Twelve years after the events of September 11, 2001, Fjordman has some personal reflections on that awful day and all that has occurred since.
If you appreciate this essay by Fjordman, please consider making a donation to him, using the button at the bottom of this post.
9/11, Twelve Years On
by Fjordman
It’s been twelve years since September 11, 2001, when a group of Arab Muslim Jihadist terrorists murdered thousands of unarmed civilians on American soil. A lot has happened since then. Perhaps the single most positive development is that millions of ordinary people in Europe and the Western world are waking up. Many are now a lot more aware of the Islamic threat than they were in 2001.
The single most negative development is that this has so far not changed the outlook and policies of Western governments, other than in mostly cosmetic ways. The divide between the common people who cherish their nation and culture and the ruling elites who want open borders no matter the cost is growing wider throughout the Western world. It is threatening to become a chasm.
Mass immigration, including Muslim immigration, continues at breakneck speed. The attitude of the ruling elites and Western mass media towards everything Islamic is as suicidal as ever. If anything, fear and self-censorship concerning issues related to Islam and Islamization are more widespread now than they was just a few years ago.
I’ve been told that I am more “radical” now than I was a decade ago. Others may judge whether this is the case, but if there is any truth to it, it is only because I respond to real-life events.
Now that my true identity is known, I can report that on September 11 2001 I was living in Egypt as a student of Arabic language at the American University in Cairo. I was never more than mediocre in Arabic, and my Arabic skills are now quite weak, since I haven’t practiced that language for years. Yet I still learned a lot about the local attitudes, culture and religion from living in the Middle East.
It is simplistic to suggest that is was a single event than turned me against Islam. After exposure to Arabic-Islamic culture, both through living there and through my studies, I was already growing more skeptical of Islam before September 2001. There were probably several dozen separate events plus self-studies that made me grow even more skeptical over the next few years. I also learned a lot from working in the Palestinian territories and spending some time in Israel. But 9/11 certainly accelerated something that was already underway in my mind. Living in the biggest city in the Arabic-speaking world at that moment was an eye-opener.
As I’ve stated in the past, what shocked me the most was not that quite a few of the local Arabs (though by no means all) were openly happy about the attacks. I already knew that there is a lot of anti-Western hatred among Muslims in many countries. What shocked me the most was the extent to which Western mass media tried to downplay or hide this simple fact. This wasn’t just true of a single newspaper or a single country, but represented a wider trend throughout the Western world.
I was left with the impression that we might be able to handle the Islamic threat and other threats in relatively civilized ways if most people were only presented a truthful and unpolished version of reality by our media. Yet far too often this is not the case. I became convinced that the bias of our own mass media and the dysfunctional Globalist and Multicultural ideology of Western ruling elites are our main problems, and this conviction has only been strengthened since then.
It’s disturbing that more than a decade later the Western ruling elites seem utterly incapable of learning form their own mistakes. Western military intervention and attempts to spread “democracy” in Iraq have cost a lot of Western blood and money. The main result of this has been the ethnic cleansing of local Christians and other non-Muslims, infighting between various groups of Muslims, and a never-ending flow of refugees to Europe and North America.
Whether in Iraq, Libya, Egypt or Syria, Western governments seem always to support radical forces and champion the ethnic cleansing of Christians. And on every such occasion, Western intervention triggers a flood of mainly Muslim refugees to Europe and North America that the same Western elites tell us we must let into our countries. In essence, the Western ruling elites are supporting the Islamization of both the Middle East and Europe. Whether this is done by design or just by plain stupidity and ideological blindness is hard to determine, but this is nevertheless the actual result.
Some of us were unenthusiastic about the so-called “Arab Spring” from the very beginning. As usual, we have been proven right. Also as usual, we get little credit for our foresight. Instead, we hear accusations that we are “Islamophobic extremists” from the very same people who have been wrong time and again.
In 2011, when President Obama and his administration betrayed President Hosni Mubarak and supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the US Government openly stabbed a loyal ally in the back and promoted sworn enemies of the USA. Who wants to be allied with a country that punishes its friends and rewards it enemies? This is basic human psychology at kindergarten level, yet even that seems to be too much for the Western elites these days.
Predictably enough, two years later the Obama Administration is almost universally despised by all groups in Egypt, from the Coptic Christians who are now being persecuted, through the secularists to hard-line Muslims who will always hate the “Great Satan.”
Having lived in Egypt myself for a while, I would maintain that Hosni Mubarak was probably the best ruler that one could realistically hope for in a country such as Egypt. Yes, he was probably corrupt, but so is virtually any Middle Eastern leader. He was also a dictator, but he was a secular dictator who was not personally sadistic or cruel by regional standards. He kept the peace with neighbors such as Israel. He held the most radical Muslims in check, provided at least some degree of security for the local Christians and maintained a minimum of economic stability for the general population. In a place like Egypt, with a growing population and many radical Muslims, it is hard to achieve much more than that.
In the case of Mubarak vs. the Muslim Brotherhood, the choice should therefore have been easy. It was more difficult in the case of the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. He was a cruel man who did sponsor Jihadist terrorism, but he had ironically largely stopped doing this when Western governments decided to support his overthrow.
The same thing can be said of Bashar al-Assad, the President of Syria. I don’t particularly like him. Hardly anyone does. His ties to organizations such as the Iranian-backed terror group Hezbollah are well-known. Nevertheless, some of the alternatives are even worse. It is known that many of the so-called opposition groups in Syria are militants Jihadists. Some of them have ties to the terrorist network al-Qaida. Even certain Western media outlets have reported this, as well as the fact that the CIA and other Western agencies have supported these rebel forces with arms.
I have been accused of being a professional pessimist. Yet, looking back, I have to admit that even I continue to be amazed by the sheer stupidity and ideological madness of the Western ruling class.
Twelve years after 9/11, the USA has a pro-Islamic President who supports the Muslim Brotherhood. That’s more than bad enough. What’s worse is this: On September 11 2001, Jihadists from the al-Qaida terror network hit the US mainland and killed thousands of people. On September 11 2013, groups with al-Qaida ties receive backing and even arms from Western authorities in countries like Syria.
What has twelve years of the “War on Terror” actually brought, apart from some extremely costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have achieved very little? The few remaining Christians in the Middle East are rapidly being wiped out.
Muslim immigration to Europe and North America continues as before. The pro-Islamic President of the USA promotes the Muslim Brotherhood and similar groups. And Western governments intervene on behalf of al-Qaida-infiltrated forces in Syria.
Twelve years after 9/11, al-Qaida have become our allies. Western governments provide them with support, even with guns. That is an outcome that I could not have imagined as I watched the TV images in Cairo in 2001, yet this is now the reality.
The simple fact is that the War on Terror cannot be won because it was waged against the wrong enemy. You cannot wage a war against terrorism, which is merely a tool. This is a war against Jihad, sharia and Islamic expansionism. There is no point in trying to promote “democracy” in the Middle East.
We should instead try to prevent the spread of Jihad and Islamic sharia laws to the Western world. Until the Western ruling elites can be forced to realize this, we will continue to lose, and the Islamization of the West will continue.
For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.
Spirals and cycles of history? Incompetent psychopaths in the hall; enraged and disoriented huddled masses who won’t have more of it in the streets; embittered religious fanatics with an ax to grind at the gate, oh no, within the walls now. It’s blowback time for America.
And if my memory serves, Europe was sort of united during the Carolingian dynasty. The Vikings saved the day then, but they seem in short supply now.
Your reference to the Vikings reminds me of the motorcyclists that are riding en masse today in Washington, DC. Also that some citizens in France and UK have appealed to the local motorcycle clubs for protection from young Muslims that prey on them. If we have to depend on motorcyclists to save our civilization then they certainly are in short supply.
Perhaps not in short supply based on the number of motorcyclists in Washington DC today.
The Vikings were heathen. They struck at Europe at roughly the same time that Islam overran Spain and besieged Constantinople.
The Frank and Saxon Christians saved Christendom. They beat back the Arabs then plunged into Germany to convert the German tribes to Christianity and then did the same with the Vikings a bit later. Once they had converted the Scandinavians they gathered a host and re-took Jerusalem, Edessa, Antioch, Tyre, Acre…
“The Vikings saved the day then, but they seem in short supply now.”
The Vikings died 1000 years ago. Their descendants refuse to fight in self defense, let alone conquest.
Just goes to show something or other…maybe that valor isn’t hereditary?
I learned from Emmett Scott that the Vikings did a brisk slave trade with the Arab pirates for a long time. Arabs loved those Russians (whatever they were called then). They were strong and beautiful and Vikings could subdue them.
Unfortunately for the Arabs, they did not breed with the slaves and thereby improve their DNA. The Vikings did, as Iceland ‘s DNA has demonstrated.
For that matter, the group that would eventually become known as Kurds intermingled with the Jews during The Exile and the latter left DNA behind that clearly distinguishes the Kurds today – e.g., their Peshmerga, their indomitable spirit.
Saddam Hussein’s al-Anfal genocide via chemical warfare left horrible scars on the Kurds’ cultural psyche, but they prevail yet.
With all the ruination we’ve managed to visit on MENA, one small bright spot *may* be the creation of a Kurdish state. I think the Brits and French were afraid to give them their own country but I haven’t read enough about the period after WWI when they were creating all these countries out of whole cloth. Or whole sand.
Does anyone have titles to suggest?
Excellent. Thank you.
Pingback: Never Forget. Never Surrender » Pirate's Cove
Quote:
Twelve years after 9/11, al-Qaida have become our allies.
end
Along with the Muslim Brotherhood.
How little we read the Bible nowadays! See Psalm 50 for the true character of our so-called allies.
The elites have a plan, but it is not a plan to preserve Western Civilization. Their goal is the establishment of a system of Global Socialism, a system of totalitarian subjugation even more intrusive and horrific than Sharia.
I would disagree that it’s about “Global socialism”. It seems to me that we are more in an age of Global Capitalism. But even that’s not the answer. The true elitists, the International Corporate Executives and the Internationalist Bankers eschew any particular ideology and are pragmatists. as long as they are in economic control, they could care less what political system or ideologues are in power. This is beginning to backfire on them though as they begin to understand that the Muslim Supremacists are deadly serious about being in total control of ‘Muslim’ countries and are not going to be controlled by THEM.
“The true elitists, the International Corporate Executives and the Internationalist Bankers eschew any particular ideology and are pragmatists. as long as they are in economic control”.
The ideological justification varies, as do the outward forms, but socialism is control over the means of life, both to earn and to spend. The alternative, as I occasionally point out, is not capitalism but the free market, in which control over the economy is distributed such that each person has the primary control over themselves and the fruits of their own efforts (whether labor or innovation) and only as much influence over others as voluntary cooperation permits.
Capitalism is nothing more (or less) than the promotion of investment at a good rate of return as the most desirable use of wealth. It is “opposed” (or balanced) against Consumerism and Conservationism, the other two possible uses of wealth. Consumerism asserts that wealth exists to be consumed, while Conservationism asserts that wealth exists to be preserved. An economy based on consumption of wealth is unsustainable, it cannot ever generate wealth to replace what is consumed. An economy based on preservation will last much longer, but will in the end succumb to changes in the environment or the human tendency towards consumption. Thus capitalization must always predominate a sustainable economy, so that there can be enough creation of new wealth through prudent investment of existing wealth to support the inevitable consumption attendant on human existence.
In a healthy economy, all three uses of wealth are present. Consumption is necessary to human existence, and is the ultimate point of wealth, as usefulness in the satisfaction of human desires to consume is the only measure by which we can initially meaningfully categorize anything as constituting wealth. Capitalization is measured by return on investment, but we can only calculate the wealth invested (and that returned) based on the satisfactions of consuming it. Conservationism is not absolutely necessary in theory, but in practice it allows us to save wealth for later consumption or investment, which is vital to allowing an economy to weather changing conditions, such as seasonal variations or catastrophic upheavals (social or environmental).
The free market does not dictate which activities a given person should pursue with their own wealth. It does tend to accrue wealth to the capitalists, who prioritize investing their wealth, and it essentially requires some capitalization on the part of all economically independent actors as they will otherwise consume all their wealth (investing the particular wealth that constitutes time and effort is in principle no different from investing wealth that exists outside of one’s own person, as long as the wealth is the lawful property of the investor). But the free market does not dictate that investment at a good return is the only valid economic activity, for most it will simply be a means to their other ends.
Because there is no centralized control of a free market economy, it is the absolute nemesis of anyone who wants such control. Any form of socialism, regardless of ideological premise, affords the chance for the elitist to take it over. One ideological basis or another might be more welcoming to a particular elitist, but they are all “esteemed as the potter’s clay”.
Elite is the label we attach to the group that’s in charge. And whatever the socio-political-economic model society follows/adopts, at its head is an elite.
But ‘elite’ isn’t the problem.
We need an elite – but one that has as its primary focus the development progress and health of Western culture. The economic system is of secondary importance – and under such an elite it would naturally work to complement the primary focus.
The virtue of the free market is that it is very meritocratic in the way that it allows capitalists to rise to control of great wealth, which they tend to both consume and invest with more prudence than would be the case for those who gain control of wealth through other means.
Elitism, as I term it, is the idea that there is some special category of person to whom different rules should be applied than are applied to the common folk (who are not taken to be as valuable or trustworthy). It is in this sense that I would vigorously dispute the notion that there will always be an elite in any society regardless of the model. Both the free market and the rule of law demand that everyone be subject to all the common rules, regardless of wealth or social status. And while it may be said that individual instances of misbehavior occur, once there is a systematic distinction between the rules that apply to the great and those that apply to everyone else, you cannot in principle claim to have a free market or the rule of law.
I agree.
But to defend capitalism we must also attack the current fetish for equality. Human beings have never been equal; absent forced genetic engineering, human beings never will be equal. Equality certainly can’t be legislated into existence. Equality of opportunity is a noble goal which also produces favorable practical results; equality of outcome is an invidious delusion which can only be imposed by tyranny.
There is a Greek or Roman myth I was taught as a child. A god of money wanted to give humanity the gift of wealth. Zeus, already angry that humans had stolen fire from the gods, decided to sabotage the wealth-god’s plans. How did he do it? Zeus blinded the wealth god so that his money would be distributed randomly!
Capitalism is imperfect, but even in its flawed state, it does a better job than other systems in distributing assets into the most capable hands. Let’s be more vigilant in preventing and punishing predatory money-making schemes, but let’s honor and celebrate those who create real value and transformative advances.
The current idea of equality, particularly of equal distribution of wealth, is certainly a fixed enemy of both the free market and of personal responsibility for individual actions.
The free market rewards those who engage in productive activity with greater wealth while leaving each person free to choose what activities they will undertake. The principle of personal responsibility for individual actions is that your outcomes depend on your own actions. As long as there is variation in the actual choices and actions of individuals (and it is hard to imagine how human freedom could still be said to exist if there were not), there will necessarily be divergence in how people fare.
The old idea of equality found in the founding principles of America was of equality before the law, equality of inalienable rights. Whatever your wealth or rank, you were held to account according to the same law as everyone else, the same actions were prohibited or rewarded according to the same standards. If you had a billion dollars or only two, you would still be able to buy or sell at the same market prices.
One essential aspect of freedom that is often overlooked is the importance of accurate information about the consequences of a given course of action. In a truly free market, there are no “predatory” money-making schemes because all parties to a transaction have the same information about the outcome of the deal. If I trade you my surplus apples for your surplus oranges, we both know how many apples and oranges are changing hands, or the deal isn’t really entered into “freely” by both of us.
Most of the problems with the free market are currently problems of unequal access to information. And these problems seem to be getting much worse rather than being corrected. One particularly adverse trend is the use of data-mining to direct personalized ads at people who are estimated to be susceptible to particular deceptions. The trend in political advertisements is particularly alarming because it is so visible, but I have no doubt that targeted product advertisements are just as deceptive even if the stakes are generally smaller.
Sadly, it is probable that this problem will be solved by historical economic catastrophe rather than prudent attention to anti-fraud laws.
“This is beginning to backfire on them though as they begin to understand that the Muslim Supremacists are deadly serious about being in total control of ‘Muslim’ countries and are not going to be controlled by THEM.”
Those with power see the Muslim supremacists exactly for what they are and are not the least bit worried about them. Bug. Squish. Anytime they want. But they don’t want to just yet.
Actually, they are probably a good bit more worried about whether they will be able to squish the common people of the Western nations so easily. It seems likely they would prefer to catch everyone under the same boot, so to speak.
“Whether this is done by design or just by plain stupidity and ideological blindness is hard to determine, but this is nevertheless the actual result.” – Exactly. Excellent essay.
“Whether in Iraq, Libya, Egypt or Syria, Western governments seem always to support radical forces and champion the ethnic cleansing of Christians. And on every such occasion, Western intervention triggers a flood of mainly Muslim refugees to Europe and North America that the same Western elites tell us we must let into our countries. In essence, the Western ruling elites are supporting the Islamization of both the Middle East and Europe. Whether this is done by design or just by plain stupidity and ideological blindness is hard to determine, but this is nevertheless the actual result.”
Yes – in a nutshell. Who knows why they are doing what they are doing, but the fact is it’s killing us.
Lots of good points in this article. One of the best, according to me, is this insight: ‘In essence, the Western ruling elites are supporting the Islamization of both the Middle East and Europe.’ Another: ‘Twelve years after 9/11, al-Qaida have become our allies.’ So true, so true. We are ruled by people who are criminally insane. I don’t mean ‘too insane to face a court’, but given their position, their insanity is by default criminal.
“…the War on Terror cannot be won because it was waged against the wrong enemy”. The West is waging its War on Terror in the Middle East against the Christians, any Muslims that say NO to the 7th century, and to modernizing trends in the region. The West is waging war on anything in the region that looks like its inheritance, i.e., Orthodox Christians that look much too Christians, and Muslims that want to be among the modern in spite of their religion. Western support for the Muslim Brotherhood shows its true design on the region.
The West is at war with itself. This war will continue to come back to its center, like it did with Rome, and be part of the continued deconstruction of the West. This is part of the mega trend our civilization is in, the shift of world power from West to East.
The root of the problem we face is that too many Western elites are ashamed of their forebears for having created the most advanced and humane civilization in history. Or maybe they’re secretly envious of their forebears for what they accomplished. The malignant determination to tear apart that civilization from within may someday be recognized as the greatest avoidable tragedy of human history.
Pingback: FJORDMAN: 9/11, TWELVE YEARS ON……. |
Pingback: Fjordman: 9/11, Twelve Years On « Snaphanen
Shortly after 9/11, people from the State Department were saying we needed to import more Muslims, the better to “understand” them. “Understand” in this context translates into “figure out what’s making them mad at us and then stop doing it.” Rarely does it mean “figure out what they actually believe and what their real agenda is.”
There’s a kind of condescension behind the reflexive Western “outreach” to Muslims and the constant apologies for Islam. The tacit assumption is that Muslims cannot really be responsible for the chaos they cause; they cannot be free agents; they must be reacting to whatever we in the enlightened, powerful West are doing to them. Therefore, any bad act by Muslims in the name of Islam must be followed by more coddling of Muslims, more apologies for Islam, which very very unfortunately is being cast in a bad light by a few people who react inappropriately to grievances, or are rendered hopeless by poverty, or have not been sufficiently welcomed and assisted in the Islamophobic societies they fled to.
People may have different reasons for not acknowledging the obvious, but it all adds up to trouble.
Fjordman also succumbs to political correctness:
> We should instead try to prevent the spread of Jihad and Islamic sharia laws to the Western world.
Why not generalize and say that we want to prevent the spread not of Islamism and Sharia but of _Islam_ itself to the Western world?
As Erdogan said, “There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”
Isnt the invention of the fake notion that there is something called Islamism that is fundamentally different than Islam the root of the whole problem? Like the IRA and Sinn Fein, they are just two wings of the same organisation, while the split exists solely to protect the political wing from the consequences of the actions of the militant wing. In the end, they breath, live, kill and die for the exactly same cause.
The core teachings of the religion are the problem. The founder of the religion is the problem. While we do not want to admit that we are at war with the whole of Islam, Islam as a whole is at war with us. Islam has been at perpetual war with basically everybody else since the very first surah uttered by their warlord prophet. If Genghis Khan or Adolf Hitler had ever founded a religion, it would be indistinguishable from Islam.
I agree. A fashionable term that has developed as a way to be more sophisticated than us brute simpletons is “Political Islam”, as though the political in Islam can be surgically removed. That would be like trying to take out all the veins and arteries of a living being. The sophisticated analysts may have sophisticated écorché models in their mind, along with all their taxonomic charts by which to adumbrate all the “variations” in Islam and among Muslims, but in the context of our #1 priority, protecting our societies from an unprecedented mass infiltration of a fanatical and old enemy, such speculations become morbidly meticulous (if not downright reckless).
I’m still waiting for an analyst to say, “Islam is an evil and deadly Monolith, and all Muslims enable it. Now let’s get on to more important things — like what do we do about it…?”
But I suppose another 911 years, and who knows how many 911s, will have to transpire before we move out of our ethical and intellectual comfort zone about this protracted catastrophe.
The person in the WH wears a ring that says “There is no god but allah.” We have no proof of who he is and who is making decisions. He closes the WH to the public (no more tours, due to money troubles) while he opens it to thugs of all types.
And still some people follow him. It is good to see the slow peeling away, tho’….if only congress was not filled with reprobates who care more for their bank accounts than their country.
I fear we started importing Islam decades before 9/11. By that date it already had infiltrated our government agencies and foreign service, universities, K – 12 educational policy makers, banking system, media, social service agencies and religious communities — although, quietly. Sometime in the late ’80s, the amount of dollars invested on behalf of Islam/Wahhabists and the number of people from Islamic countries inhabiting the U.S. became startling. Now it’s dangerous.
Fjordman’s commentary and analysis is, as always, excellent. The following extract put me in mind of my own paradigm altering experience of the MSM:
“As I’ve stated in the past, what shocked me the most was not that quite a few of the local Arabs (though by no means all) were openly happy about the attacks. I already knew that there is a lot of anti-Western hatred among Muslims in many countries. What shocked me the most was the extent to which Western mass media tried to downplay or hide this simple fact. This wasn’t just true of a single newspaper or a single country, but represented a wider trend throughout the Western world.”
I arrived home around 4.30pm on the day the 9/11 attacks were broadcast in Australia and “channel-surfed” for news.
By way of background in Sydney, Australia, we have five free-to-air TV channels: three “commercial”, ie privately owned, and two taxpayer funded: the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, “ABC”, which slavishly copies its mentor, the BBC, to a cringeworthy degree; and the Special Broadcasting Service, “SBS”, which was founded to satisfy the needs of ethnic minorities and has evolved into a second ABC in terms of editorial/ideological positioning.
I was stunned to see, on one commercial channel, late that afternoon, celebrations of 9/11 in Palestinian “refugee camps”: children gleefully hooting and scampering about as if their parents had just won the lottery, grinning adult men either handing out sweets to children or firing off rounds in the air, women ululating ecstatically. I’d never witnessed such public abandon and delerious happiness. I was shocked.
As I spent the next few hours surfing the news coverage of 9/11 I noted two things: no other channel broadcast that disturbing footage from Gaza and the West Bank. I didn’t expect the ABC or SBS to, but the two other commercial channels didn’t run it. The most disturbing aspect, however, was the channel that originally broadcast it NEVER repeated it: my wife had missed it the first time around and so we stayed up until 10.30pm so she could see it for herself. The inexorable conclusion was that the footage was, after being aired once, deemed “inappropriate” by the network management once it came to their attention – there is no government censorship – and thus was not broadcast a second time.
I did not need 2001 for my personal opinion of the pedofileworshiping warmongers !
people I know have been raped, robbed, assaulted etc
All by muslims. Black and brown !
This is in the sinking ship of Sweden !
I never wanted any experience of the cult islam or the constant suffering these hateful warmonging cultmembers . Therefore I never wanted or ever will go to any muslim country.
But the political elite have forced this down our throots and Sweden is becoming a islamic state within EU !
Christian and jewish white people are now a minority in Malmö !
Leave the cultmembers carry on with the 1500 years of warefare and terrorism . But were evolution and God meant them to live. They can carry on taking their own peoples lifes and destroy any infrastructure they want . In their homelands !
I have heard of Fjordman and this is the first article i have read.
And it will not be the last.
Thank You Fjordman , and carry on .
Well done !
I’m sorry to hear of your personal struggles and I just wanted to let you know that I’ve been reading fjord man for years. I found him by accident browsing the web and have learned so much. I actively encourage you to check out more of his posts. I’m from America myself but am moving to Europe soon and his information I consider to be invaluable. I hope you will return to this site and not be afraid to have pride in your people and learn why Europeans are special and their civilization worth fighting for.
Pingback: News links for Sept. 12 2013 – 2 | Vlad Tepes
Pingback: Fjordman: 9/11, twaalf jaar later | E.J. Bron
Another excellent article from Fjordman!
Here in Australia we watch with dismay the Islamification of Europe due to the horrible policies of the European Union’s political leaders, knowing that we are perhaps only a decade or so behind. Luckily for us, we are separated from Indonesia, a densely populated Muslim country, by a rather treacherous sea, and are far more distant from the Middle East than Europe. Unfortunately, it’s not treacherous enough, and we do get many thousands of Islamic asylum seekers each year.
As in Europe, our Muslims are also reluctant to integrate. They have been thoroughly indoctrinated from a very early age of the truth of Islam – that we Christians and Jews are no better than rats, pigs and dogs, and surely face the fires of hell when we die. It is understandable therefore why they don’t want their children to stray from the path of Islam, and perhaps lose their faith. They know that life in Australia is infinitely preferable to the life in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but in their ignorance, do not realize that the main reason life is preferable here is mainly due to the absence of Islam.
What to do? I believe that the kindest action that we could take would be to outlaw Islam here. These asylum seekers are mainly fleeing the plague of Islam, quite frankly the worst plague in mankind’s history, responsible perhaps of over a billion violent deaths over the last fourteen hundred years. Japan would not accept them. Saudi Arabia will not allow Christianity to get a foothold in their god-awful country.
As Fjordman says, we are ruled by traitors.
Fjordman, sadly, is spot on. We in the West (at least our leaders) cannot admit who the real enemy is. The common folks are already fed up, but the madness with our immigration policies continues, both in Europe and N America. Immigration (my wife is an immigrant) should be a good thing, but if you don’t control it, it starts to control you when the wrong immigrants keep pouring in.