “Yes, I know the Koran by heart and can say ‘Death to the infidels!’ in ten different ways.” “Splendid, just what we need here in Japan. Can you start tomorrow on developing a new line of plasma TV screens for SONY?”

When it comes to stagnating populations and Muslim immigration, the problems are not nearly as damaging as the cure.

Ethnically homogeneous nations enjoy a “trust bonus” which reduces the amount of conflict. There is little evidence that any theoretical “diversity” bonus from immigration will cancel out the loss of this “trust bonus.” South Korea and Japan are among the world leaders in technology. They are both ethnically homogeneous nations. Even China, which does have significant ethnic minorities, could soon be more ethnically homogeneous than many so-called Western nations. There will be no lack of “diversity” in the 21st century, but there could be a lack of functioning, coherent nation states. Maybe the West will “celebrate diversity” until our countries fall apart, and global leadership will be transferred to East Asia.

Yes, it is true that the ability to attract ambitious and talented scientists from other countries has benefited the USA in the past, and given it an edge over Europe. However, it is not without dangers to “celebrate diversity” in a country as diverse as the US. Americans should try celebrating what binds them together instead, or they may wake up one day and discover that they don’t really have a lot in common. What then for the United States?

Anthony Browne notes that Britain “became the largest economic power in the world in the nineteenth century, in the almost complete absence of immigration to these isles. Japan became the world’s second largest economy after the second world war in the almost total absence of immigration. Britain can never compete on the basis of low wages with low cost countries such as China for the simple reason that the cost of living is so much higher, and it is a mistake to try. Although cheap labour immigration may have staved off the demise of those industries for a short while, it also compromised them by encouraging them to go down the cheap labour route, and discouraging them from going up the high productivity/value added route.”

The revered former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, stated in a testimony given to the U.S. Senate: “Although discovery of new technologies is to some degree a matter of luck, we know that human activities do respond to economic incentives. A relative shortage of workers should increase the incentives for developing labor-saving technologies and may actually spur technological development.”

Robert Rowthorn, academic economist, criticizes the claim, frequently repeated by Tony Blair’s Labour government since it took office in 1997, that “if we don’t have immigration, we won’t have economic growth.” According to Rowthorn, “if you repeat something often enough, you can perhaps make people believe it.” There is no evidence “that large-scale immigration generates large-scale economic benefits for the existing population as a whole. On the contrary, all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative” as unskilled migrants and their families often are net consumers of taxes.

“Immigration can’t solve the pensions crisis, nor solve the problem of an ageing population, as its advocates so often claim. It can, at most, delay the day of reckoning, because, of course, immigrants themselves grow old, and they need pensions….The injection of large numbers of unskilled workers into the economy does not benefit the bulk of the population to any great extent. It benefits the nanny-and housecleaner-using classes; it benefits employers who want to pay low wages; but it does not benefit indigenous, unskilled Britons. While Britain has always had immigration, the recent influx is totally without precedent in modern times.”

Rowthorn also points out, correctly, that “refugees and others granted special leave to remain under the asylum rules account for only 10 per cent of immigration to Britain. Most permanent immigration consists of people who are economic migrants together with their dependants.” Most of them aren’t people fleeing persecution.

People smuggling has become one of the world’s biggest and most lucrative businesses, with professional smugglers who demand high payments. In one case in Norway, a boy around eight years old said his mother and siblings in Kosovo were dead. An investigation into his case, however, found his parents and siblings living in Greece. Fully 94 percent of would-be refugees arriving in Norway lack valid identification papers. In the last four years, 50% of those who have been refused asylum in Sweden have gone underground and have simply vanished. And of the half who have actually been sent home, a full 20% have come straight back to Sweden to try their luck again.

In Iran, the Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign bragged that it was targeting potential suicide bombers in Britain because of the relative ease with which UK passport-holders could enter Israel. “Do you think getting hold of a British passport for an Iranian citizen is hard? Tens of passports are issued for Iranian asylum seekers in Britain every day. There are hundreds of other ways available to us, such as illegal entry [into Britain], fake passports, etc.” One gang is estimated to have smuggled 100,000 illegal immigrants, mainly Turkish Kurds, into Britain. These economic migrants paid between £3,000 and £5,000 to be transported via an elaborate and dangerous route.

“We were just tired of living in the forest,” explained a young man from Guinea-Bissau. “There was nothing to eat, there was nothing to drink.” In mid-September, Africans began assaulting the frontier of Spain’s small enclaves in Africa en masse. Deploying crude ladders made of branches, they used their weight to bring the fences down in places. As one of them put it, “We go in a group and all jump at once. We know that some will get through, that others will be injured and others may die, but we have to get through, whatever the cost.”

Rickard Sandell of the Royal Elcano Institute in Madrid predicted that the migration now underway could signal the prospect of an African “mass exodus” and armed conflict. What one sees today “is only the beginning of an immigration phenomenon that could evolve into one of the largest in history… the mass assault on Spain’s African border may just be a first warning of what to expect of the future.” With its shores only about 20 kilometers (12 miles) from the African coast, Spain is in the frontline of the fight against illegal immigration.

José Zapatero, Spain’s Prime Minister, said during a visit to the Canary Islands that his country would “spare no resources” to curb illegal immigration from Africa. However, his Socialist government launched an amnesty for more than 600,000 illegal immigrants the year before, thus greatly encouraging more illegal immigration. Moreover, due to the borderless nature of modern Europe caused by the European Union, once you get into Spain or any other EU country, you are free to move on to others.

The so-called Schengen Agreement, signed by a total of 26 countries, means that border posts and checks have been removed between European countries and common external border controls established. These are not always working very well. Since the pre-political loyalty, as Roger Scruton would have called it, for most people in Europe is with their nation states and not with “Europe,” not all countries care too much about upholding the borders of other nations. There have been reports of Italian police, for instance, releasing illegal immigrants on the border, free to go further north. Not their country, not their problem.

At the time of the greatest population explosion in the history of the human race on its mainly Muslim southern borders, and when half of all Arab youths express a desire to move to the West, European authorities decide that it’s a brilliant idea to remove as many border controls as possible. And EU bureaucrats are quietly working to extend the “four freedoms of the EU,” including the free movement of people between countries, to include the Arab world.

Just like a scene from The Camp of the Saints, the controversial book by Jean Raspail, thousands of African immigrants have come ashore the Mediterranean island of Malta the past four years, most often making the crossing from Libya in open fishing boats, heading for the European mainland. And the tiny island of Malta feels overwhelmed. “We don’t want a multicultural society,” said Martin Degiorgio, a leader of an anti-immigration group. “Haven’t you seen the problems it has brought to France and Britain?” Scicluna, the government adviser, said that it was “utterly unrealistic to think you can pull up the drawbridge” and that the country needed time to adjust to immigration. “We’ve got to live with it. We’ve got to adapt to it. We have got to make it work,” he said.

Massive movements of people have in the past almost always triggered wars. There is little reason to expect our countries to be an exception. Nearly 200 million people in 2006 lived outside their country of origin. That is a number similar to the entire planet’s population during what we in European history call the Migration Period, which triggered the downfall of the Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th centuries. The similarities have not gone unnoticed by everybody.

Rear Admiral Chris Parry, one of Britain’s most senior military strategists, has warned that Western civilization faces a threat on a par with the barbarian invasions that destroyed the Roman Empire. “Globalisation makes assimilation seem redundant and old-fashioned… [the process] acts as a sort of reverse colonisation, where groups of people are self-contained, going back and forth between their countries, exploiting sophisticated networks and using instant communication on phones and the internet.” Third World instability could lick at the edges of the West as pirates attack holidaymakers from fast boats. “At some time in the next 10 years it may not be safe to sail a yacht between Gibraltar and Malta.” The effects will be magnified as borders become more porous and some areas sink beyond effective government control. Parry expected the world population to grow to about 8.4 billion in 2035, with some giant metropolises becoming ungovernable. The subsequent mass population movements, Parry argued, could lead to the “Rome scenario.”

The waves of migration that the Western world is faced with now are far, far greater in scope and speed than those which brought down the Roman Empire. At least 2.2 million migrants will arrive in the West every year until 2050, according to a United Nations report from 2007. The world’s population could reach an estimated 9.2 billion by the middle of this century.

It is striking that it appears to be taken for granted by the UN that we will sit back, bleed to death and accept all these millions flooding our countries. It is presented like a natural disaster, as if the massive population growth cannot be stopped by the nations in question or the ensuing migration cannot be limited by Western countries. Both assumptions are wrong. Westerners cannot and should not take responsibility for billions of people in other parts of the world. They will have to limit their population growth to a sustainable level. We have already accepted more immigration than any society has done peacefully in human history.

Many people watch with resigned fatalism — a fatalism which used to be alien to Western culture — as we are told by our leaders and media that this is “inevitable.” But nothing is inevitable. Our societies will collapse if this continues, yet we are supposed to be quiet bystanders to our own demise. Right-wingers tell us that it will be “good for the economy,” and left-wingers attack us for “racism” if we desire our own continued existence. As blog reader An Indian Living in the West writes:

“They say that all ‘rich nations’ will face mass immigration. But, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore and even Malaysia are also rich nations. Immigration to those countries is close to zero. I think that immigration is matter of government policy and national will. If the will is there, you can have zero immigration or limited immigration. But there isn’t the will to do anything about immigration in the West. Instead they sit and wring their hands.…If there was ever a picture of a society that has been completely finished, this is it. You don’t have to discriminate on racial grounds or religious grounds, just reduce the annual quota to 1000 or 10000. Nothing illiberal about that. But they cannot contemplate even that! Westerners amuse me. Even the worst cowards in the so-called ‘third world’ have more spine than this.”

He is right: The West does seem to have lost its willpower, and certain groups deliberately want to dismantle existing nation states.

The Danish writer Carsten Ringsmose was a speaker at a conference at the University of Odense on the immigration-related topic of “Recognition and integration.” He outlined the projected population growth for the Islamic world, and stated that if recent prognoses are correct, the Islamic world will witness a population growth more than the equivalent of all EU member countries combined within just a few decades. One of the other speakers suggested that this population boom could be solved through migration to the West, which would mean that Denmark, with a present population of 5.4 million inhabitants, would have to accept perhaps 9.5 million predominantly Muslim immigrants within two generations. The man who suggested this, accompanied by segments of the audience, laughed when Mr. Ringsmose suggested that this simply wasn’t doable.

The German professor of sociology Gunnar Heinsohn worries about what he calls the “demographic capitulation” of European nations. He fears that their imploding birth rates will lead to the collapse of the welfare state, and that immigration cannot solve this problem. He does not believe that material aid to countries with large youth populations will prevent wars and terror. On the contrary, it may in fact increase unrest and violence. Over the course of five generations (1900-2000), the population in predominantly Muslim countries has grown from 150 million to 1200 million. He notes that Western countries are funding the Palestinian population explosion, among others, and argues that this must stop. He believes the West should stay out of the affairs of Muslim countries with expanding populations as much as possible, and only interfere briefly if they threaten us directly.

In June 2007, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, along with Chancellor (and PM-in-waiting) Gordon Brown and Conservative Party leader David Cameron, met Muslim leaders at a conference organized by The Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme. Blair opened the conference by defending Islam as a religion of “moderation and modernity” as he announced a £1M government fund to aid teaching of the religion and train imams, and designated Islamic studies as “strategically important” to the British national interest. Timothy Winter, lecturer in Islamic Studies at Cambridge, said: “The question facing British society, and society as a whole, is not how we encourage minorities to engage with western countries, but how those countries define themselves as a collage of different religious cultures.”

In other words: Britain, Germany, France and other Western countries with white majorities are no longer nations with a distinct heritage, only random spaces on the map with a “collage of different cultures.”

Westerners are the suckers of the 21st century. The rest of the world is entitled to preserve itself. We, on the other hand, are not. We don’t have interests of our own. We exist solely as a vehicle for funding other nations, and as the obedient dumping ground for their excess population growth. If we assert the right to defend our borders, representatives of left-leaning non-governmental organizations, NGOs aided by our so-called leaders, will come down upon us like a ton of bricks. Westerners are funding the unsustainable growth rates in the developing world through material aid and medical advances. Later we are told to let them into our countries, where we will continue funding our own colonization and eventual eradication through welfare payments. We are paying others to multiply and conquer our lands. This policy is insane and evil, and it has to stop.

In the middle of the massive waves of migration in the 21st century it is suicidal to cling on to ideas of a “borderless world.” Yet in the West, there seems to be an alliance between the anti-national forces of the political Left and the Libertarian ideals and short-term desire for cheap labor of the political Right, who denounce their critics as “racists.” Perhaps we can call it an Alliance of Utopias. What these Western Utopians don’t understand is that there is another, competing Utopia of a borderless world: The Islamic Caliphate. As long as the Islamic world can dump their excess population in infidel countries and Muslims make up a majority — some say 70% — of the world’s refugees, any policies of not maintaining our borders will only pave the way for the Islamization of our lands. And it will happen with the blessing of many of our intellectuals, both right-wing and left-wing.

A plague on both their houses.

Fourteen Centuries of War against European Civilization

The following essay is an amalgam of my previous online essays, among them Who Are We, Who Are Our Enemies — The Cost of Historical Amnesia, Why We Should Oppose an Independent Kosovo, Refuting God’s Crucible and The Truth About Islam in Europe. After publishing it, I see that I should probably have called it “Foruteen Centuries of War against Civilization,” since Islamic Jihad targets any civilization worthy of the name, Eastern or Western. But the primary focus of this book is Europe, and so will the focus of this essay be.

“The Jihad, the Islamic so-called Holy War, has been a fact of life in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Near and Middle East for more than 1300 years, but this is the first history of the Muslim wars in Europe ever to be published. Hundreds of books, however, have appeared on its Christian counterpart, the Crusades, to which the Jihad is often compared, although they lasted less than two hundred years and unlike the Jihad, which is universal, were largely but not completely confined to the Holy Land. Moreover, the Crusades have been over for more than 700 years, while a Jihad is still going on in the world. The Jihad has been the most unrecorded and disregarded major event of history. It has, in fact, been largely ignored. For instance, the Encyclopaedia Britannica gives the Crusades eighty times more space than the Jihad.”

The above quote is from Paul Fregosi’s book Jihad in the West from 1998. Mr. Fregosi found that his book about the history of Islamic Holy War in Europe from the 7th to the 20th centuries was difficult to get published in the mid-1990s, when publishers had the Salman Rushdie case in fresh memory.

A few years later, perhaps the most comprehensive and scholarly book on the subject to date, The Legacy of Jihad, was published by Andrew G. Bostom. He has written about what he calls “ America’s First War on Terror.” Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, then serving as American ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively, met in 1786 in London with the Tripolitan Ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. These future American presidents were attempting to negotiate a peace treaty which would spare the United States the ravages of Jihad piracy — murder and enslavement emanating from the so-called Barbary States of North Africa, corresponding to modern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya.

Bostom notes that “an aggressive jihad was already being waged against the United States almost 200 years prior to America becoming a dominant international power in the Middle East.” Israel has nothing to do with it. The Barbary Jihad piracy had been going on since the earliest Arab-Islamic expansion in the 7th and 8th centuries. Francisco Gabrieli states that:

According to present-day concepts of international relations, such activities amounted to piracy, but they correspond perfectly to jihad, an Islamic religious duty. The conquest of Crete, in the east, and a good portion of the corsair warfare along the Provencal and Italian coasts, in the West, are among the most conspicuous instances of such “private initiative” which contributed to Arab domination in the Mediterranean.

A proto-typical Muslim naval razzia occurred in 846 when a fleet of Arab Jihadists arrived at the mouth of the Tiber, made their way to Rome, sacked the city, and carried away from the basilica of St. Peter all of the gold and silver it contained. The creation of the Vatican as a walled “city within a city” was in response to the recurrent threat of Islamic Jihad raids.

Bostom notes that “By June/July 1815 the ably commanded U.S. naval forces had dealt their Barbary jihadist adversaries a quick series of crushing defeats. This success ignited the imagination of the Old World powers to rise up against the Barbary pirates.”

Yet some Arabs seem to miss the good old days when they could extract jizya payments from the West. Libyan terrorist-sponsoring leader Muammar Gaddafi has stated that he thinks that European nations should pay 10 billion euros ($12.7 billion dollars) a year to Africa to help it stop migrants seeking a better life flooding northwards into Europe. He added without elaborating: “Earth belongs to everybody. Why they (young Africans) emigrated to Europe — this should be answered by Europeans.” Apart from being a clear-cut example of how migration, or rather population dumping, has become a tool for blackmail in the 21st century, this is a throwback to the age when Tripoli could extract payments from Europe.

Robert Davis, professor of history at Ohio State University, developed new methodical enumeration in his book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters which indicates that perhaps one and one-quarter million white European Christians were enslaved by Barbary Muslims just from 1530 through 1780 — a far greater number than had been estimated before:

“Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland. Much of what has been written gives the impression that there were not many slaves and minimizes the impact that slavery had on Europe,” Davis said. “Most accounts only look at slavery in one place, or only for a short period of time. But when you take a broader, longer view, the massive scope of this slavery and its powerful impact become clear.”

Corsairs from cities in North Africa — Tunis, Algiers etc. — would raid ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, as well as seaside villages to capture men, women and children. The impact was devastating — France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants.

At its peak, the destruction and depopulation of some areas probably exceeded what European slavers would later inflict on the African interior. The lives of European slaves were often no better than the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, which tapped into the pre-established Islamic slave-trade in Africa. “As far as daily living conditions, the Mediterranean slaves certainly didn’t have it better,” Davis says. While African slaves did grueling labor on sugar and cotton plantations in the Americas, European slaves were often worked just as hard and as lethally — in quarries, in heavy construction, and above all rowing the corsair galleys.

Throughout most of the seventeenth century, the English alone lost at least 400 sailors a year to the slavers. One American slave reported that 130 American seamen had been enslaved by the Algerians in the Mediterranean and Atlantic just between 1785 and 1793 (which prompted the later military response from the Americans). In his book White Gold, Giles Milton describes how regular Jihad razzias in Europe extended as far north as Iceland. Even during the time of Queen Elizabeth I, while William Shakespeare was writing his plays and poems, young Englishmen risked being surprised by a fleet of Muslim pirates showing up at their village, or being kidnapped while fishing at sea:

“By the end of the dreadful summer of 1625, the mayor of Plymouth reckoned that 1,000 skiffs had been destroyed, and a similar number of villagers carried off into slavery.” Such events took place across much of Europe, also in Wales and southern Ireland: “In 1631…200 Islamic soldiers…sailed to the village of Baltimore, storming ashore with swords drawn and catching the villagers totally by surprise. (They) carried off 237 men, women, and children and took them to Algiers…The French padre Pierre Dan was in the city (Algiers) at the time…He witnessed the sale of the captives in the slave auction. ‘It was a pitiful sight to see them exposed in the market…Women were separated from their husbands and the children from their fathers…on one side a husband was sold; on the other his wife; and her daughter was torn from her arms without the hope that they’d ever see each other again’.”

The Englishman Thomas Pellow was enslaved in Morocco for twenty-three years after being captured by Barbary pirates as a cabin boy on a small English vessel in 1716. He was tortured until he accepted Islam. For weeks he was beaten and starved, and finally gave in after his torturer resorted to “burning my flesh off my bones by fire, which the tyrant did, by frequent repetitions, after a most cruel manner.”

God’s Crucible: Islam and the Making of Europe, 570-1215 was written by David Levering Lewis, the American historian and two-time winner of the prestigious Pulitzer Prize. He states that Muslims did not enslave their co-religionists, only infidels. Yes, but why is that better?

As Robert Spencer writes in his book Religion of Peace?:

“The Qur’an says that the followers of Muhammad are ‘ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another’ (48:29), and that the unbelievers are the ‘worst of created beings’ (98:6). One may exercise the Golden Rule in relation to a fellow Muslim, but according to the laws of Islam, the same courtesy is not to be extended to unbelievers. That is one principal reason why the primary source of slaves in the Islamic world has been non-Muslims, whether Jews, Christians, Hindus, or pagans. Most slaves were non-Muslims who had been captured during jihad warfare.”

Slavery was taken for granted throughout Islamic history. When it was finally abolished this was due to Western pressure, especially the efforts of the British Empire. Spencer again:

“Nor was there a Muslim abolitionist movement, no Clarkson, Wilberforce, or Garrison. When the slave trade ended, it was ended not through Muslim efforts but through British military force. Even so, there is evidence that slavery continues beneath the surface in some Muslim countries — notably Saudi Arabia, which only abolished slavery in 1962; Yemen and Oman, both of which ended legal slavery in 1970; and Niger, which didn’t abolish slavery until 2004. In Niger, the ban is widely ignored, and as many as one million people remain in bondage. Slaves are bred, often raped, and generally treated like animals. There are even slavery cases involving Muslims in the United States. A Saudi named Homaidan al-Turki was sentenced in September 2006 to twenty-seven years to life in prison for keeping a woman as a slave in his Colorado home. For his part, al-Turki claimed that he was a victim of anti-Muslim bias.”

Jihad slavery was widespread in Africa and in many regions of Asia. Indian historian K. S. Lal states that wherever Jihadists conquered a territory, “there developed a system of slavery peculiar to the clime, terrain, and populace of the place.” When Muslim armies invaded India, “its people began to be enslaved in droves to be sold in foreign lands or employed in various capacities on menial and not-so-menial jobs within the country.”

Briefly summed up, God’s Crucible laments the fact that Charles Martel, “the Hammer,” halted the advancing Islamic Jihad at the Battle of Tours or, Battle of Poitiers, in 732:

“Had ‘Abd al-Rahman’s men prevailed that October day, the post-Roman Occident would probably have been incorporated into a cosmopolitan, Muslim regnum unobstructed by borders, as they hypothesize — one devoid of a priestly caste, animated by the dogma of equality of the faithful, and respectful of all religious faiths. Curiously, such speculation has a French pedigree. Forty years ago, two historians, Jean-Henri Roy and Jean Deviosse enumerated the benefits of a Muslim triumph at Poitiers: astronomy; trigonometry; Arabic numerals; the corpus of Greek philosophy. ‘We [Europe] would have gained 267 years,’ according to their calculations. ‘We might have been spared the wars of religion.’ To press the logic of this disconcerting analysis, the victory of Charles the Hammer must be seen as greatly contributing to the creation of an economically retarded, balkanized, fratricidal Europe that, in defining itself in opposition to Islam, made virtues out of religious persecution, cultural particularism, and hereditary aristocracy.”

David Levering Lewis is clearly sympathetic towards this view, and writes that the Carolingian order, established Charles Martel (Carolus in Latin) and his grandson Charlemagne, was “religiously intolerant, intellectually impoverished, socially calcified, and economically primitive.” Curiously, he mentions in passing that there was continuous “out-migration to the Christian kingdoms” from al-Andalus. Why did they move to the Christian lands, whose economy was “little better than late Neolithic,” if life was so sweet in al-Andalus? Lewis states that: “At the end of the eighth century, Europe was militarily strong enough to defend itself from Islam, thanks in part to Charlemagne and his predecessors. The question was whether it was politically, economically, and culturally better off for being able to do so.”

God’s Crucible was published during a time when Spain and Portugal under Islamic occupation are being hailed as a model of coexistence with Islam. The European Union recently announced its intentions of expanding to include the Muslim Middle East and North Africa. There is a concerted effort going on to present Islam as something non-threatening, indeed benevolent. In May 2008, Germany’s Der Spiegel, Europe’s largest weekly magazine, hailed al-Andalus as a “ Multicultural model “ for Europe:

“For nearly 800 years, the inhabitants of al-Andalus, as the Arab dynasties called their empire on the Iberian Peninsula, allowed Jews, Christians and Muslims to coexist in a spirit of mutual respect — a situation that benefited all.” Never mind that Richard Fletcher states in his book Moorish Spain that “Moorish Spain was not a tolerant and enlightened society even in its most cultivated epoch.”

The European Union, the Council of Europe and numerous Islamic organizations are working hard to rewrite European school textbooks in order to promote Islam. In the European Parliament, the German Christian Democrat Hans-Gert Pöttering has stated that textbooks should be reviewed for intolerant depictions of Islam to ensure that they don’t propagate “prejudice.” He suggested that the EU should co-operate with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to create a textbook review committee. The OIC desires to rewrite textbooks around the world to remove anything critical of Islam, silence mentioning of the victims of 1400 years of Islamic Jihad and glorify the achievements of “Islamic civilization.”

Robert Spencer writes in Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t:

“Islamic apologist Karen Armstrong enunciates the common wisdom when she says that ‘until 1492, Jews and Christians lived peaceably and productively together in Muslim Spain — a coexistence that was impossible elsewhere in Europe.’ Even the U.S. State Department has proclaimed that ‘during the Islamic period in Spain, Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived together in peace and mutual respect, creating a diverse society in which vibrant exchanges of ideas took place.’“

Those who want a second opinion can start with reading the online essay Andalusian Myth, Eurabian Reality by Bat Ye’or and Andrew G. Bostom:

“There were rarely periods of peace in the Amirate of Cordova (756-912), nor later. Al-Andalus represented the land of jihad par excellence. Every year, sometimes twice a year, raiding expeditions were sent to ravage the Christian Spanish kingdoms to the north, the Basque regions, or France and the Rhone valley, bringing back booty and slaves. Andalusian corsairs attacked and invaded along the Sicilian and Italian coasts, even as far as the Aegean Islands, looting and burning as they went. Thousands of people were deported to slavery in Andalusia, where the caliph kept a militia of tens of thousand of Christian slaves brought from all parts of Christian Europe (the Saqaliba), and a harem filled with captured Christian women.”

David Levering Lewis mentions “a small group of Andalusian Christians” filled with “fanaticism” who engaged in “a senseless spike in religious provocation” where individual Christian priests and laypersons “publicly disrespected mosques, the Qur’an, and the Prophet’s name.” Because of this, Cordoba’s qadi (Islamic judge), poor thing, had no choice. The ruler Muhammad I “approved his qadi‘s death sentence in 851-52 for thirteen Christians for whom clemency was impolitic if not impossible under Malikite Sharia.”

Unfortunately, these “Christian militants,” as Mr. Lewis calls them, were still deaf to all pleas of behaving in a properly submissive manner to Muslims, and more death sentences ensued:

Twenty or so ‘Mozarab martyrs’ were dispatched in 853 or the year following, and a dozen more afterward. In another wave of Christian blasphemy in 859, thirteen more were executed, along with two daughters of a prominent Muslim family living in distant Huesca who defiantly disclosed their secret Christian conversion.

Lewis believes that: “A poll taken of Andalusians of all faiths would have shown an overwhelming disapproval of the ‘Mozarab martyrs.’ These Christian extremists were an aberration not because they acted outside history but because they were premature — three centuries ahead of the history whose intense cultural nationalism and religious intolerance were inculcated in the decades after the Battle of Clavijo.”

The “religious intolerance” he is referring to is not the Jihad waged against Christians and Jews in Spain and Portugal; it is the Reconquista, the Christian reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula. It is traditionally seen to have begun with Pelayo in 718. Although initially slow, it speeded up from the eleventh century onwards. The Portuguese had been liberated in 1249 under King Afonso III. The concept “Holy War” was originally alien to Christianity and was imported to Europe only after Europeans had been confronted with centuries of Islamic Jihad.

Lewis himself states (correctly) that people during this “golden age of tolerance” were executed for criticizing Islam. Isn’t that disturbing, given that al-Andalus is now supposed to serve as the blueprint for our coexistence with Islam, according to our authorities and media? “Blasphemy” against Islam and Muhammad is punishable by death in sharia law, which is why the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim in Amsterdam in 2004.

Even for non-Muslims who accept Islamic rule life is harsh, with severe economic strains and the constant threat of violence in the back of your mind. Scholar Bat Ye’or is an expert on dhimmitude, the oppressive and humiliating system for non-Muslims under Islamic rule, described in the book Islam and Dhimmitude. She writes this about the Jihad slave system:

“When Amr conquered Tripoli (Libya) in 643, he forced the Jewish and Christian Berbers to give their wives and children as slaves to the Arab army as part of their jizya. From 652 until its conquest in 1276, Nubia was forced to send an annual contingent of slaves to Cairo. Treaties concluded with the towns of Transoxiana [Iranian central Asia], Sijistan [eastern Iran], Armenia, and Fezzan (Maghreb) under the Umayyads and Abbasids stipulated an annual dispatch of slaves from both sexes. However, the main sources for the supply of slaves remained the regular raids on villages within the dar-al-harb [non-Islamic regions] and the military expeditions which swept more deeply into the infidel lands, emptying towns and provinces of their inhabitants.”

Sir Jadunath Sarkar, the pre-eminent historian of Mughal India, wrote this about dhimmitude:

“The conversion of the entire population to Islam and the extinction of every form of dissent is the ideal of the Muslim State. If any infidel is suffered to exist in the community, it is as a necessary evil, and for a transitional period only.…A non-Muslim therefore cannot be a citizen of the State; he is a member of a depressed class; his status is a modified form of slavery. He lives under a contract (dhimma) with the State.…In short, his continued existence in the State after the conquest of his country by the Muslims is conditional upon his person and property made subservient to the cause of Islam.”

This “modified form of slavery” is now frequently referred to as the pinnacle of “tolerance.” If the semi-slaves desire equal rights and self-determination, Jihad resumes. This is what happened with the non-Muslim subjects of the Ottoman Empire, starting with the Serbs and the Greeks in the 19th century, and continuing with Bulgarians and others. They were repressed with massacres, culminating in the outright Jihad genocide by Turkish and Kurdish Muslims against Armenians in the early 20th century. The Jews of Israel are not only attacked because they are Jews, but primarily because they are Jews who do not meekly disarm and accept the status of servitude that they should have according to Islamic law. They are disobedient dhimmis, just as the Armenians were.

Living under Islamic rule was a serious burden even at the best of times, also economically with the jizya tax. According to Robert Spencer, “Although the strictness with which the laws of dhimmitude (the subservient status of Jews and Christians) were enforced varied, they were never abolished, and during times of relaxation the subject populations always lived in fear that they would be enforced with new stringency. Muslim rulers did not forget that the Qur’an mandates that both Jews and Christians must ‘feel themselves subdued.’ One notable instance is recounted by Arab historian Philip Hitti: ‘The caliph al-Mutawakkil in 850 and 854 decreed that Christians and Jews should affix wooden images of devils to their houses, level their graves even with the ground, wear outer garments of honey color, i.e., yellow, put two honey-colored patches on the clothes of their slaves… and ride only on mules and asses with wooden saddles marked by two pomegranate-like balls on the cantle.’“

In 1888, a Tunisian Jew noted: “The Jew is prohibited in this country to wear the same clothes as a Muslim and may not wear a red tarbush. He can be seen to bow down with his whole body to a Muslim child and permit him the traditional privilege of striking him in the face, a gesture that can prove to be of the gravest consequence. Indeed, the present writer has received such blows. In such matters the offenders act with complete impunity, for this has been the custom from time immemorial.”

Maimonides, the renowned medieval Jewish philosopher and physician who had to flee Islamic-ruled Spain due to an aggressive Jihad, stated that “the Arabs have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us… Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.” Jews could teach rabbinic law to Christians, but Muslims will interpret what they are taught “according to their erroneous principles and they will oppress us. [F]or this reason… they hate all [non-Muslims] who live among them.” Christians “admit that the text of the Torah, such as we have it, is intact.”

What about science and learning? Scholar Toby E. Huff, author of the book The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West, warns that if Islam had taken over Europe, later Western scientific achievements would have been impossible:

“If Spain had persisted as an Islamic land into the later centuries — say, until the time of Napoleon — it would have retained all the ideological, legal, and institutional defects of Islamic civilization. A Spain dominated by Islamic law would have been unable to found new universities based on the European model of legally autonomous corporate governance, as corporations do not exist in Islamic law. Furthermore, the Islamic model of education rested on the absolute primacy of fiqh, of legal studies, and the standard of preserving the great traditions of the past. This was symbolically reflected in the ijaza, the personal authorization to transmit knowledge from the past given by a learned man, a tradition quite different from the West’s group-administered certification (through examination) of demonstrated learning. In the actual event, the founding of Spanish universities in the thirteenth century, first in Palencia (1208-9), Valladolid, Salamanca (1227-8), and so on, occurred in long-established Christian areas, and the universities were modeled after the constitutions of Paris and Bologna.”

Greek learning was never integrated into the regular curriculum at Islamic schools, as it was in European universities. The German-Syrian writer Bassam Tibi in his book Islam Between Culture and Politics points out that “science” in the Islamic madrasa meant the study of the Koran, the hadith, Arab history etc.:

“Some Islamic historians wrongly translate the term madrasa as university. This is plainly incorrect: If we understand a university as universitas litterarum, or consider, without the bias of Eurocentrism, the case of the universitas magistrorum of the thirteenth century in Paris, we are bound to recognise that the university as a seat for free and unrestrained enquiry based on reason, is a European innovation in the history of mankind.”

According to the leading scholar Edward Grant in Science and Religion, 400 B.C. to A.D. 1550: From Aristotle to Copernicus, Islam is a theocracy in which religion and state form a single entity. There is thus no secular state apparatus distinct from the Islamic religion:

“[Islamic madrasas] had as their primary mission the teaching of the Islamic religion, and paid little attention to the foreign sciences, which, as we saw, were comprised of the science and natural philosophy derived ultimately from the Greeks. The analytical subjects derived from the Greeks certainly did not have equal status with religious and theological subjects. Indeed, the foreign sciences played a rather marginal role in the madrasas, which formed the core of Islamic higher education. Only those subjects that illuminated the Qur’an or the religious law were taught. One such subject was logic, which was found useful not only in semantics but was also regarded as helpful in avoiding simple errors of inference. The primary function of the madrasas, however, was ‘to preserve learning and defend orthodoxy’ (Mottahedeh 1985, 91). In Islam, most theologians did not regard natural philosophy as a subject helpful to a better understanding of religion. On the contrary, it was usually viewed as a subject capable of subverting the Islamic religion and, therefore, as potentially dangerous to the faith. Natural philosophy always remained a peripheral discipline in the lands of Islam and was never institutionalized within the educational system, as it was in Latin Christendom.”

Fear and uncertainty afflicted all too many Islamic natural philosophers. As Grant states, “Without the separation of church and state, and the developments that proceeded as a consequence, the West would not have produced a deeply rooted natural philosophy that was disseminated through Europe by virtue of an extensive network of universities, which laid the foundation for the great scientific advances made in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, advances that have continued to the present day.”

Jihad continues to this day in the Balkans, a region which was for centuries under brutal Turkish rule. According to writer Ruth King, “When Serbia became independent of Byzantine rule in the 12th century, its economic, cultural, social and religious institutions were among the most advanced in Europe. Serbia functioned as a bridge between Greco-Byzantine civilization and the developing Western Renaissance. The center of the Serbian Orthodox Church was in Kosovo where churches, monasteries and monastic communities were established. A form of census in 1330, the ‘Decani Charter,’ detailed the list of chartered villages and households, of which only two percent were Albanian. The Ottomans invaded Serbia in 1389 and consolidated their rule in 1459, propelling major parts of the Balkan peninsula and adjacent southeast Europe into a Koran-dictated Dark Ages.”

Early in the twentieth century Serbian Christians comprised roughly two-thirds of the population of Kosovo. After WW2, Communist dictator Tito did not allow Serbs who fled from their homes to return and did not enforce border controls as thousands of Albanians moved into Kosovo. This later led to escalating violence against Christian Serbs.

As King says, “Initially, the media reported the situation in Kosovo fairly. For example, in July 1982 The New York Times noted: ‘Serbs have been harassed by Albanians and have packed up and left the region. The Albanian nationalists have a two-point platform, first to establish what they call an ethnically clean Albanian republic and then to merge with Albania for a greater Albania. Some 57,000 Serbs have left Kosovo in the last decade.’ Five years later, in 1987, the Times was still reporting the persecution of Serbs within Kosovo. ‘Slavic Orthodox churches have been attacked, wells poisoned, crops burned, Slavic boys knifed. Young Albanians have been told to rape Serbian girls… Officials in Belgrade view the ethnic Albanian challenge as imperiling the foundations of the multinational experiment called federal Yugoslavia… Ethnic Albanians already control almost every phase of life in the autonomous province of Kosovo, including the police, judiciary, civil service, schools, and factories.’“

It was this situation that led to the rise of Serb nationalist leader Slobodan Milosevic. However, according to Ruth King, “While the brutality of the Milosevic regime was indeed a complicating factor, he is long gone, but the KLA [Kosovo Liberation Army] continues its assault on Serbs, on their churches, priests, homes, even on civilians sitting in cafes, this under the nose of the U.S. and UN troops.”

Bosnia’s wartime president Alija Izetbegovic died in 2003, hailed as a moderate Muslim leader. Little was said in Western media about his 1970 Islamic Declaration, where he advocated “a struggle for creating a great Islamic federation from Morocco to Indonesia, from the tropical Africa to the Central Asia,” and that “The Islamic movement should and must start taking over the power as soon as it is morally and numerically strong enough to not only overthrow the existing non-Islamic, but also to build up a new Islamic authority.”

According to Hugh Fitzgerald, “One must keep in mind both the way in which some atrocities ascribed to Serbs were exaggerated, while the atrocities inflicted on them were minimized or ignored altogether. But what was most disturbing was that there was no context to anything: nothing about the centuries of Muslim rule. Had such a history been discussed early on, Western governments might have understood and attempted to assuage the deep fears evoked by the Bosnian Muslim leader, Izetbegovic, when he wrote that he intended to create a Muslim state in Bosnia and impose the Sharia not merely there, but everywhere that Muslims had once ruled in the Balkans. Had the Western world shown the slightest intelligent sympathy or understanding of what that set off in the imagination of many Serbs (and elsewhere, among the Christians in the Balkans and in Greece), there might never have been such a violent Serbian reaction, and someone like Milosevic might never have obtained power.”

In 1809, after the battle on Cegar Hill, by order of Turkish pasha Hurshid the skulls of the killed Serbian soldiers were built in a tower, Skull Tower, on the way to Constantinople. 3 meters high, Skull Tower was built out of 952 skulls as a warning to the Serbian people not to oppose their Muslim rulers. Some years later, a chapel was built over the skulls.

Similar Jihad massacres were committed not only against the Serbs, but against the Greeks, the Bulgarians and other non-Muslims who slowly rebelled against the Ottoman Empire throughout the 19th century. Professor Vahakn Dadrian and others have clearly identified Jihad as a critical factor in the Armenian genocide in the early 20th century.

As Efraim Karsh notes, “The Ottomans embarked on an orgy of bloodletting in response to the nationalist aspirations of their European subjects. The Greek war of independence of the 1820’s, the Danubian uprisings of 1848 and the attendant Crimean war, the Balkan explosion of the 1870’s, the Greco-Ottoman war of 1897—all were painful reminders of the costs of resisting Islamic imperial rule.”

In his book Onward Muslim Soldiers, Robert Spencer quotes a letter describing the oppression of dhimmis, written in 1860 by the British Consul in Sarajevo, James Zohrab:

“The hatred of the Christians toward the Bosniak Mussulmans is intense. During a period of nearly 300 years they were subjected to much oppression and cruelty. For them no other law but the caprice of their masters existed… Oppression cannot now be carried on as openly as formerly, but it must not be supposed that, because the Government employés do not generally appear as the oppressors, the Christians are well treated and protected.”

Yosef Bodansky, director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Conventional Warfare in Washington in the USA, has stated that the Balkans was a “springboard for Islamic extremism” in Europe, with the Islamic Republic of Iran as the main driving force behind it. Iran and Saudi Arabia supplied funding, weapons and men to the Bosnians during the war following the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, and terrorist organization Al-Qaeda gained a foothold in the Balkans. Saudi Arabia has invested more than $1 billion in the Sarajevo region alone, for projects that include the construction of 158 mosques. Apparently, the Islamic dhimmitude-system is slowly returning for the remaining non-Muslims in this former province of the Ottoman Empire.

The Bosnian capital of Sarajevo has become an entirely Muslim city, a Croat deputy in the Bosnian Parliament, Branko Zrno, said in August 2008. Christian Serbs and Croats have no institutional protection and continue to leave the capital. Non-Muslims suffer discrimination and are denied their rights. Zrno said that the Croatian presence in the city has been halved and that neither Croats nor Serbs hold any important posts in local government. Serbs claim that in the city of 400,000 only 7,000 Serbs have remained, compared to 160,000 before the 1992-1995 civil war. The Serb claims have been supported by the Muslim President of the Bosnian Helsinki committee for human rights, Srdjan Dizdarevic, who said in a recent interview that Sarajevo had become a “monoethnic” city. “Over 90 percent of Sarajevo inhabitants belong to only one group, the Bosniacs,” Dizdarevic told weekly Fokus. “Ethnic cleansing in this city has, unfortunately, been successfully completed. If the will exists to reconstruct Bosnia on multiethnic principles, one should start with Sarajevo,” he concluded.

Dimitar Angelov elucidates the impact of the Ottoman Jihad on the vanquished Balkan populations:

“…the conquest of the Balkan Peninsula accomplished by the Turks over the course of about two centuries caused the incalculable ruin of material goods, countless massacres, the enslavement and exile of a great part of the population — in a word, a general and protracted decline of productivity, as was the case with Asia Minor after it was occupied by the same invaders. This decline in productivity is all the more striking when one recalls that in the mid-fourteenth century, as the Ottomans were gaining a foothold on the peninsula, the States that existed there — Byzantium, Bulgaria and Serbia — had already reached a rather high level of economic and cultural development….The campaigns of Mourad II (1421-1451) and especially those of his successor, Mahomet II (1451-1481) in Serbia, Bosnia, Albania and in the Byzantine princedom of the Peloponnesus, were of a particularly devastating character.”

This Ottoman Jihad tradition is still continued by “secular” Turkey to this day. Michael J. Totten visited Varosha, the Ghost City of Cyprus, in 2005. The city was deserted during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and is now fenced off and patrolled by the Turkish occupiers. The Turks carved up the island. Greek Cypriot citizens in Varosha expected to return to their homes within days. Instead, the Turks seized the empty city and wrapped it in fencing and wire.

In March 2006, Italian Luigi Geninazzi made a report from the same area. 180,000 persons live in the northern part of the island, 100,000 of whom are colonists originally from mainland Turkey. According to Geninazzi, the Islamization of the north of Cyprus has been concretized in the destruction of all that was Christian. Yannis Eliades, director of the Byzantine Museum of Nicosia, calculates that 25,000 icons have disappeared from the churches in the zone occupied by the Turks. Stupendous Byzantine and Romanesque churches, imposing monasteries, mosaics and frescoes have been sacked, violated, and destroyed. Many have been turned into restaurants, bars, and nightclubs. Geninazzi confronted Huseyn Ozel, a government spokesman for the self-proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, with this. Most of the mosques in Greek Cypriot territory have been restored. So why are churches still today being turned into mosques? The Turkish Cypriot functionary spreads his arms wide: “It is an Ottoman custom…”

“There are religious centres in Bulgaria that belong to Islamic groups financed mostly by Saudi Arabian groups,” the head of Bulgarian military intelligence has warned. According to him, the centres were in southern and southeastern Bulgaria, where the country’s Muslims, mainly of Turkish origin, are concentrated, and “had links with similar organisations in Kosovo, Bosnia and Macedonia. For them Bulgaria seems to be a transit point to Western Europe.” He said the steps were taken to prevent terrorist groups gaining a foothold in Bulgaria, which shares a border with Turkey. Bulgaria’s Muslim minority accounts for more than 10 percent of the country’s population.

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia passed a law allowing ethnic Albanians to display the Albanian national flag in areas where they form the majority. The decision came as a result of seven months of heavy fighting in 2001 involving Albanian separatists, and following pressure from the European Union, always ready to please Muslims.

Ethnic Albanians make up about 25 per cent of Macedonia’s population. If the demographic trends are anything like in Kosovo, where the predominantly Muslim Albanians have been out-breeding their non-Muslim neighbors, Macedonians could be facing serious trouble in the future. In Kosovo, dozens of churches and monasteries have been destroyed or damaged following ethnic cleansing of Christian Serbs, all under the auspices of NATO soldiers.

Raphael Israeli in his 2008 book The Islamic Challenge in Europe tracks the Islamization of various European countries, from Switzerland to Britain, and describes efforts to recreate the Ottoman Empire and use the Balkans as a launching pad for Jihad:

“After the fall of Communism in the new regime recognized, in 1991, the self-declared Republic of Kosovo, and its head, Ibrahim Rugova, opened an office in Tirana. The disintegration of Yugoslavia by necessity revived the old dreams of the Greater Albania, which now eyed not only Kosovo, but also parts of Macedonia, Greece, Serbia, and Montenegro where an Albanian population had settled over the years. The rising of Muslim consciousness in the Balkans, after the Bosnian precedent…now acts as a catalyst to draw together, under the combined banners of Greater Albania and Islam, all the Albanian populations of that region. In 1992 joined the Conference of Islamic Countries, and it has been working to attract support by other Islamic countries to the Greater Albania plan, actually presenting itself as ‘the shield of Islam’ in the Balkans. It has been noted that while the Albanian demographic explosion in Kosovo, which has allowed them to predominate and demand secession, has not taken place in Albania itself, perhaps an indication, as in Palestine and Bosnia, that the ‘battle of the womb’ heralded by nationalists and Muslim fundamentalists, is not merely a natural growth but may be also politically motivated.”

Miroljub Jevtic, professor at the Belgrade University and author of a number of books on the topic of Islam and politics, believes the Western world is in favor of detaching Kosovo from Christian Serbia by fiat and making it into an independent (Muslim) state. The main argument of those supporting this scenario, notably in the United States, is to improve their image in the eyes of the Islamic world and “co-opt the influence of Islamic ‘extremists.’“

Jevtic notes that “the fact that since the arrival of NATO to Kosovo over 150 Christian churches have been destroyed and some 400 mosques have been built, or are under construction, is for the Muslims a proof that if there is a faith which is supported by true God — it is Islam! Because, why would the Christian God, why would Jesus, permit the destruction of churches, where He, Jesus, is glorified? Why would He, at the same time, permit the construction of mosques, where His existence as God is denied? Why would He permit it, moreover, in the presence of men who bear arms and who claim to be Christians?”

Miroljub Jevtic warns that the European Union’s support for Albanian Muslim demands could backfire badly: “Granting the independence to Kosovo will be taken as proof of Europe’s own wish to cease to exist, as it not only allows the expansion of Islam but is actively promoting it by aiding those who are destroying churches, raping nuns, spitting on crosses and daubing with excrement holy images of Christ.”

In Kosovo, dozens of churches and monasteries have been destroyed following ethnic cleansing of Christian Serbs by the predominantly Muslim Albanians, all under the auspices of NATO soldiers, and Muslims are not ungrateful. Kosovo Albanians plan to honor their “savior,” former US President Bill Clinton, by erecting a statue of him. Yet in 2007, four Albanians from Kosovo along with other Muslims were arrested for conspiring to attack Fort Dix, a military base in New Jersey, the USA, in order “to kill as many soldiers as possible.”

Western governments are pushing for independence for a group of Jihadist thugs who recently wanted to create the Osama bin Laden mosque in Kosovo. This name was eventually changed for public relations reasons since the Albanians knew they needed American political support. In June 2007 the visiting US President George W. Bush was hailed as a hero by a group of Albanians, who allegedly also stole his watch. “Sooner rather than later you’ve got to say ‘Enough’s enough — Kosovo is independent,’“ Bush told cheering Albanians. As German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung later commented, “Why should the Albanians settle for autonomy when George W. Bush had already promised them their own state?”

President Bush declared a “War on Terror” after the Jihadist attacks in 2001. There have been no major terrorist attacks in the US between 2001 and 2008, which is a positive achievement. Nevertheless, the primary thing he has achieved is bleeding American tax payers financially and American soldiers literally while overseeing the eradication of non-Muslim communities in Iraq, and while the Islamization of the West continues unabated. His administration supports independence for terrorist-sponsoring Muslims in the Balkans and in the Palestinian territories. I suspect he will be judged harshly by future historians. But then virtually all Western leaders have failed during this time, not just him. Our societies have failed.

In a commentary, “We bombed the wrong side?” former Canadian UNPROFOR Commander Lewis MacKenzie wrote, “The Kosovo-Albanians have played us like a Stradivarius. We have subsidized and indirectly supported their violent campaign for an ethnically pure and independent Kosovo. We have never blamed them for being the perpetrators of the violence in the early ‘90s and we continue to portray them as the designated victim today in spite of evidence to the contrary. When they achieve independence with the help of our tax dollars combined with those of bin Laden and al-Qaeda, just consider the message of encouragement this sends to other terrorist-supported independence movements around the world.”

Martti Ahtisaari, former President of Finland and later Chief United Nations negotiator for Kosovo, caused anger in Serbia when he stated that “Serbs are guilty as a people,” implying that they would have to pay for it, possibly by losing the province of Kosovo. I disagree with him. It is one thing to criticize the brutality of the Milosevic regime. It is quite another thing to claim that “Serbs are guilty as a people.” If anybody in the Balkans can be called guilty as a people, it is the Turks, not the Serbs. The Turks have left a trail of blood across much of Europe and the Mediterranean for centuries, culminating in the Armenian genocide in the 20th century, which Turkey still refuses to acknowledge, let alone apologize for.

One of the last news items I added for this book was the announcement that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2008 was awarded to Finnish diplomat Martti Ahtisaari for three decades of mediation around the world. Serbian politicians and analysts reacted with dismay to the information. Belgrade analyst Cvijetin Milivojevic laughed when he heard about it. “Ahtisaari negotiated no peace in Kosovo, but awarded ethnic Albanians a state on Serbian territory,” Milivojevic told Adnkronos International ( AKI ). “He was, in fact, rewarded for carrying out the orders of the major powers.” Ahtisaari was the only international mediator whose plan was not approved by the UN Security Council, but was implemented in Kosovo by a policy of force supported by both the USA and the EU.

Kosovo President Fatmir Sejdiu congratulated former Finnish President Ahtisaari for winning the Nobel Peace Prize, saying it was given to the most deserving person. Ahtisaari is regarded as a villain in Serbia and a hero in Kosovo over his mediation in talks on the status of Kosovo in 2005-2007. The talks failed, but Ahtisaari hammered out a Western-backed road map to independence. Kosovo’s Albanian majority declared independence in February 2008, using his plan. The Kosovo assembly welcomed Ahtisaari’s prize as a “victory” which will help in further recognition of Kosovo’s independence.

Just for the record: I’m not blaming Ahtisaari personally for the Kosovo mess; he was a tool for NATO. But his role contributed to his winning the Peace Prize, and I think that’s wrong.

I once listened to a speech by Patrick Sookhdeo, a brave former Muslim who has published books such as Global Jihad: The Future in the Face of Militant Islam. Sookhdeo had done a lot of excellent — and frightening — research regarding the Islamization of Western Europe, especially Britain. He recalled having a conversation with a senior Western official regarding what would happen if Muslims in a region of, say, Britain or the Netherlands, should declare that they would no longer accept the laws of the central government and formed a breakaway Islamic Republic. This official then replied that they would probably have to quietly accept that. When witnessing Muslim riots in France and elsewhere, which more and more resemble a civil war, this question is no longer just hypothetical.

As writer Julia Gorin has warned, “An independent Kosovo will serve as a nod to secessionists worldwide,” and “history will show what no one cares to understand: the current world war began officially in Yugoslavia.”

Granting Jihadists independence in Kosovo after they conducted ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims has established an extremely dangerous precedent. Not only is it immoral to sacrifice the freedom or existence of smaller nations, be that the Serbs or the Israelis, in order to save your own skin. As the example of Czechoslovakia demonstrated prior to WW2, it is also counterproductive. Supporting independence for Muslim Albanians in Kosovo will not lead to stabilization of the Balkans; it will rather lead to the Balkanization of the West. The new thug state will serve as a launching pad for Jihad activities against non-Muslims, just like an independent Palestinian state would do in the Middle East. In Kosovo, the Russians are right and Western leaders, both in the European Union and the United States, are wrong. The Serbs have suffered enough and don’t need to be stabbed in the back by the West as well.

Janos (John) Hunyadi, Hungarian warrior and captain-general, is today virtually unknown outside Hungary and the Balkans, but he probably did more than any other individual in stemming the Turkish invasion in the fifteenth century. His actions spanned all the countries of south-eastern Europe, leading international armies, negotiating with kings and popes. He died of plague after having destroyed an Ottoman fleet outside Belgrade in1456. His work slowed the Muslim advance, and may thus have saved Western Europe from falling to Islam. By extension, he may have helped save Western civilization in North America and Australia, too. Yet hardly anybody in West knows who he is. Our children don’t learn his name, they are only taught about the evils of Western colonialism and the dangers of Islamophobia.

Western Europe today is a strange and very dangerous mix of arrogance and self-loathing. Muslims are creating havoc and attacking their non-Muslim neighbors from Thailand to India. It is extremely arrogant to believe that the result will be any different in the Netherlands, Britain or Italy, or for that matter in the United States or Canada, than it has been everywhere else. It won’t. If we had the humility to listen to the advice of the Hindus of India or even our Christian cousins in south-eastern Europe, we wouldn’t be in as much trouble as we are now.

On the other hand, if we didn’t have such a culture of self-loathing, where our own cultural traditions are ridiculed in favor of a meaningless Multicultural cocktail, we probably wouldn’t have allowed massive Muslim immigration, either. There doesn’t have to be a contradiction between being proud of your cultural heritage and knowing that there may still be lessons you can learn from others. A wise man can do both. Westerners of our age do neither.

Sun Tzu, a contemporary of the great Chinese thinker Confucius, wrote The Art of War, the extremely influential book on military strategy, 2500 years ago. It is a book that deserves to be read in full, but one of the most famous quotations is this one: “So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.”

The West has forgotten who our enemies are, but worse, we have also forgotten who we are. We are going to pay a heavy price for this historical amnesia.

Reparations from Muslims?

This essay was first published at Pamela Geller’s website Atlas Shrugs in September 2008. It is republished here with a few changes.

In early September 2008, demands were made that France must make reparations for its colonial past in Algeria. The calls followed the signing between Italy and Libya of a 5 billion dollar investment agreement to resolve colonial-era disputes. The 25-year deal includes the construction of a highway running between Egypt and Tunisia and the return to Libya of a prized ancient marble statue taken to Rome in colonial times. The settlement was a “complete and moral acknowledgement of the damage inflicted on Libya by Italy during the colonial period,” said Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. “Italy committed historic errors in Libya, and the Italian government’s move to apologise is positive,” secretary of Algeria’s National Liberation Front (FLN) party, Al-Said Abu Haja, told Algerian daily El-Khabar. The FLN led the war of independence from France between 1954 and 1962. “We hope that the European Union will be able to put pressure on other former colonial powers such as France and get it to make amends for what it did in Algeria,” Haja added. “Algeria asked for France to apologise long before Libya [asked Italy]. The French occupied us for 130 years.”

I’m not an expert on French colonial history, but if I recall correctly, the French were at least partly motivated for establishing themselves in Algeria due to the Barbary pirates, who continued their evil activities well into the nineteenth century. The period of French colonial rule is the only period of civilization Algeria has experienced since the Romans. Muslims have been raiding Europe, especially the southern regions but sometimes even north of the Alps, continuously since the seventh century. In fact, the only period during more than 1300 years they haven’t done this was during the time of European colonialism. That’s what they are whining about now. This is compensation for lost jizya. Moreover, there are now more North Africans in France than there ever were Frenchmen in North Africa. If non-Europeans can resist colonization and expel intruders, why can’t Europeans do the same thing?

What about the Spanish and the Portuguese, who were under colonial rule far longer than were the Algerians? As Ibn Warraq says in his book Defending the West:

“Where the French presence lasted fewer than four years before they were ignominiously expelled by the British and Turks, the Ottomans had been the masters of Egypt since 1517, a total of 280 years. Even if we count the later British and French protectorates, Egypt was under Western control for sixty-seven years, Syria for twenty-one years, and Iraq for only fifteen — and, of course, Saudi Arabia was never under Western control. Contrast this with southern Spain, which was under the Muslim yoke for 781 years, Greece for 381 years, and the splendid new Christian capital that eclipsed Rome — Byzantium — which is still in Muslim hands. But no Spanish or Greek politics of victimhood apparently exist.”

From their strongholds in the Iberian Peninsula and elsewhere, Muslims raided the Mediterranean for many centuries. Here is Timothy Gregory in A History of Byzantium:

“In 826/8 Crete was taken by Arab adventurers from Spain, and in 827/9 Spanish Arabs were able to establish footholds in Sicily. The Arab presence on these two islands was to have serious repercussions for Byzantium. Crete became a base for Arab ‘pirates’ who made the Aegean and its shorelines unsafe for the Byzantines and presumably also disrupted trade in the area. The Arab bases on Sicily were the beginning of a long contest between Byzantines and Arabs for control of southern Italy and Sicily that was also to involve the papacy and, eventually, other powers from Western Europe. The Arabs also used these Sicilian bases to raid Italy and the Balkans.”

In 846 some Muslim Arabs arrived in a fleet at the mouth of the Tiber, made their way to Rome, sacked the city, and carried away from the basilica of St. Peter all of the gold and silver it contained. As Sandro Magister states:

“In 827 the Arabs had conquered Sicily, which they kept under their dominion for two and a half centuries. Rome was under serious threat from nearby. In 847, the year after the assault, the newly elected pope Leo IV began the construction of walls around the entire perimeter of the Vatican, 12 meters high and equipped with 44 towers. He completed the project in six years. These are the ‘Leonine’ walls, and significant traces of them still remain. But very few today know that these walls were erected to defend the see of Peter from an Islamic jihad in the ninth century, during which Rome was assaulted and Sicily was conquered, the Muslim armies occupied Bari and Brindisi in Italy for thirty years; Taranto for forty; Benevento for ten; they attacked Naples, Capua, Calabria, and Sardinia several times; they put the abbey of Montecassino to fire and the sword; they even made skirmishes in northern Italy, arriving from Spain and crossing over the Alps.”

The reason why the Vatican became a “city within the city” in Rome with fortifications was due to repeated attacks by Muslims (Saracens). Here are a couple of quotes from the book Rome: Art & Architecture, edited by Marco Bussagli:

“Leo IV’s major building project is generally considered to be the fortification of the Vatican area. After the devastation wrought by the Saracens in St. Peter’s, profoundly shocking to the Christian world, it was decided to fortify the area around St. Peter’s tomb. Leo III had already made this decision, but little had been done because of the theft of the materials set aside for the job. Leo IV, who had already undertaken the repair of the Aurelian walls, gates, and towers, organized the work in such a way that within four years he saw it complete. On June 27, 852 the ceremony of consecration of the walls was performed, in the presence of the pope and clergy, who, barefoot and with heads smeared with ashes, processed round the entire circuit of the fortifications, sprinkling them with holy water and at every gate calling on divine protection against the enemy that threatened the inhabitants. The enclosed area was to take on the status of a city in its own right, which was both separate and distinct from the Urbe of Rome, despite its proximity to it.”

“Despite defeat in 849 and 916 in the coastal cities of Naples, Gaeta, and Amalfi, the Saracens continued to lay waste to the countryside and sack the outskirts of Rome, causing the already precarious living conditions of the urban population to deteriorate still further. In the face of this continuing external threat, not only was the Vatican area fortified, but the churches of San Sebastiano on the Appian WaySant’Agnese on Via Nomentana, and San Lorenzo on Via Tiburtina were strengthened.”

Among the finest sets of chess from medieval times are the Lewis Chessmen, believed to have been made in Trondheim, Norway, in the twelfth century. They were carved from walrus ivory, which was often imported from the Norse colony in Greenland. According to Jared Diamond in Collapse:

“Greenland’s most prized exports mentioned in Norwegian records were five products derived from Arctic animals rare or absent in most of Europe: walrus ivory from walrus tusks, walrus hide (valued because it yielded the strongest rope for ships), live polar bears or their hides as a spectacular status symbol, tusks of the narwhal (a small whale) known then in Europe as unicorn horns, and live gyrfalcons (the world’s largest falcon). Walrus tusks became the only ivory available in medieval Europe for carving after Moslems gained control of the Mediterranean, thereby cutting off supplies of elephant ivory to Christian Europe. As an example of the value placed on Greenland gyrfalcons, 12 of those birds sufficed in 1396 to ransom the Duke of Burgundy’s son after he was captured by the Saracens [Muslims].”

It is interesting to notice how Diamond, who usually ignores Islam in his writings, casually mentions the fact that Muslims “controlled the Mediterranean” and “cut Europe off” from contact with other cultures. Jihad piracy, slavery and attacks on European countries remained a constant menace from the seventh century until the so-called Barbary States in North Africa in the nineteenth century. Some would argue that it is resurfacing again now, for instance in the form of kidnapping of Western tourists which is becoming increasingly common as I write these words, encouraged by the ransom money often paid by European authorities.

The Age of Exploration during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was undertaken in order to get away from Muslims and re-establish contact with the civilizations of Asia without hostile middlemen. Norman Davies puts it this way in his monumental Europe: A History:

“Islam’s conquests turned Europe into Christianity’s main base. At the same time the great swathe of Muslim territory cut the Christians off from virtually all direct contact with other religions and civilizations. The barrier of militant Islam turned the [European] Peninsula in on itself, severing or transforming many of the earlier lines of commercial, intellectual and political intercourse.”

There were no universities in the Islamic world. I have encountered few if any institutions outside of Europe that I would call “universities” in the Western sense before modern times. Among the best candidates is the Great Monastery of Nalanda in India, which was a Buddhist institution. It was not built by Muslims, it was destroyed by Muslims.

Already before AD 1300, Europeans had created an expanding network of universities, an institution that had no real equivalent in any other civilization on earth, and had invented mechanical clocks and eyeglasses, which was also not done in any other civilization. It is easy to underestimate the importance of this, but the ability to make accurate measurements of natural phenomena was of vital importance during the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions. The use of glass lenses for eyeglasses led directly to the development of the microscope and the telescope and the birth of modern medicine and astronomy. The network of universities facilitated the spread of information and debate and served as an incubator for many later scientific advances. All of these innovations were made centuries before European colonialism had begun, indeed at a time when Europe itself was a victim of colonialism and had been so for many centuries. Parts of Spain were still under Islamic occupation, an aggressive Jihad was being waged by the Turks in the remaining Byzantine lands, and the coasts from France via Italy to Croatia had been subject to centuries of Islamic raids.

Muslims complain because they want the good, old days of jizya payments back.

Those who were hit the hardest were the Balkan populations. The Balkans, with its close connections to Byzantium, was a reasonably sophisticated region of Europe in medieval times, until the Ottomans Turks devastated much of the area. One of the most appalling aspects of this was the practice of devshirme, the collecting of boys among the Christian minorities who were forcibly converted to Islam and taught to hate their own kin. Dr. Andrew G. Bostom, author of the books The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism and The Legacy of Jihad, quotes the work of scholar Vasiliki Papoulia, who highlights the continuous desperate struggle of the Christian populations against this forcefully imposed Ottoman levy:

“It is obvious that the population strongly resented…this measure [and the levy] could be carried out only by force. Those who refused to surrender their sons— the healthiest, the handsomest and the most intelligent— were on the spot put to death by hanging. Nevertheless we have examples of armed resistance. In 1565 a revolt took place in Epirus and Albania. The inhabitants killed the recruiting officers and the revolt was put down only after the sultan sent five hundred janissaries in support of the local sanjak—bey. We are better informed, thanks to the historic archives of Yerroia, about the uprising in Naousa in 1705 where the inhabitants killed the Silahdar Ahmed Celebi and his assistants and fled to the mountains as rebels. Some of them were later arrested and put to death.”

The Christian subjects tried for centuries to combat this evil practice:

“Since there was no possibility of escaping [the levy] the population resorted to several subterfuges. Some left their villages and fled to certain cities which enjoyed exemption from the child levy or migrated to Venetian—held territories. The result was a depopulation of the countryside. Others had their children marry at an early age…Nicephorus Angelus…states that at times the children ran away on their own initiative, but when they heard that the authorities had arrested their parents and were torturing them to death, returned and gave themselves up. La Giulletiere cites the case of a young Athenian who returned from hiding in order to save his father’s life and then chose to die himself rather than abjure his faith. According to the evidence in Turkish sources, some parents even succeeded in abducting their children after they had been recruited. The most successful way of escaping recruitment was through bribery. That the latter was very widespread is evident from the large amounts of money confiscated by the sultan from corrupt…officials.”

Lee Harris in his book The Suicide of Reason describes how this practice of devshirme, the process of culling the strongest and fittest “alpha boys,” targeted the non-Muslim subject populations:

“The bodyguard of Janissaries ‘had the task of protecting the sovereign from internal and external enemies,’ writes scholar Vasiliki Papoulia. ‘In order to fulfill this task it was subjected to very rigorous and special training, the janissary education famous in Ottoman society. This training made possible the spiritual transformation of Christian children into ardent fighters for the glory of the sultan and their newly acquired Islamic faith.’ Because the Christian boys had to be transformed into single-minded fanatics, it was not enough that they simply inherit their position. They had to be brainwashed into it, as we would say today, and this could be done most effectively with boys who had been completely cut off from all family ties. By taking the boys from their homes, and transporting them to virtually another world, devçirme assured that there would be no conflict of loyalties between family and duty to the empire. All loyalty would be focused on the group itself and on the sultan.”

This practice drained the strength of the Christian populations. Harris again:

“The culling of these alpha boys had two effects, both of them good for the Ottoman Empire, both bad for the subject population. By filling the critical posts in the Ottoman Empire with boys who had been selected on the basis of their intrinsic merit, and not on their family connection, the Empire was automatically creating a meritocracy — if a boy was tough, courageous, intelligent, and fanatically loyal, he was able to work his way up the Ottoman hierarchy; indeed, as we have seen, he become a member of the ruling elite, despite having the formal title of being the sultan’s slave. The Ottoman Empire was both strengthening itself through acquiring these alpha boys, and weakening its subject population by taking their best and brightest. Thanks to the institution of devçirme, the more ‘fit’ Christian boys who would be most likely to be the agents of rebellion against the Empire become the fanatical Muslim warriors who were used to suppress whatever troubles the less ‘fit’ Christian boys left behind were able to cause.”

Now that the entire Western world is under attack by Islamic Jihad, we would do well to listen to those who know the frontlines, such as Serge Trifkovic in his book Defeating Jihad.

The wars in the Balkans all the way into the 21st century are a direct result of the legacy of Turkish Muslim brutality. So why does nobody demand that the Turks apologize in public for their massacres and oppression? They should pay reparations to their former subjects, starting with the Armenians, who suffered a Jihad genocide less than a century ago, and continuing with the Serbs, the Bulgarians, the Greeks, the Croatians and others who have suffered hundreds of years of abuse and exploitation at their hands.

We can continue with all those European countries that have suffered attacks and enslavement by North African Barbary pirates for more than a thousand years. These nations should now demand public apologies and substantial financial reparations from Arabs and Turks. If these countries lack the funds to pay, we should hold the Islamic world collectively responsible and demand compensation from the rich members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference such as Saudi Arabia. While we are at it, why not demand compensation to all victims of Jihad, from the Jews who have been expelled from the Middle East to the Indians, who have died in the tens of millions for a thousand years or more?