A couple of weeks ago several news stories appeared about a new initiative called “The Muslims of Europe Charter”. According to the EU Observer, about 400 European Muslim organizations were represented by the charter:

“The charter is a message to government and the rest of society, but also directed at Muslims within Europe,” said Ibrahim Elzayat, a spokesperson for the Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe (FIOE), the co-ordinator of the process that resulted in the historic document.

At about the same time, knowing nothing about any charter, I reported on FIOE and its website. The organization seemed to have appeared out of nowhere in order to present some of the smooth well-funded Islamic propaganda that we’ve all become familiar with in recent years. I’m not including a link to the FIOE site, because since then it has either been taken down, or has been hacked (the placeholder page for the URL now offers “Jewish porn”, among other choices).

None of the news stories about the charter gave any details about it; they just talked about how wonderful it was going to be for everyone to come together and create a world based on peace, justice, cooperation, etc blah yak.

So what’s actually in the charter itself?

Last week I was fortunate enough to obtain a pdf copy of the whole document. I have converted the entire thing into a plain HTML page here, which can now be used as a handy reference.

In the copy below I have highlighted certain portions and commented on them. For easier reading, the text of the charter is shown in deep blue with the highlighted text in red, and my comments are interspersed in our normal (i.e. near-black) font color.

This is Multicultural feel-good gobbledygook of the highest order, guaranteed to warm the hearts of liberals, Socialists, Greens, the Anglican Church, etc.

But watch out for the coded taqiyya and the weasel-words embedded in virtually every sentence. I’ve concentrated on just a few of the goodies in the text; there are plenty more to be found.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Muslims of Europe Charter

Since early 2000, the Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe (FIOE) debated the establishment of a charter for the Muslims of Europe, setting out the general principles for better understanding of Islam, and the bases for the integration of Muslims in society, in the context of citizenship.

Look for details further down in this document to se what the FIOE means by “integration” and “citizenship”. Hint: it doesn’t mean becoming like native Europeans and respecting their culture and traditions.

The FIOE formed a committee to prepare the charter, which was discussed at the organisations leadership level. The charter was then presented to many European Islamic bodies at a seminar attended by their representatives and held in Brussels in January 2002. The project was then disseminated widely, to include the greatest possible number of Muslim organisations in order to add their comments and suggestions.

The representatives gathered in Brussels, which is the seat of the EU (and Eurabia). A coincidence?

What Muslim organizations were included? Did the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb ut-Tahrir have a say in anything?

After amendments were approved, and duly incorporated, the final version of the charter was ready. It was signed by Muslim organisations from 28 European states; these are listed in the accompanying document.

I don’t have a copy of the “accompanying document” yet.

Thereafter, signature of the charter will remain open to all organisations that decide to adopt it.

Introduction to the Charter:

Despite their diversity, Muslims of Europe share common values and principles. In order to portray this to European society they need to clearly express their religious convictions and the nature of their presence in Europe.

Some of us think that Muslims have already expressed their religious convictions and the nature of their presence in Europe; it’s just not the same expression that this charter purports to codify. Mohammed Bouyeri’s expression on the street in Amsterdam comes closer to the true nature of the Islamic presence in Europe.

This charter aims to define a number of principles in accordance with the common understanding of Islam within the European context and to set thenceforth the foundations of greater positive interaction with society.

What is “Islam within the European context”? Does it differ from Islam anywhere else?

Muammar Qaddafi doesn’t think so.

The rationale for such a charter includes:
– – – – – – – – –

• The contribution of Islam to modern Europe as well as the

rooted Islamic presence as represented by Muslims in many of the Eastern European states. Likewise, the establishment of Muslim communities in several Western European countries has witnessed a shift from a transitory presence of foreign migrants to a more permanent presence.

The “rooted Islamic presence” in Europe is obviously something we’re supposed to accept as an established and non-negotiable precondition. The fact that no European nation ever made a democratic decision to establish within its borders a “permanent presence” of Muslims is of no consequence.

They’re here, we’re kafir, get used to it!

The Muslim presence in Europe requires a framework of citizenship based on justice, equality of rights, with

respect for difference, and the recognition of Muslims as a European religious community.

“Respect for difference” is code for “acceptance of shariah, the subordination of women, and state recognition of polygamy”.

“Recognition of Muslims as a European religious community” means that the state must fund the construction of mosques and religious schools.

In line with the expansion and development of the European Union, there is a

need for greater co-operation among Muslims of Europe.

“Greater co-operation” means presenting a united front against the kuffar.

The need to enhance the values of mutual understanding, working for peace and the welfare of society, moderation and inter-cultural dialogue,

removed from all inclinations of extremism and exclusion.

This is a masterpiece that combines boilerplate kumbaya-speak with taqiyya.

I’ll bet that removing the “inclination to extremism” depends on the prior removal of “exclusion”. That is, first the natives of Europe must accede to the demands of Muslims. Then, and only then, will the extremists be reined in.

Submission first. Harmony later.

The importance of Islam in the world and its spiritual, human and civilisational potential requires a

rapprochement with the West, and Europe in particular, in order to ensure justice and peace in the world.

Translation: we need to maintain the current hudna until the demographic changes give us the strategic advantage.
These considerations have led European Muslim organisations to formulate this charter in the hope of enhancing the role of Muslims in benefiting European society and to help it build bridges with the rest of the Muslim world.

Articles of the Charter

Section one: on the understanding of Islam:

1.		Our understanding of Islam is based on immutable, basic principles that are derived from the authentic sources of Islam: the Qur’an and the Prophetic traditions (Sunnah), within the framework of Muslim scholarly consensus and with consideration for the time factor as well as the specifics of the European reality. What is the “consideration of the time factor”? The fact that Muslims will have to wait a couple more decades before their numbers in Europe guarantee their ascendancy? Or is it something else? And “the specifics of the European reality” is that the kuffar are still nominally in charge of the continent.
2.		The true spirit of Islam is based on moderation as extended from the Universal Objectives (Maqasid) of this religion. This moderation avoids both laxity and excessiveness and reconciles reason and divine guidance, taking into consideration the material and spiritual needs of man, with a balanced outlook on life which brings together the reality of the next life with constructive work in this world. This entire paragraph is arrant nonsense, contradicted daily by the facts on the ground wherever Muslims gather in sufficient numbers. Moderation, reason, and a balanced outlook have nothing to do with the equation, and constructive work is notably lacking in all Islamic societies. Reason has no place when the divine will of Allah is the only motivating force in observed events. Since the caprice of Allah can intervene between any cause and its effect, reason is without utility in Islamic thinking.
3.		In its principles, rulings and values, Islam can be structured around the following three areas: the creed as expressed in the six pillars of faith — Belief in God, the Angels, the revealed books, the messengers, the Hereafter and Divine Decree; the Shari’ah as expressed in acts of Worship and human interaction; and the Ethical code which lays down the foundations for living a good life. These three interconnected areas are complementary and aim to fulfil the Interests (Maslaha) of humanity and avert harm from it. I’d be interested to find out the details of the ethical code, drawn as they are from the Koran and the Hadith. Which specific suras are involved?
4.		The emphasis on the human dimension, legislative flexibility and respect for diversity and natural differences among human beings are general characteristics of Islam. Throwing in the beloved word “diversity” is guaranteed to get the liberal knees a-jerking. Presumably “natural differences” include the requirement for Muslims to live under sharia.
5.		Islam honours human beings. This honour embraces all the children of Adam, both male and female, without discrimination. By virtue of this honour, human beings are to be protected from anything that is an affront to their dignity, is harmful to their mental faculties, is damaging to their health or which abuses their rights by exploiting their vulnerabilities. Once again, this is arrant nonsense, since the Koran specifically mandates discriminatory treatment against women and infidels.
6.		Islam gives particular emphasis to the social dimension and calls for compassion, mutual support, co-operation and brotherhood. These values apply particularly to the rights of parents, relatives and neighbours but also to the poor, the needy, the sick, the elderly and others, regardless of their race or creed. “The rights of parents, relatives and neighbours” presumably include the right to keep daughters or sisters from choosing their own relationships.
7.		Islam calls for equality between man and woman within the framework of human dignity and mutual respect and views that a balanced life is one in which the relationship between man and woman is harmonious and complementary. It unequivocally rejects all notions or actions that undermine women or deprive them of their legitimate rights, regardless of certain customs and habits of some Muslims. Islam rather confirms women’s indispensable role in society and strongly opposes the exploitation of women and their treatment as mere objects of desire. Complements are by definition not equal. A woman whose role is complementary to that of a man is not equal; the sentence thus contains a contradiction. Notice that women are granted “legitimate” rights. This implies that some rights would be illegitimate for a woman, and therefore they should not be accorded to her. Another implication: if women are not to be treated as “mere objects of desire”, then they must be suitably covered.
8.		Islam considers that a family based on the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman is the natural and necessary environment for the raising of future generations. The family is an indispensable condition for the happiness of the individual and stability of society. Thus, Islam emphasises the significance of taking all measures in order to reinforce the family and protect it from all things that will weaken or marginalise its role. Once again, this means that fathers and brothers retain the absolute right to control daughters and sisters.
9.		Islam respects human rights and calls for equality among all human beings; it rejects all forms of racial discrimination and calls for liberty. It condemns compulsion in religion and allows the individual freedom of conscience. However, Islam encourages that freedom should be exercised in accordance with moral values, such that it does not infringe upon the rights of others. “However”. There can’t be any human rights or liberty without a “however”, can there? We know from the Danish Motoon crisis that ridiculing Islam or Mohammed is an example of “infringing on the rights of others”.
10.		Islam calls for mutual acquaintance, dialogue and co-operation among people and nations so as to enhance stability and guarantee peace in the world. The term Jihad that occurs in Islamic texts means to exert all efforts towards good, starting from reforming oneself to spreading truth and justice between people. Jihad in its understanding as warfare is regarded as one of the means available to any sovereign state when it needs to defend itself against aggression. The teachings of Islam, in this respect, are in line with international law. Based on such an understanding of Jihad, Islam rejects violence and terrorism, supports just causes and affirms the right of all people to defend themselves by legitimate means. Dialogue and stability: James Baker would approve. As for the definition of jihad: I invite readers to cite the relevant suras demonstrating what the Koran thinks “jihad” actually means. The weasel-words in this case are “to defend itself against aggression”. Remember: Muslims experienced the Danish cartoons as aggression against Islam, which justified violent jihad as a response.
11.		Islam enjoins Muslims to be honest and to respect their pledges; forbidding treason and treachery. It also commands them to pursue excellence in dealings with other people, as well as with the rest of creation. This, in effect, is a flip-side version of Epimenides’ Paradox. The Koran explicitly sanctions lying and dissembling if it serves Allah. Islamic scripture tells Muslims that they are not bound to tell the truth to non-Muslims if telling the truth would threaten the interests of Islam. Treason and treachery are forbidden only among the community of believers. All is fair in Dar al-Harb.
12.		Given the virtues of consultation (Shura) and with consideration to human experience in the political, legislative and constitutional realms, Islam affirms the principles of democracy based on pluralism, freedom to choose one’s political institutions and peaceful alternation of power. In this context “pluralism” includes the right to establish and maintain separate specifically Islamic institutions. That’s what democracy means to a Muslim in Europe.
13.		Islam urges human beings to use nature in a responsible manner. This requires the preservation of the environment and its protection from all causes of pollution and harm as well as from anything that may destroy the delicate balance of nature. Likewise, it requires the protection of natural resources and forbids cruelty to animals, over consumption and wastage of wealth.

Section two: the Muslim Presence in Society:

The principles of interaction among Muslims:

14.		Despite their ethnic and cultural diversity and their affiliations to various schools of Islamic law and thought, Muslims of Europe constitute one religious entity within the framework of Islamic principles, united by fraternity. They are also tied with each other, in each European country, by their belonging to the same national entity. Any discrimination arising between them based on ethnic origin is against the value of Islam which emphasises unity. This one is rather ominous. It says, “You may not deal with any group of Muslims separately. There is only one Islam and one Ummah.” In other words, there’s no use trying to play the Sunnis against the Shiites or the Turks against the Pakistanis. They are officially all part of the same entity.
15.		Considering the basic principles of their religion and their common interests, Muslims of Europe are urged to come together, co-operate and co-ordinate the efforts of their different institutions and organisations. This should not fail to recognise the natural diversity that exists among them, within the framework of Islam as generally agreed by scholarly consensus. “We must act as one against the infidel.”
16.		In addition to their belonging to the country in which they reside and their commitment to the demands of citizenship, Muslims of Europe retain their links with fellow Muslims by virtue of the normal relationship which exists between members of the same community. The Muslims of Europe are, in effect, renouncing any possible loyalty to the countries in which they find themselves, even if they are citizens. Their true loyalty is to the Ummah.

On Citizenship:

17.		Muslims of Europe respect the laws of the land and the authorities that uphold them. This should not prevent them from individually or collectively defending their rights and expressing their opinions based on their specific concerns as a religious community or on any general matter that concerns them as citizens. Whenever there is a conflict with regard to certain laws and matters that are specific to religion, the relevant authorities should be approached in order to arrive at suitable and viable solutions. This is the most important point of all. If Muslims were sincerely attempting to assimilate to the societies in which they reside, the highlighted text would read: Whenever there is a conflict with regard to certain laws and matters that are specific to religion, Muslims are enjoined to obey the law of the land like any other citizens. But Muslims aren’t like any other citizens, and they get to negotiate with the authorities until a “suitable and viable solution” is reached — that is, the law of the land is changed to accord with Islamic law.
18.		Muslims of Europe adhere to the principle of neutrality of the state regarding religious affairs. This means dealing fairly with all religions and allows those who hold religious values to express their beliefs and practise the rites of their religion either as individuals or groups, in conformity with European and international human rights charters and treaties. Muslims have, therefore, the right, as religious communities, to establish mosques, religious, educational and welfare institutions, to practise their religion in day-to-day affairs such as diet, clothing and other needs. In other words: our women must wear the veil, and school dining halls must serve no pork, because these are our religious rights.
19.		As European citizens, Muslims of Europe consider it their duty to work for the common good of society. Their endeavour for the common good is as important as defending their rights. Finally, an authentic understanding of Islam requires of Muslims to be active and productive citizens who are useful to society.
20.		Muslims of Europe are urged to integrate positively in their respective societies, on the basis of a harmonious balance between preservation of Muslim identity and the duties of citizenship. Any form of integration that fails to recognise the right of Muslims to preserve their Islamic personality and the right to perform their religious obligations does not serve the interests of Muslims nor the European societies to which they belong. Remember, they are urged to “integrate”, not “assimilate”. “Integration” means the establishment of separate Islamic communities officially recognized by the relevant governmental authorities.
21.		Muslims of Europe are encouraged to participate in the political process as active citizens. Real citizenship includes political engagement, from casting one’s vote to taking part in political institutions. This will be facilitated if these institutions open up to all members and sections of society, an opening up which takes into account competence and ideas. Translation: “Make sure you vote for the Socialists.”
22.		Muslims of Europe emphasise their respect for pluralism and the religious and philosophical diversity of the multicultural societies they live in. They believe that Islam affirms the diversity and differences that exists between people and is not discomforted by this multicultural reality. Rather, Islam calls for members of society to appreciate and enrich one another through their differences. History shows that Muslims “respect” pluralism until they comprise between 15% and 25% of the population. When they become a majority, pluralism inexorably declines, and eventually disappears.

Islam’s Contribution to Europe:

23.		Through its universal and humane principles, Islam adheres to the rapprochement of all people who respect the rights of others and their particularities, who abide by the rules of fairness among people in matters of dealings and co-operation. Starting from these principles, Muslims of Europe consider it their duty to participate in strengthening relations between Europe and the Muslim World. This requires the removal of all the prejudices and negative images which stand between Islam and the West in order to build bonds of rapprochement between people and to establish bridges of fruitful exchanges among different civilizations. “The removal of all the prejudices and negative images” is one-way street. Europeans are obliged to give up their negative images of Muslims, but the obligation is not reciprocal. Dirty kuffar we are, and dirty kuffar we shall remain. The politically correct Multicultural regime assures Muslims that this one-way tolerance will be maintained until they have attained their goals. A negative view of Muslims constitutes “racism”, but hating the filthy infidel does not.
24.		Given its culturally rich heritage and emphasis on humanity, Islam, through its presence in Europe, can participate in enhancing important values in contemporary society such as justice, freedom, fraternity, equality and solidarity. Islam gives primacy to moral considerations as well as to scientific, technical and economic progress. This participation can be beneficial and enriching for the whole of society.
25.		The Muslim presence in Europe represents a key element in establishing better communication and co-existence between the different religions and beliefs by encouraging discussion between different faiths and ideologies. This will no doubt bolster the path towards global peace. Global peace will follow close upon the heels of global submission to Allah. There will be no peace before then, only hudna.
26.		Through their religious and cultural legacy as well as their presence in many European states, Muslims of Europe represent an enhancing element to the efforts of strengthening the European Union. With its diverse religious and cultural make up, Europe can act as an important civilisational signpost with a key role in maintaining international stability between influential world powers. Translation: The Islamization of Europe will give Muslims a controlling share of the world’s power structure. Today, Europe. Tomorrow, the world.

“O Mankind, indeed we created you from a male and female and have made you different nations and tribes so that you may get to know one another.” [Qur’an; Chapter 49: Verse 13]

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

There are many more nuggets of taqiyya to be mined out of this document. Feel free to borrow the plain HTML version and do your own fisking.

UPDATE (Dymphna’s): Wretchard posted on this topic, titling his essay A Bottle of Whiskey and a Loaded Revolver.

Snipped from The Telegraph:

Paul Mason, a GP in Portland, Dorset, said there were good clinical reasons for denying surgery to some patients. “The issue is: how much responsibility do people take for their health?” he said.

“If an alcoholic is going to drink themselves to death then that is really sad, but if he gets the liver transplant that is denied to someone else who could have got the chance of life then that is a tragedy.” He [ Dr. Mason from Dorset] said the case of George Best, who drank himself to death in 2005, three years after a liver transplant, had damaged the argument that drinkers deserved a second chance.

To which Wretchard adds…

So maybe God, after all, is nothing that even socialism can abolish. Those unwilling to trust that there is meaning to universe can still hope there will be beds available at the NHS or compassion in the heart of a bureaucrat.

As usual, “read the comments…”

I wrote on Friday about the inevitable slide towards euthanasia of the elderly that is inherent in the logic of socialized medicine.

Now the process is becoming quite explicit. The National Health Service in the UK seems to be ready to issue guidelines and protocols for letting obstinately unfit people die. According to yesterday’s Daily Telegraph:

Don’t treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors

Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.

Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.

The health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.

That’s not what you promised us sixty years ago when the practice of medicine was nationalized in the UK. Everyone, no matter how indigent, was entitled to medical care. That’s what the Fabian nannies told us back in the halcyon days of EngSoc. So what happened to all those glittering promises?

The rule has been changed a little bit. They just added a dependent clause to the end:

Everyone, no matter how indigent, is entitled to medical care, provided they adhere to the behavioral guidelines established by the experts of the NHS.

And here’s one to alarm the abortion-on-demand crowd:
– – – – – – – – –

Fertility treatment and “social” abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.

The NHS doctors are making visible and explicit a process which is already occurring unofficially:

About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.

Managers defend the policies because of the higher risk of complications on the operating table for unfit patients. But critics believe that patients are being denied care simply to save money.

Both of those explanations can be true. Unfit patients do have a higher risk of complications. And denying people care does save money.

It’s important to remember that dying early makes you less of a burden to the socialist State.

Which also means that the State has a vested interested in your untimely demise.

Just keep that in mind every time you look at those brochures showing handsome smiling doctors and nurses next to happy and healthy patients. Ah, yes, “the NHS is here to serve you.” Bu the truth is somewhat different.

If people controlled their own health care with their own money, they could decide for themselves what they needed to save money on. But that’s Stone Age thinking, and unworthy of contemplation here in the Age of Socialism.

Or at least it used to be unworthy of contemplation, until the budget crunch hit home. Now that the free market has been thoroughly destroyed, it’s time for you to pay for your own treatment:

Among the survey of 870 family and hospital doctors, almost 60 per cent said the NHS could not provide full healthcare to everyone and that some individuals should pay for services.

One in three said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long. Half thought that smokers should be denied a heart bypass, while a quarter believed that the obese should be denied hip replacements.

Those who obey the directives of the NHS doctors deserve to be treated. The disobedient, stubborn, recalcitrant, selfish, and subversive have no right to treatment. Just let ’em die: it will help weed all the independent thinkers out of the gene pool.

Not all the doctors agree:

Responding to the survey’s findings on the treatment of the elderly, Dr Calland, of the BMA, said: “If a patient of 90 needs a hip operation they should get one. Yes, they might peg out any time, but it’s not our job to play God.”

That’s what you think. Ever since God was officially pronounced dead, one of the main functions of the State has been to play God.

The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.

Hat tip: Fausta.

ABC News appears to be the only MSM outlet covering this follow-up story to the Barcelona would-be bombers. Admittedly, I used only Google’s news search, their web search, and a few news aggregators. Maybe our Spanish-speaking readers have more information:

The attorney general in Spain said today [January 25] that there are three cell members they are urgently searching for and that the missing members could be suicidal terrorists with a mission to attack somewhere outside of Spain.

The cell members are Spanish residents, including both nationals and foreigners. They are believed to have recently traveled to Spain from Waziristan, Pakistan, an area known as a hotbed for al Qaeda training and Taliban resurgence.

These three escaped Spain’s dragnet that captured fourteen men who were caught with their bomber pants down, and all the explosives as yet unassembled. Those successfully captured were the usual suspects:
– – – – – – – – –

The men were of Pakistani, Indian and other ethnic backgrounds. Many appear to be legal residents of Spain, but some of the suspects’ legal statuses are still unknown. One of the men arrested, Maroof Ahmaed Mirza, is described as an Imam, a legal resident of Spain and a Pakistani national.

Since we’re talking about the EU super-state’s borderless country, it wouldn’t be a problem for the three who eluded what Spanish police called Operation Cantata (evidently the notion of informers “singing” carries over into other languages).

If the suicide bombers who eluded them are legal residents of Spain, they can go anywhere in Europe.

These fellows — the ones captured and the ones who got away — appear to have trained and planned in Pakistan under the aegis of al Qaeda. It seems the captured terrorists (twelve Pakistanis, including an imam, and two Indians) hadn’t been long in Spain when the plot unraveled:

Spain’s Interior Minister Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba said the group was actively preparing an attack and not just recruiting or financing.

“Here we are looking at something different: a well-organized group who were going beyond ideological radicalism to acquiring materials to make explosives and therefore eventually to carry out violent attacks…”

Well, the attacks, presumably a repeat of the first train bombing that bought Spain’s hasty retreat in 2004 from the allies in the Iraq war, were to have been timed to coincide with Pakistan’s presidential visit. Musharraf is visiting Spain and to other EU countries, seeking any support that isn’t American.

Musharraf’s European mission was an attempt to convince them that Pakistan is a “reliable ally.” He certainly needs as many in his corner as possible, considering the fact that U.S. support is so unwelcome by many Pakistani citizens.

Here is some prime dissembling during the London part of Musharraf’s tour. He was speaking to the Royal United Services Institute. Someone asked him why he hasn’t permitted American assistance in the badlands of the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan:

“They [the Americans] have their hands full in Afghanistan, they need more force in Afghanistan,” said President Musharraf. “I can’t imagine their coming to Pakistan. They will dilute in Afghanistan so please handle Afghanistan first of all.”

What a thoughtful guy. No need at all to allow the busy US military into areas of Pakistan that border Afghanistan. What if they managed thereby to grab bin Laden? Al-Qaeda would have Musharraf’s head on a platter in a homicidal bomber’s heartbeat.

No sooner had these political weasel words passed his lips than the US SecDef begged to differ:

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said the United States would be willing to send troops into parts of Pakistan for joint operations against al Qaida.

There you go. And then, after the US made incursions into Pakistan, everyone would have to take the day off to attend Musharraf’s funeral, an event he does not wish to attend himself.

So Spain foiled another train bombing.

Meanwhile, three homicidal maniacs are loose in the borderless EU. I think they went to Londonistan. What’s your guess?

This is the second in a series of letters from AMDG at La Yijad en Eurabia, and concerns the upcoming Spanish elections on March 9th.

In my previous letter (Who is an Ally Against the Jihad?) I referred to the key facts of Spanish politics. First, the result of Spanish national elections is determined by the vote of the “volatile left” a group of two million voters that vote for the PSOE, but only when they want to avoid a government by the right. Secondly, the Popular Party (PP) is not acting as an ally in the fight against Jihad.

The Poster Formerly Known as Gordon suggested that it was preferable to influence the leadership of the Partido Popular rather than to try to build up a large third party in Spain. I agree, but I still think that the best way to influence the PP is by building a small party to their right. I will dedicate this post to the next national elections on 9 March and the following one to an investigation which could this third party or parties be.

What can we expect out of the next national Spanish elections? As indicated in the previous letter, only a small percentage of the electorate changes their vote. With the exception of around half a million voters (the so-called “centre”), people vote election after election for PSOE or PP. They would not change their vote, but would not vote at all if they feel uncomfortable with their usual party.

Is the left feeling comfortable with Zapatero? No. He got many extra votes after the 11-M bombings. Some of Zapatero’s initiatives have been begrudged by his electorate. He has opened a “dialogue” with ETA; he is yielding to the demands of nationalists (“moderate” secessionists). As a result, it is very probable that the PP will get more votes than PSOE in March.

But it is also very improbable that the PP will have a majority. In that case they will have to resume the horse trading with the nationalists, who have been raising their stakes since 1977. This may tear apart the PP, because their followers will feel extremely disappointed. This is, of course, a speculation.

Who is who in the PP? The leader is Mariano Rajoy, a registrador by profession. Registradores run private but official registers on real estate. Any real estate transaction is not really definitive until it has been registered. In order to become registrador (or a notary) one must pass an exam after preparing for it for several years. That is, they are some sort of mandarins. Rajoy is a true blue one. Serious, reliable, professional, but, as a politician, he completely lacks “the force of demagogic speech” that Weber mentions in his classical lecture “Politics as a profession”:
– – – – – – – – –

The genuine official, even a political official, conducts his business sine ira et studio (at least formally, as long as the vital interests of the ruling order are not in question). To be passionate, on the other hand, is the element of the politician and above all of the political leader. ‘‘Since the time of the constitutional state, and definitely since democracy has been established, the demagogue has been the typical political leader’’ (96). The current state of affairs is a ‘‘dictatorship resting on the exploitation of mass emotionality’’ (107). Next to the qualities of will, the force of demagogic speech has been above all decisive in the choice of strong leaders.

He does not have the gift of demagogic speech. He is not a born politician; he was simply handed Aznar’s legacy, who appointed him.

Who are the other leaders in the party? First of all, we should be aware that there are two PPs: one leaning to the centre, the other to the right. Please note that I link to Wikipedia as a basic but not definitive reference.

On the centre, we have, first, Ruiz Gallardón, the mayor of Madrid. A born politician, beloved by the media, especially the “progressive” media (EL PAIS…). Culturally a lefty, always singing a dissonant note against the party. He has been openly declaring during the last three years that he is waiting to succeed Rajoy. This would be the end of the PP as we know it; it would split.

Gallardón does not have a lot of sympathy within the party. He had been pleading to be included in the lists for the next elections. Last week, Rajoy decided not to include him. It was the news of the week. By the way, in Spain, the party proposes the list of candidates for each territory.

Secondly, Aguirre: The chair of the Madrid regional government. Popular, beloved by the voters. Poses as a libertarian, and increases spending… She has been countering Gallardón in the last few years. It was she who actually forced Rajoy not to include Gallardón in the lists.

Then, the so-called regional barons. They are the leaders of regional areas (either chair the regional government or lead the opposition). Most of them are “progressive cons”. A couple of them, Matas (Spanish) and Piqué, have resigned in the last year after internal party conflicts or disappointing results in the polls. They were actually an affront to their conservative voters. Let us hope that this natural purge continues.

They main conservative voice in the PP is Mayor Oreja. The former Minister of Interior, now in the European Parliament. I would consider Vidal-Quadras the second one. He was leader of the PP in Catalonia, opposing the nationalists. He was dismissed by Aznar when he had to compromise with the Catalan nationalists in 1996. He is also now parked in the European Parliament. They are too far from the real party power to be able to succeed Rajoy, when the issue will be topical.

Coming back to the approaching elections, surveys indicate that the PP and the PSOE would get a similar number of votes. I think that the PP will have a few more seats in Parliament than the PSOE, but they will have to count on other parties, and they will sell their support at a very high price.

Let us see in six weeks.

— AMDG

Update: Our Flemish correspondent VH has sent a more accurate translation of Philip Claeys’ statement, so I am now using his version.

It seems that the organizers of the new EU-wide Patriotic Party may have jumped the gun as far as the participation of Vlaams Belang is concerned. According to a spokesman, VB is engaged in “discussions”, but has made no commitment to join an actual party.

The following is from the VB website, translated by machine and then slightly revised for coherent syntax. If any of our Dutch or Flemish readers want to correct the translation, please leave a message in the comments our Flemish correspondent VH.

Vlaams Belang is holding a conversation on European cooperation

Today, at the initiative of the Austrian Freedom Party, a meeting was convened in Vienna with MPs from the parties that belonged to the now disbanded ITS parliamentary group (identity, tradition, sovereignty) in the European parliament.

There were numerous cases discussed, and also the possibility of forming a right-national umbrella organization was examined.

The chairman of the Austrian Freedom Party, Heinz-Christian Strache, declared a desire to establish contacts with democratic right-wing parties in all European countries and support each other in the struggle against the politically correct establishment in all these countries.

Vlaams Belang also took part in these discussions. Vlaams Belang is obviously willing to maintain close contacts and the best relationships with like-minded parties abroad. At this time, though, we cannot commit to any kind of European political party formation. In addition, the whole thing is quite premature. For Europe imposes unreasonable criteria for the formation of a European political-party umbrella, by which the ideological rules of political correctness are layed down in an unacceptable and undemocratic manner.

– – – – – – – – –

The preference of Vlaams Belang extends more towards bilateral contacts with European likeminded spirits than an umbrella party.

A consensus was reached, however, on a number of cross-border matters, such as opposition to the possible accession of Turkey to the EU, and also to the Treaty of Lisbon, which is actually a new version of the European constitution which was rejected earlier.

Philip Claeys
MEP

Hat tip: CVF.

The press of work, both here and at my real job, leaves me almost no time to read anything except email and some of the articles that readers tip me about. The downside of the situation is having to read all that email (Hi everyone! Thanks for writing! Sorry I can’t answer all of it!). The upside is that our alert readers make sure that we see almost every important news story and op-ed in a timely fashion.

Many of the tips concern immigration and its effects on Europe, Canada, Australia, and the USA. One way or another, those are the most important stories that impact the mission of Gates of Vienna.

The recent articles seem to flow together into one unified theme. Yesterday it was illegal immigration and Geert Wilders. Today it has been “Cities Against Islamization” and the drain on the welfare state caused by increasing immigration into the EU.

And now comes the magnificent an editorial by Daniel Greenfield in Canada Free Press entitled “Alfred Must Die so that Mahmoud May Live”.

Mr. Greenfield makes a persuasive case that mass immigration coupled with the political, social, and economic logic inherent in the welfare state will inevitably lead (and is already leading) to the euthanasia of elderly people in Western countries.

Here are some excerpts from his editorial:

The problem with offering a free lunch is that someone still has to pay for it. When doled out by the government medicine comes packaged with a massive bureaucracy to implement, distribute and manage it. Whatever the system may promise, resources are never infinite and hospital wards, doctors and drugs don’t grow on trees and it has to be paid for in the end.

Socialized medicine has to carefully stagger what it gives away and lower quality and access to do so. Wards in England are a national disgrace with nursing shortages, mixed sex wards and severe cleanliness problems. France’s broken health care system is climbing the ranks of election campaign issues. Waiting times for vital procedure are a serious issue in Canada and in both New York and California, Governors have clashed with unions and hospitals over proposed cuts to state health services. When scrutinized carefully, the free lunch of socialized medicine begins to look more like spoiled leftovers.

In the 19th and the 20th centuries, civic medicine made great strides. Health care and hygiene came to the slums, diseases were fought and conquered. Much of what was accomplished was toted up as further evidence that government programs when applied to social problems could create an ideal society. That of course is the nature of the trap.

As prosperity increased, lifespans also increased and birth rates fell drastically. So drastically that Europe from the English coastline to the Russian tundra is facing the loss of millions of people and the depopulation of entire areas. This would be a severe enough problem in and of itself, but a system in which the pay of a decreasing generation of younger workers is leveraged to provide social services for previous generations of retired citizens cannot survive a gap in the birth rate any more than a building can be built with two stories missing in the middle.

Immigration was meant to fill in that gap and use the expanded population to create a bottom tier of workers paying into the system and overlaying booming third world birth rates over declining first world birth rates. But of course immigration only made things worse. On paper immigration might have seemed like an easy way to make up for a birth rate shortfall, but immigration is not a clone factory stamping out fresh new young workers to take their places at the desks and counters of tomorrow. Immigration meant importing entire families, often in three generations, from the third world, most with health care needs vastly outweighing those of the natives. And then there are the social problems.

Using immigration as a stopgap solution for the birth rate was a thirsty man lost at sea drinking salt water and only placed massive stresses on socialism’s free lunch pail. This however was more a problem for the nation’s citizens who bore the burden of government than for the government bureaucracies who serviced them. The bureaucracies were perfectly happy with the infusion of third world immigrants as the problems they brought generated an expansion of the bureaucracy. The bonus crime, diseases and social unrest was manna from heaven because the worse things got, the more funding they could demand and the more programs they could add. Social problems under socialism are the most valuable constituency because they justify the existence of government programs perpetuating a constituency of need.

– – – – – – – – –

Western nations found that not only had their social fabric been undermined but formerly peaceful small towns were becoming war zones and health crisis centers with their residents footing the bill. Prosperity created the resources and socialism took them away again. Socialism created the squeeze and immigration only made it worse. Cutting off social services for deadbeat immigrants who were a drain on the system, even the illegal ones, might have been a rational approach but few municipalities in Europe or North America would hear of it. Behind the claims of racism, was the reality that proposing to detach immigrants from the social services teat was as much a sacrilege as proposing to take away a farmer’s milk cows when he was expecting years of use from them.

But the squeeze has to come somewhere and that leaves squeezing the elderly and the disabled through euthanasia. […]

The resource shortfall has to be made up from somewhere and the elderly are the least use to the bureaucracy and the most politically vulnerable. After all there are a whole lot of them about and as the health care system becomes burdened by immigrants, someone must make way and that someone is increasingly the lifelong hardworking taxpaying citizen. As immigration further strains the health care system, choices are made. Alfred has to die, so Mahmoud can get treated for three diseases that had formerly been eradicated in the Western world.

Go over to Canada Free Press for the rest. It’s a must-read.

Hat tip: Queen.

Since I’m already knee-deep in ordure from the last few months of controversy, I might as well wade in a little further and see if I can get in above my hips.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The latest word, according to EU Business, is that a pan-European party has been formed by four political parties: Le Pen’s Front National of France, the Flemish independence party Vlaams Belang, the Bulgarian party Attaca, and the Austrian Freedom Party led by Heinz-Christian Strache.

This European-wide party has announced no platform or objectives to counter the Islamization of Europe, to oppose anti-Semitism, or to support Israel. It would be helpful if they were to make their positions on these issues clear. A detailed platform including all three of those objectives would be most welcome; it would demonstrate a policy leadership for all parties across the political spectrum.

From EU Business:

Right-wing nationalist leaders from four EU member states announced Friday in Vienna the creation of a broad new European “patriotic” party by November.

The leaders of Austria’s Freedom Party, France’s National Front, the Bulgarian Attaca party and Belgium’s Vlaams Belang told a press conference that they had agreed to set up the new party as a counter-balance to other political forces in Europe.

“We say: patriots of all the countries of Europe, unite! Because only together will we solve our problems,” Freedom Party leader Heinz-Christian Strache told journalists.

“European parties receive great benefits within the union and so we believe there is no reason nationalists shouldn’t also have a formation like the Socialists, the Christian Democrats, the liberals or the Greens,” the National Front’s Jean-Marie Le Pen told AFP.

The announcement comes months after the demise of the barely one-year-old extreme right group in the European Parliament, “Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty” (ITS), to which several of the founders of the new party belonged.

[…]

Unlike a European parliamentary group, which according to EU law requires at least 20deputies from five different states to exist, a party only needs members from seven states.

“Our goal is clear, we want more than 10 parties as members and ideally one party from each EU country,” Strache told journalists.

He said he and his partners were in talks with parties in several countries, including non-EU member states, but refused to give any names until decisions were finalised.

The new European party is expected to be set up on November 15.

Before the inevitable ton of bricks comes down on my head, I have to say this:
– – – – – – – – –
The Front National, the FPÖ and Attaca were not invited to the Counterjihad Brussels 2007 conference. They have not published policies that are specifically and publicly pro-Israel, they do not have a history of opposing Holocaust Denial and anti-Semitism, and they do not have a consistent history of anti-Islamization.

Vlaams Belang has all of these specific positions and did attend the conference.

In their dealings outside of Flanders and within EU the political labyrinth, VB is engaging in the same kinds of compromises and alliances that any political party has to make in order to survive and achieve electoral success. I don’t expect that all of their chosen allies will be palatable to me — but then again, I’m not trying to run a political party.

As long as Vlaams Belang continues to be a vigorous opponent of Islamization, a supporter of Israel, and a staunch denouncer of anti-Semitism, then I will continue to give it a favorable hearing.

Our primary mission here at Gates of Vienna is opposition to Islamization, with an emphasis on the incompatibility of sharia with constitutional law.

We also support Israel’s absolute right to exist as a Jewish state within defensible borders, and we oppose all forms of Jew-hatred and anti-Semitism.

In other words, as we have said since the beginning, we stand with the Jews.

We also decry the massive genocides against Christians and other minorities in Muslim countries, the treatment of women under Islamic law, the violence and tyranny endemic to Muslim states, and all the other outrages and injustices perpetrated in the name of Islam.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Overt anti-Semitism and an ambivalence towards Islamism make some European political parties unacceptable allies for the Counterjihad. Vlaams Belang and others may find it expedient to build bridges to them, but the policies of such parties will keep us from supporting them.

Europe’s great misfortune over the last few decades has been the absolute anathema pronounced upon conservatives and the opponents of the EU by the ruling elites. The predictable result is that many worthy anti-jihad activists are being forced into the arms of the extreme right, since all other political groupings now consider them untouchable.

One of our jobs here is to make an ethically acceptable and broad-based case for the Counterjihad, and thereby ameliorate the pernicious effects of this European “cordon sanitaire”.

Below is a very sobering story from today’s ANSAmed about the projected rate of immigration into Europe from “the South” over the next decade.

There are several things to bear in mind when reading this:

1.		This forecast is based on information from EuroMed, i.e. the official arm of the European Commission charged with establishing what has become known as Eurabia. One can thus assume that the predictions have been massaged to the best of EuroMed’s abilities, and that the real situation must be even worse.
2.		The more educated immigrants are going overseas, to the USA, Australia, etc. The poor, ignorant, and less employable “southerners” are moving to Europe.
3.		The estimates posted yesterday at GalliaWatch (thanks LN): “Six out of ten persons from foreign countries of working age are idle. The deficit in public funds attributable to this population reaches 48 billion euros, or 80% of the total deficit recorded in 2004. Regarding their effect on the GNP, they represent 93 billion in added value and they consume 126 billion.”

And now the article from ANSAmed:

Migration Flows From The South To Double In 10 Years, Report

Brussels, January 25 — The immigration from southern Mediterranean countries is growing and in the next ten years it is destined to double: from Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestinian Territories, Tunisia and Turkey, between 20 million and 30 million people will migrate, with the authorisation of their countries of origin which consider the exodus abroad an investment, as well as a way to reduce unemployment. This is the warning launched by the EuroMediterranean Centre for Research on Immigration, Carim, financed by the European Commission, which in its latest report focuses on the migratory movements of the southern Mediterranean coast. It is not easy to measure the flow of emigrants, because the data from the countries of origin and from the hosting countries are often very different. In general, the hosting countries do not take into account the temporary immigrants and the illegal ones, who are instead registered by their consulates abroad in order to have a minimum of protection. According to the data gathered in 2007 by the southern Mediterranean countries, there are between 12 and 15 million first generation emigrants coming from the Arab countries, equally divided between Europe and Gulf countries and Libya. Only 10% of the emigrants from Arab countries go up to Northern America and Australia and in general they are those who have at least a university degree, unlike those who move to Europe, who have in average a very low education level. This is due to the different migration policies on the two coasts of the Atlantic Ocean: America tries to attract qualified workers, while Europe tries to limit the flows.

– – – – – – – – –

The country from where most people emigrate is Morocco, which in 2005 had more then 3 million Moroccan citizens registered at the Moroccan consulates abroad. Egypt, Algeria and Lebanon follow, all of them countries which registered a rapid increase in departures in the past ten years. According to the report, it is easy to forecast that the migratory phenomenon will increase in the next few years, considering that the demand for labour in the Gulf countries and Europe, which needs workers to keep the number of its active population at the same level, remains unchanged. Carim also explains that the attitude of the governments of the southern Mediterranean countries towards the migratory phenomenon has not changed during the years: it keeps being considered an investment, just like exports, to be encouraged for the benefit of the state budget. The emigrants’ remittances are in fact one of the main sources of income for many southern countries. But because, according to estimates, remittances are profitable only in the first years when the emigrants are settling down, in order to have a constant income it is needed to ensure an equally constant flow of emigrants. Because of this, countries like Morocco encourage the exodus, despite the fact that, as Carim explains, European governments have been progressively closing the doors to foreign workers. In the picture taken by Carim, Turkey, which has 3 million emigrants, does not fit in and, according to the estimates of the European study, is going to become a country for which emigration will be just a memory. (ANSAmed).

Hat tip: insubria.

Transatlantic Conservative’s probably got the first coverage of this story in English:

Danish muslim party: Neu auf dem Wahlzettel in Dänemark – “‘Danish Muslim Party’ will be biggest party of Denmark – and it may be soon. First day after Turkey becomes EU member country – about one million 20-50 years old muslims moves to Denmark. And after that Denmark will be a muslim country. Be ready!…

Go here to read the rest.

EU = dhimmification.

I will be interested to see what the Danes have to say about this.

[Post stops here]

In Christian theology, there is a term, “baptism by fire,” which is used to represent either the picture of Christ’s disciples at the feast of Pentecost or, secondarily, referred to one who is martyred by being burned at the stake. Joan of Arc is one example, though there are many others in both the Eastern and Western parts of the Christian Church.

Very early on in Christian tradition, icons illustrated the disciples with tongues of fire above their heads, the flames symbolizing the Descent of the Holy Spirit. It became a major feast in the Church,and Hagia Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople (now Instanbul), originally built in the 6th century, came to signify its foundation. Initially, Pentecost (like other Christian feast days) was drawn from the Jewish feast of Shavuot, though the latter was a minor harvest feast celebrated in commemoration of the origins of the Torah, but within the Christian tradition was considered a major feast:

Shavuot is the second of the three major festivals (Passover being the first and Sukkot the third) and occurs exactly fifty days after the second day of Passover. This holiday marks the anniversary of the day when we [the Jewish people wandering in the desert after escaping from Egypt] received the Torah at Mount Sinai.

Back when Europe was Christian, Pentecost was known as Whitsunday and the following day was a public holiday, “Whitsuntide Monday.” Only recently has that ancient holy day been replaced with another name or simply removed from the calendar all together:

The following Monday is a holiday in much of Europe. The day is known as Whit Monday in England, Wales, and Ireland, and is also celebrated in Iceland, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Poland, Belgium, parts of Switzerland, Germany, Austria and Hungary. Since 1967, however, Whit Monday has not been a public holiday in the United Kingdom; the holiday has been moved to the fixed date of the last Monday in May, which sometimes but by no means always coincides with Whit Monday. Whit Monday also ceased to be a statutory holiday in France in 2005, where the abolishment led to strong protests. Also in Sweden Whit Monday is no longer a holiday and June 6 (Swedish National Day) has become a day off.

However, I doubt the poor woman in this news story planned on “celebrating” her reception into the church by being burned over seventy per cent of her body. From Compass Direct News:
– – – – – – – – –

Bangladesh: Elderly Christian Woman’s Home Set Ablaze

DHAKA, Bangladesh, January 24 (Compass Direct News) – Unknown attackers tried to burn a 70-year-old woman to death on January 7 after learning that she would be baptized as a Christian next month. Rahima Beoa, who was planning to be baptized on February 13 in the Muslim-majority Rangpur district, suffered burns over 70 percent of her body. “The unknown people wanted to burn alive the elderly woman because they came to know that she would be a Christian in the next month,” said Khaled Mintu, regional district supervisor of the Isha-E-Jamat Bangladesh church. “It was a devilish conspiracy to stop her being a Christian.” Beoa is mother-in-law of Ashraful Islam, who along with his wife became a Christian two years ago. Close relatives and neighbors were said to be angry with the couple for their conversion from Islam.

Another case of “culture clash.”

Rolf Krake is a Danish Gates of Vienna correspondent who lives in Brussels. He was present last Thursday in Antwerp when the “Cities Against Islamization” project was launched. Below is his report.

Note: A member of Vlaams Belang has written to Robert Spencer and confirmed that the BNP was not invited to the Cities Against Islamization initiative. That makes four separate sources which have refuted the latest accusation aimed at Vlaams Belang.

The European Initiative “Cities against Islamization”
by Rolf Krake

Antwerp the 17th of January 2008

At the international press center in Antwerp the project “Cities Against Islamization” was initiated and presented by Filip Dewinter of the Flemish independence party Vlaams Belang, along with Heinz Christian Strache from the Austrian Freedom Party FPÖ, Marcus Beisicht from Pro Köln, Karsten Propp from the Republikaner Partei in Germany, and Robert Spieler from Alsace D’Abord.

Invited to the presentation by Vlaams Belang were Adriana Bolchini Gaigher from the Osservatorio del Diritto Italiana e Internazionale and Lisistrata in Italy, Heinrique Ravelo from Tierra y Pueblo in Spain, and Rolf Krake from Denmark. Other representatives from the respective founding parties were present.

TV and journalists mainly from Belgium, Austria, and Germany were also there when the newly founded European movement ‘Cities Against Islamization’ was presented, with its logo styled like traffic sign showing a red-barred Mosque, along with its talking points.

Cities Against Islamization

The movement:

• Resists the multicultural ideology which results in a situation where Western European Muslims publicly live in accordance with their own values. That leads to the institutionalization of the religion.
• Resists the institutionalization of Islam, the official recognition of Islam, the subsidizing of Islamic associations, Koran schools, imams, etc. The institutionalization of Islam will lead to the creation of an Islamic socio-political group which will slow down the integration of the Islamic community.
• Is opposed to concessions by policy makers towards Islam which have resulted in Western values and standards being suppressed more and more, in favor of Islamic costumes and values, which are frequently incompatible with our Western values, standards, and way of life.
• Believes that individual freedom of religion, including Islam, must be assured at all times. However, freedom of religion cannot be an alibi for introducing undemocratic or discriminatory customs or acts.
• Resists the introduction of Sharia law as a replacement for the European rules of law.

Conclusions

“Cities Against Islamization” affirms that since the Renaissance the West in general and Europe in particular have renounced all religious dogmas and replaced the standards resulting from them by standards and legal rules that are based on a multitude of sources like ancient classics, Judaeo-Christian values, humanism, the ideas of enlightenment, nationalism, liberalism, etc.

As a result of this evolution our civilization is now characterized by a respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms. Our civilization is moreover based on values like the separation of church and state, democracy, freedom of speech, equality of men and women, etc.

On the other hand, at the beginning of the 21st century the cities of Western Europe are confronted with substantial Islamic minorities which are not in the least assimilated and which concentrate in constantly expanding ghettos. This is the result of an overly lax immigration policy implemented by various authorities.

“Cities Against Islamization” concludes that the Islam is more of a social order rather than a religion. This social order is based on the Sharia (the Islamic religious laws, as recorded in the Koran and the Hadith) and the Ummah (the Islamic religious community), and is at odds with the entire body of values and standards which are part of our European society.

“Cities Against Islamization” also concludes that at least some of these Muslims prefer the Islamic religious laws to our civil laws. Within the Muslim population there is moreover an inclination towards radicalization which is expressed in a growing hostility to our Western civilization and the values underlying it.

Mosques function as a catalyst for the Islamization of entire neighborhoods, since they, as central authorities, emphasize a strict observance of Islam. In doing so they restrain the further integration of Muslim societies.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Here is my account of the event.
– – – – – – – – –
The press conference took place in the international press center where the talking points and conclusions were presented in Flemish, German, and English by Filip Dewinter of VB and Heinz Christian Strache of FPÖ. Also present as well were senators from VB and members of the city council of Antwerp, in which VB is the biggest political party with over a third of the votes.

After the press conference everyone gathered in front of the city hall across from the press center on the Grote Markt which is the central square of Antwerp, where we were lined up with the barred-mosque logos for the press.

The city of Antwerp is noted for its Spanish colonial architecture surrounding Grote Markt and its richly ornamented ancient buildings. We were shown around the city hall, where the first stone was laid the 27th of January 1561 by Cornelius Floris. One couldn’t help being amazed by the architecture, paintings and statues.

When dwelling on such beauty, one floats away with images and realizes how rich our Western civilization is. Art, architecture, industry, and innovation interacted in a city such as Antwerp. For as long as history remembers it has been an important trade city where various European cultures are represented through merchants, traders, visitors, artists, and artisans. The result is a rich free-thinking and industrious Flemish-Dutch culture.

After leaving the city hall we went on an excursion by bus with the press and their camera crews to the Muslim ghettos in the Borgerhout district of Antwerp, with Filip Dewinter acting as our tour guide throughout the trip. We sat out in front of a radical mosque with links to Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. The mosque was equipped with security cameras covering the streets from all angles.

Filip Dewinter asked, “Who needs such security in a place of worship? One can only draw his own conclusions.”

Uniformed and plain-clothes police were positioned throughout the streets in the neighborhood and we were all closely looked after.

During a walk of approximately 500 meters, we passed eight mosques of various sects and radical degrees, culminating with the largest, the Pakistani “Noor Ul Haram”‘ which is very fundamentalist in its strict Sharia teachings.

The excursion of course caught the attention of the inhabitants in the neighborhood and they accompanied us as well, though many were for their own reasons camera-shy given the TV crew and the journalists. The event was peaceful and orderly, with everyone basically taking a stroll and engaging in small talk.

The smiling but attentive Flemish police officers were in stark contrast to the French police officers at the “Tiananmen Square incident” in Brussels during the 9-11 demonstration, in which the socialist mayor of Brussels Freddy Thielemanns ordered the police to attack some of the very same people present. The 9-11 events sparked protests from the Czech foreign minister, who compared it to the methods of the former Communist regime, and raised concerns about the direction of the EU.

This clearly indicates the division in Belgian politics, in which the Flemish Independence Party is calling for a Flemish Republic and independence. A large majority of the Flemish population wants an independent Flanders. The political structure of Belgium is mildly puzzling for a non-Belgian, and deserves a longer explanation than I can give here. To further get into the details of the move towards Flemish independence I can recommend reading the articles in the Brussels Journal and Paul Belien’s book A Throne In Brussels.

One can hope to see a Flemish Republic in 2008.

After the Mosque “Noor Ul Haram” we returned to the bus and drove around for a few blocks in the neighborhood of Borgerhout. We continued on foot down a busy street where merchants sold everything from fruit to Islamic apparel, and where there were Quranic and religious bookstores, tea houses etc.

We then went to a traditional Flemish pub which had existed for decades in the neighborhood, and tasted there some of the excellent Belgian beer.

Filip Dewinter spoke to the local residents and merchants along the promenade, and as the leader of Belgium’s second-largest party, was of course known to everyone. From the Islamic community there was a feeling that the neighborhood was theirs, as someone noted. There was a tranquil sort of self-confidence, but at the same time we were closely observed. It was a little less eerie than the mosque streets a few blocks away, but still one can draw his own conclusions

In Antwerp there are already thirty-seven mosques and yet there are demands for big mega-mosques which have to be higher than any existing church or cathedral in each city. The same is true throughout other European cities such as Rotterdam with its six-story minarets, and also Köln, London, Vienna, etc.

There were still a few Flemish locals living in Borgerhout but they are all slowly moving away to other areas of Antwerp. Many of the people we encountered in the pub were pensioners, with very few if any young people. There were many youths of Islamic origin in the neighborhood, however.

After the pub we were picked up again by the bus and went first for a little gathering before the annual new year’s celebration of the Flemish Independence Party.

The new year’s celebration started with Filip Dewinter giving an excellent speech, followed by Heinz Christian Strache with an speech of equal quality. I estimate that there were 400 to 500 attendees; the place was packed. It was also the Flemish Independence Party’s 30th anniversary.

Filip Dewinter spoke about how we are stronger by being together in Europe and in creating alliances and working together with other popular parties throughout Europe.

Each attendee was offered his or her specially-printed symbolic “Identity Card of The Flemish Republic”. As many were made as could be printed out non-stop.

There had been much talk throughout the day and evening and there are some striking conclusions which all shared to various degrees.

Given the dogma of minds tutored by Political Correctness, it is ironic that the popular parties are the ones speaking out against the actual racism practiced against non-Islamic minorities. I was not surprised to see Asians, Jews and Blacks as members of Vlaams Belang at the party.

These other minorities want to be part of and take part in society, and not be treated as “victims” against their will. Their reactions are simply natural. In particular the Jewish community is suffering from the anti-Semitism no one dares speak about, which comes from people of Islamic background and from the radical left.

It was also not surprising that Robert Spencer’s The Politically Incorrect Guide To Islam was among the books on display and for sale to the attending members and invitees.

Another conclusion drawn by an untutored mind is to stand for democratic principles, freedom of expression, equality, just law, treatment based on merit, industriousness, free markets, patriotism, a separation of church and state, rational thinking, and the rule of law. What has become “right-wing” today is what was mainstream in the 1980s and considered common sense.

Someone also raised an important point, quoting the former SPD chancellor Helmut Schmidt that Multiculturalism can only exist in a totalitarian state such as the former Soviet Union.

The USSR consisted of various nations and ethnic minorities such as Mongols, Kaukas, Georgians, Chechens, etc. The Soviet carbon copies in Eastern Europe were all oppressed under the iron fist of Communism — Budapest 1956, Prague 1968, ethnic cleansings, gulags, labor camps, slave labor, mass executions, state-induced famines, the arrest of political dissidents, censorship, and collective thinking all wrapped in the “glory of Communism”. Marx’s paranoid and twisted universe created fascinating mind traps for naïve utopian intellectuals and “progressive movements” withdrawing their minds from the uncomfortable reality. Thinking and dealing with reality could only mean emancipation for many under such spells.

The twisted self-hating Marxoid mind of Noam Chomsky is such an example. How else could he be mentioned with praise in the latest Bin Laden speech?

The Popular parties all through Europe have grown in size. People have lost faith in both Labor and Conservatives after they rebuked the Pakistani-born bishop voicing the issue of “no-go zones”. They certainly can’t accuse him of any racism.

Gerard Batten, MEP for the United Kingdom Independence Party, is running for Mayor in London against the Grand Mufti of Multiculturalism, Ken Livingstone, in the upcoming elections.

In Switzerland the Popular party got 29% of the votes. In Denmark too the Popular party gained too in the latest elections.

One can speculate where it might lead if a popular party were to gain power in an election or join a coalition which is opposed to the EU and the supposedly scrapped constitution — which has now been signed as a treaty and is in fact 94% unchanged in content.

As the Czech President Vaclav Havel put it (as reported in the Brussels Journal):

When I look back at the last half a century, I see two different stages of the European integration process, with two different integration models. At the beginning the liberalization model prevailed. The first stage was characterized by inter-European opening-up, by the overall liberalization of human activities, by the removal of barriers at the borders of the countries as regards the movement of goods and services, of labor and capital, and of ideas and cultural patterns. Its main feature was the removal of barriers and the continuation of intergovernmentalism.

The second stage, which I call the harmonization model, is defined by centralization, regulation from above, harmonization of all kinds of ‘parameters’ of the political, economic and social system, standardization of conditions of production and consumption, homogenization of human life. Its main feature is unification orchestrated from above and the birth of supranationalism.

I am in favor of the first model, not of the second. I know, of course, that in reality we will always have the mixture of both models but the question is which one is the dominant one. There can be no doubt about where we are now. My position is clear. I am convinced that the unification of decision-making at the EU level and the overall harmonization of all kinds of societal “parameters” went farther than was necessary and more than is rational and economically advantageous.

Mr Klaus stressed that the nation-state “is an unsubstitutable guarantor of democracy (opposite to all kinds of ‘Reichs,’ empires and conglomerates of states).”

The Czechs are enjoying their new-found freedoms and obviously reject any such measures which remind them of the “previous regime”. Anything smelling of the thought-controlled Political Correctness is more easily rejected by the Czechs and other Eastern European states, knowing full well what suffering a totalitarian supranational power creates.

We should listen to them when they raise such concerns.

Keeping our own national identities is what is keeping us Europeans together because we share all our own rights, liberties, and democracies. We have our shared values, full stomachs, freedom of movement, freedom of expression, our own interests and curiosities and the freedoms taken for granted which we have forgotten to fight for. Democracy is an ongoing battle, as Churchill once said.

I came to the striking conclusion some time ago that the Flemish Independence Party and what they stand for is actually what is good and represents the core values for me and my own country of origin, Denmark, and so is an independent Flanders.

With a supranational state, and a totalitarian one in particular, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that it will spark a Balkanization down the road. It was no big deal when Czechoslovakia became the Czech Republic and Slovakia, to my general knowledge not a fly has been slapped in any negative way between the two states. But that division happened just after the fall of the Communist regimes and before the EU had beefed itself up to today’s measure and size with a mind-boggling bureaucracy and Eurocratic regulations, and with a lot more power.

Ironically the EU has promoted Belgium as a “model showcase for the EU”, merging Flemish and Walloons through a labyrinthine bureaucracy, the result of a long history of senseless paper-shuffling, with everything in three languages. Bear in mind that Belgium came into existence by accident in 1830, resulting in the birth of a handicapped child with a mixed set of Napoleonic and Dutch laws that often conflict or overlap, and… well, draw your own conclusions.

No wonder they have got close to a thousand different beers. One can only speculate as to what extent that fact has kept the country united, and not the bureaucracy. Belgians are a lovely bunch when left undisturbed by nonsense, like the rest of us basically; if people are left to pick and choose on full stomachs everything is sweet.

Without the long-lost “proletariat” the Socialists have to invent their own, and that has become the focus of the Socialist left’s policy. And so we have the artificially created “victim” status of a particular group of immigrants hating the West — which suits the Left’s frustration at no longer having the USSR as the glorious paradise and alternative to Capitalism ‘illuminating’ their ‘imaginations’ — with arguments against the evil USA and the little Satan, the Zionists.

To make people into non-thinking beings requires indoctrination in the notion of ‘Cultural Relativism’, one of the pillars of Multiculturalism and Politically Correct thinking. And to rationalize that all this is true, we then have to introduce Orwellian-style obscenities such as “All Numbers are Equal”, “Unequal Numbers are Unfair” and indirectly make everyone guilty on equal terms. That is one of the perverse strokes of genius inflicted by Political Correctness.

Firm believers in the dogma of Political Correctness prevent others from thinking, as well as avoiding thinking themselves.

As much as we Europeans are different as nations, we share even more. Among those things are our rights to be different; that is also what makes us Europeans and brings the shared richness, progress, innovation, the evolution and greatness of Western Civilization.

Recent history from the last century shows that totalitarianism and supranationalism have always resulted in one disaster or another. With just a moment of reflection, even to the untutored mind it becomes all too clear: if we do not break the chains of illusions and utopian fantasies, we are heading down the fast lane of a new form of totalitarianism. It is not without reason that the EU is sometimes referred to as the EUSSR.

The EU has outdone itself over the years with free trade, open markets, and liberties which helped create prosperity for citizens and businesses. But it has emerged as a supranational power ran by a huge number of unelected Eurocrats and through regulations cloaked with doublespeak and lacking in transparency. It is now moving towards dictating a common foreign policy on behalf of the member states, and with the record of the EU such a notion is anything but reassuring.

Opposing certain ideologies is no longer acceptable, and the only remaining xenophobia allowed is anti-Americanism. It is acceptable to say that Americans are fat and obese with no culture and stupid, and when doing so one will receive loud applause from the lefties. Try to apply the same to the Chinese or the Eskimos, and the Politically Correct Brigade’s scream would be loud and long.

Political Correctness is responsible for paralyzing man into fear, apathy and submission — the chains of tyranny — which again serves the purpose of the totalitarian state, with group-think and collectivist principles immediately shutting down any opposition.

As Heinz Christian Strache said in his speech “‘Wann die verträder — Sind die verräder!” (“When the representative becomes the traitor!”)

We have seen it before.

Thus Political Correctness and the ideologies which produced Political Correctness and benefit from it are the main issues to combat. Such Political Correctness is being against ourselves and — boiled down to two things — being against freedom of expression and freedom of thought.

A defense of freedom of expression and freedom of thought is desperately needed in opposing Islamization and preserving our democratic values, our long fought for freedoms, our wonderful cultures, and Western Civilization.

This post is the latest in a series from our Bangkok correspondent, H. Numan.

From The Bangkok Post:

Southern War Room

Officials charged with battling the insurgency in the deep South said on Saturday they intend to strengthen the paramilitary forces in the region to face an upsurge of violence by the militants.

A “war room” will be established and the number of defence volunteers at each village — paramilitary forces commonly known as rangers — will be increased, explained Pranai Suwannarat, director of the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Center (SBPAC)

The latest “adjustment” in tactics follows several brutal attacks on military patrols this past week, including an ambush in which Islamic militants bombed an army Humvee, then killed and tried to behead all eight soldiers in the vehicle. [emphasis added]

– – – – – – – – –

Speaking to journalists after conferences involving more than 50 senior officials including the Narathiwat province governor, Mr Pranai said the discussions centered on establishing the war room to better coordinate the fight against separatists.

The number of village peacekeepers will be increased by five at each village and defence volunteers will patrol all 110 villages in the province, said Mr Pranai.

At least 25 suspected rebels and helpers have been rounded up and detained in the past three days, and hundreds of others were arrested in the last half of 2007.

Mr Pranai said the authorities would also have to speed up their investigations of suspect informers and sympathisers who might be passing information on to the separatists.

He said immediate arrests must be made of suspects involved in a major espionage ring that has been found inside government military and police units, and known to have leaked information to the violent gangs seeking to terrorise and dominate the deep South.

Ten Muslim policemen and soldiers were arrested a week ago for allegedly supplying intelligence to the shadowy underground fighting groups.

Another group of six captured militants guerrillas also embarrassed the government when they escaped from a police lockup in the province and disappeared with alarming ease.

Please note that line: “..and tried to behead all eight soldiers in the vehicle”. Terror is far more terrifying if you can make it more visual. Eight dead soldiers isn’t exactly new there. Eight soldiers without their heads isn’t new either, but far more impressive. Trust my words: you do not want to see the photos. You really don’t.

One of the reasons the insurgency has lasted this long is the semi-religious character of it. The south is mainly Muslim. All non-Muslims are relatively recent Thai or Chinese migrants. Relatively, as many had lived there already for generations. But Muslims everywhere live in their own private little world. “We, the good guys” against “them, the infidels”. Don’t forget that the house of peace (Islam, what else) and the house of war (the rest of the world) principle is valid for every Muslim. It is being practiced, too. Hence the easy escape.

This was Bangkok reporting,
H. Numan.

Geert Wilders has made it into the American MSM. In an interview with Fox News, he had many interesting things to say about his views on Islam and his upcoming movie.

Some excerpts from the Fox article:

A Dutch politician known for his views against Islam plans to air a film he produced that is critical of the Koran, which he likens to Adolf Hitler’s hateful writings.

Parliamentarian Geert Wilders spoke to FOX News about the documentary, insisting the Muslim holy book is dangerous and should be banned.

“I believe the Koran is, indeed, ‘Mein Kampf.’ They are the same package,” Wilders said. “I believe that our culture is far better than the retarded Islamic culture.”

Wilders has around-the-clock guards protecting his life, and Dutch television is staying as far from the movie as possible. Wilders said he will release the film one way or the other, even if he has to post it on the Internet.

A number of people have said that the Netherlands is not like Denmark, so it will be interesting to see whether Mr. Wilders’ countrymen fall in behind him or shun him for his opinions.

The government, of course, is worried:
– – – – – – – – –
Dutch authorities are worried about the 10-minute movie being shown, and for good reason:

Two years ago, outspoken filmmaker Theo van Gogh was shot, stabbed and nearly decapitated in Amsterdam over his film “Submission,” which portrayed abuse against women in the name of Islam.

[…]

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, head of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, promised widespread protests and a review of Iran’s relationship with the Netherlands if Wilders’ work is shown.

“If Holland will allow the broadcast of this movie, the Iranian parliament will request to reconsider our relationship with it,” Boroujerdi said, according to IRNA, the official Iranian news agency. “In Iran, insulting Islam is a very sensitive matter and if the movie is broadcasted it will arouse a wave of popular hate that will be directed towards any government that insults Islam.

One assumes that Iran is promising not just the Salman Rushdie treatment, but the full burning-cars-and-embassies intifada like the one provoked by the Motoons.

But Mr. Wilders will not be deterred:

Wilders calls his film “a call to shake off the creeping tyranny of Islamicization” and said it could air as early as this week on Dutch television.

“People who watch the movie will see that the Koran is very much alive today, leading to the destruction of everything we in the Western world stand for, which is respect and tolerance,” Wilders, the 41-year-old leader of the right-wing Party for Freedom, said last month in a telephone interview with FOXNews.com.

“The tsunami of Islamicization is coming to Europe. We should come to be far stronger.”

[…]

Five months ago, he called for the Koran to be outlawed in the Netherlands.

“I believe our culture is much better than the retarded Islamic cultures,” he told FOXNews.com. “Ninety-nine percent of the intolerance in the world comes back to the Islamic religion and the Koran.”

Notice that the Dutch government blames Geert Wilders if the Muslims get mad enough at him to do their usual number:

The Dutch government has publicly warned him about the potential for violence at the completion of his film and has expressed concern over his personal safety and expressed concerned about peace within the country and interests abroad.

And some fine words from the prime minister:

Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said the Netherlands is ready to act quickly if the film causes unrest.

“The government will not tolerate such a situation. We are engaged in combating extremism and terrorism. We are working to right wrongs. We champion the cause of both freedom and respect. These are principles we will always defend. This country enjoys a long tradition of freedom of expression, religion and belief.”

Fasten your seat belts, Europe. The next few weeks may prove to be a pretty wild ride.

Ridicule is an important weapon in Western culture, and has been used to good effect on one’s adversaries for hundreds of years. In the last few years, a number of people have decided have decided that the best way to get Islamists back to reality is to make fun of them.

Unfortunately, the rigidity of the fundamentalist Muslims does not allow for satire or ridicule. Which is too bad, because it would mature and strengthen their beliefs to be able to laugh at themselves. And it would make them more resilient.

As a young (and devout) Catholic, I thought Tom Lehrer was hilarious. Still do…his work has worn well for young people who have a large sense of the ridiculous. Remember “The Vatican Rag?”

First you get down on your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!
Do whatever steps you want, if
You have cleared them with the Pontiff.
Everybody say his own
Kyrie eleison,
Doin’ the Vatican Rag.

Get in line in that processional,
Step into that small confessional,
There, the guy who’s got religion’ll
Tell you if your sin’s original.
If it is, try playing it safer,
Drink the wine and chew the wafer,
Two, four, six, eight,
Time to transubstantiate!
So get down upon your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!…

Notice that this little ditty did not bring on a case of the Vatican Rage. In fact, our parish priest thought it was a hoot.

That’s not been my experience with the Islamists, which seems to demand that all criticism, ridicule and satire be ruled off the turf. The average Muslim in America probably shrugs, but then they’re not out in the street setting cars on fire.

The original Motoons that played in Denmark, and engulfed parts of Pakistan with a carefully orchestrated conflagration has continued running as a theme for people who want to express their concern and irritation towards what they see as a perpetual grievance that Islam be exempt from say, a satirical song-writer who just might come up with some song like “Dancing at the Mosque on Friday Night.”

No one has done that (as yet), but the satires continue.

Here is a new one – edible this time:

A new, cutting-edge, political TV show will challenge Islam with biting humor tomorrow night, placing the face of the prophet Muhammad onto a cookie and then having it eaten on camera.

“We’re going to take a stand and say Muhammad’s face is delicious,” said Molotov Mitchell, the 28-year-old incendiary creator and host of “Flamethrower,” a program described as a low-budget, gritty cross between the “The Daily Show,” “The Colbert Report,” and “The View” if Ann Coulter were the producer. “This is religious and culinary history in the making.”

– – – – – – – – –

The theme of this week’s episode is “All Things Islam,” as panelists take on the faith of Muslims in a no-holds-barred fashion.

“Islam is not even a religion,” Mitchell told WND from a location somewhere in Eastern North Carolina. “It’s an ideology of ‘might makes right’ disguised as a religion. We’re going to show that Allah was with us when we baked this cookie and ate it. Deal with

it!”

[I disagree. It is indeed a religion. Some of the ways it has manifested are not healthy or holy, but it in, nonetheless, a religion…among other things that it is]

Mitchell and his fellow panelists – all of whom are Christians in their 20s and whom he calls the next generation of conservatism – are trying to make the point that America is still a free country, and there’s no need to cower in fear from Islamo-fascism. He laments the frequency of Islamic suicide bombings, giving a new twist to a famous line from “It’s a Wonderful Life,” by stating, “Every time a bell rings, a Muhammad gets his wives.”

One Muslim had this to say:

I’m not going to be hurt and insulted. I’m going to ask people to ignore this,” said Iftekhar Hai, president of United Muslims of America Interfaith Alliance in South San Francisco. “They would dare not do it to any Jewish person, saying ‘the Jews killed Jesus.’ The Jewish lobby would slaughter the Christians if they did that.”

“I don’t think this is part of the American character,” Hai added, “but it has become part of the American tradition to only pick on Muslims.”

“The Jewish lobby” would do what??? You are smoking what???

And yes, it certainly is a part of the American character to make fun of others. If this man is an American Muslim, it would behoove him to read a little American history.

Lord love a duck. No matter the issue, it’s always about Muslim sensitivity. “I’m not going to be aggrieved by this, though I do notice you don’t pick on anyone but us.” Sniff…

Hat tip: TB