Actually, my headline is not entirely accurate. The Somali government isn’t just appealing to the Russians for help, but also to the Americans, the EU, Tuvalu, and presumably the good citizens of Bismarck, North Dakota — to anyone who can help get rid of those pesky pirates off the coast of Somalia.

The Somali “government” is a joke — how can there be a government of an utterly failed state?

If we lived in the real world, instead of a Postmodern Multicultural Fantasy Theme Park, this “government” of Somalia would have been shot by the warlords and thrown into the ditch a long time ago. But with the UN to prop him up, and Western aid to pay for his pinstripe suits and fax machine, Abdullahi Yusuf gets to make-believe that he’s the president of Somalia…

…a president who just happens to need the help of the Russians and the Americans to protect coastal waters of his country from the predations of his own people. According to The Washington Post:

Somali Leader Embraces Foreign Assistance Against Pirates

With U.S. warships offshore and a Russian missile frigate on the way, Somalia’s president, Abdullahi Yusuf, said Wednesday that he welcomed international intervention against Somali pirates roaming a main East-West shipping route.

The hijacking last Thursday of a Ukrainian-operated vessel carrying T-72 tanks and other weapons has galvanized the world’s leading navies after more than 60 other pirate attacks this year on ships off Somalia and in the nearby Gulf of Aden.

The defense chiefs of eight E.U. countries joined the fight Wednesday, agreeing to move toward creating a maritime security force against piracy, French Defense Minister Hervé Morin said in Paris.

In Somalia, Yusuf urged Somalis to turn against the pirate gangs.

“I also call on the international community to act quickly on what is happening in Somali waters as well as onshore,” he told reporters in the capital, Mogadishu. “We must do everything we can to stop piracy off the coast of Somalia.”

Wait a minute! What’s this “we”, Mr. Yusuf? Are you calling on the generosity of the American taxpayer to help you deal with Somali nationals in Somali coastal waters who prey on international shipping?
– – – – – – – – –
What, exactly, is the function of your government? What are do your responsibilities consist of, besides nibbling the canapés at inter-agency cocktail parties? What do you think governments actually do?

Obviously, controlling piracy along your coasts is not part of the job description.

The pirates, on the other hand, are so powerful that they’ve imposed an embargo on the country. Those ragtag bands of guys wearing dirty singlets and carrying AK-47s and RPGs — somehow they’ve managed to embargo the entire nation of Somalia.

They make Blackbeard look like an amateur.

The pirates had imposed an “embargo” against Somalia and other countries by preventing trade and food deliveries, he said.

The pirates are holding the Ukrainian-operated Faina a few miles off eastern Somalia. They have demanded $20 million for the release of the vessel and its crew of 13 Ukrainians, seven Russians and one other Eastern European. The ship’s captain died of natural causes shortly after the hijacking, the pirates have said by satellite telephone.

The United States has deployed an unspecified number of warships and aircraft within sight of the Faina, and U.S. Navy officials have said they are intent on ensuring that the pirates do not unload the arms.

And what about the Russians?

Russian navy spokesman Igor Dygalo said Russian commanders hope for a peaceful end to the hijacking, independent and state news agencies reported Wednesday.

“Taking forceful measures, for obvious reasons, is an extreme measure, as this could create a threat to the lives of the international crew of the cargo ship,” Dygalo was quoted as saying.

But Somalia, for some reason, doesn’t expect the Russians to be as peaceful as the Americans in their handling of the pirates:

Somalia’s ambassador to Russia, Mohammed Mahmud Handule, said Somalia had authorized Russia “to fight the pirates in the sea and on the coast.” He praised Russia’s deployment and said Somalia was “not satisfied” with the results of actions taken by other navies. He did not specify the countries.

Well, the Danes paid the ransom. The French recovered their ship and its crew while bumping off a pirate or two in the process. And the Task Force has managed to chase off some of the pirates before they could capture their prey. So the results have been mixed so far.

But Somalia is ready to grease the Russian palm in hopes of a little quid pro quo:

Handule also said Somalia would follow Russia in recognizing the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, two breakaway regions of Georgia. Few other countries have done so; the move is seen as condoning Russia’s invasion of Georgia in August.

However…

Yusuf is head of a near-powerless Somali government that is propped up by the United States and other countries and by an occupying military force from neighboring Ethiopia. In recent weeks, fighting between government forces and Islamist insurgents has intensified.

The Communist dictator Mohamed Siad Barre was ousted from power in Somalia in 1991. Ever since then, for seventeen long years, Somalia has been a failed state without a functioning government. Despite all the international aid, the intervention of the US military, and the efforts if the UN, it remains a political basket case.

If this were the real world, Somalia would either be overrun by a Taliban-style dictatorship, or carved up into pieces and divided among its neighbors.

But, as I said, this is not the real world.

Anyone who reads the comments here regularly knows Archonix, a.k.a. Graham Dawson, who is one of our oldest readers — he’s been hanging around here almost since the beginning.

Archonix blogs at The Unoriginal Muse, and the guest-essay posted below will eventually appear there.

In the latest issue of Private Eye (No 1129, 19th September — 2nd October), The columnist named ‘Ratbiter’* inadvertently highlights one way that we can distinguish our allies from our opponents by whom they in turn ally themselves with.

Anyone who knows anything about nationalism knows that there are two apparent types of nationalists — the real nationalists, who aim for the right of a nation to make its own decisions, and “pseudo-nationalists” who are often just socialists in disguise.

An example of the latter would be the Scottish Nationalists, the subject of Ratbiter’s column. Scotland’s grass-roots nationalist movement grew out of the idea of not wanting to be even remotely associated with the English and desiring independence from English rule. I mean it’s fair, really, because we haven’t been particularly nice to the Scots in the past — but then neither were they particularly nice to us, what with all the allying with France and so on when they thought it would be an advantage, and the constant invasions… The history between Scotland and England could fill an entire book. The point is, Scottish nationalism exists and is real, and understandable. They want their own country and their belief is that Scotland is, first and foremost, a land for the Scots. Just don’t ask the Picts what they think.

Unfortunately the Scottish National Party, the self-declared source and defender of the Scottish nationalist movement, is socialist to the core. Scotland has been dominated by Labour and the left almost since leftism was invented and their nationalism, at the political level, is filtered through this leftist lens. Labour has in turn been dominated by Scotland, with the artefact that nearly the entire Labour Cabinet is Scottish, as is much of the front bench.

The SNP stands in opposition to “unionist” or “internationalist” Labour as a “nationalist” party of Scotland. Labour wants to preserve the Union in order to maintain its power base and it does so through a combination of pandering and political manoeuvring to make Machiavelli look like a rank amateur. The SNP’s stated policy, in contrast, is independence for Scotland and then immediate accession to the European Union. I find this bitterly ironic. Can you guess why?

As with just about any socialist movement, the name is the exact opposite of the intention. As “liberals” are illiberal, “social democrats” undemocratic, and socially-minded “community organisers” neither working for the community nor particularly organised, so “social nationalists” of the SNP, as we might call them, are fundamentally anti-nationalist. Socialism’s ultimate goal is the abolition of individual freedom and the creation of a universal non-national socialist utopia. The preceding internationalism, as exemplified in organisations like the EU, is aimed at removing government as far from the people as possible in order to reduce their control over their own lives.

Speaking of The People, the other ultimate goal of socialism is the abolition of the old identities and beliefs and the creation of a new, universal socialist identity. The Soviets called it New Soviet Man, the Germans called it the übermensch but, the principle is the same — a homo superior, shaped by the state, serving the state, owing all to the state and never deviating from the will of the state. The state replaces God and faith and family and becomes the only aspiration of will.

Curiously enough, if you replace “the state” with “Allah” you find there is little difference between this socialist ideology and that of Islam. Small wonder that they find it so easy to cooperate:
– – – – – – – – –

Last month the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations condemned [Assembly Leader and SNP leader Alex Salmond] for giving £400,000 to the Scottish Islamic Foundation. The foundation is headed by one Osama Saeed, who just happens to be the Scottish National Party’s parliamentary candidate in Glasgow Central.

[…]

Saeed’s membership of the SNP is not his only interesting connection. His Islamic Foundation is in fact a front for the Muslim Brotherhood which wants to create a global Caliphate (motto: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”) Saeed is an enthusiastic supporter and was furious when BBC Radio 5 accurately reported that Yusuf al-Qaradawi, spiritual leader of the Brotherhood, had ruled that wife beating and female circumcision were fine, and that gays, Israelis and apostates deserved death.

According to ‘Ratbiter’ the Brotherhood’s main aim in Scotland is to establish Muslim faith schools, aping similar schools already operating in England. These schools are known to be a source of “intolerance”, mediaspeak for the dissemination of Islamic and Arabist supremacism, and are widely resented by the native population that have to live with them.

Speaking of the media, the BBC is up to its usual tricks as well:

The Kelvinside numpties who control BBC Scotland are equally impressed and have also been flirting with radical Islamic chic. About the only Muslim voices they allow listeners to hear are those of Saeed and Aamer Anwar, a solicitor and former Socialist Workers’ Party activist who was nearly done for contempt of court after he claimed that a wannabe-terrorist, convicted of possessing CDs and videos of guerrilla tactics and bomb-making, was just “doing what millions of young people do every day — looking for answers on the internet”.

The confluence between Islam and Socialism becomes clearer the more one studies any situation where Islam is making headway. Just as the socialists allied themselves with Islam to overthrow the Shah in Iran, so have the Muslims allied themselves with Labour in England and the SNP in Scotland to progressively alter social and government institutions in order to further their goal of Islamisation. The reasons why are absurdly simple and naïve, so that one wonders whether the politicians could really be so stupid.

Why a supposedly nationalist party — in theory concerned first and foremost with its own nation’s well-being — would align itself with people like this is confusing, until you realise that the “nationalism” of the SNP is merely a convenient coat-tail to power.

[Salmond] seems to want to make the Scottish Islamic Foundation / Muslim Brotherhood the authentic voice of Scottish Islam, in the hope that it will return the favour by helping the SNP take Muslim votes from Labour… He is talking of putting representatives of the Scottish Islamic Foundation on to commissions investigating the future of Trident and sending them as ambassadors to the Middle East.

As the Labour Party has traditionally used Scotland and the North of England to maintain and power its ambitions, so the SNP is now coming to rely on Islam to power its ambitions for an “independent” Scotland. The SNP has very high approval ratings in Scotland so there seems to be little reason for turning to an external electorate but, perhaps, the party has simply observed the swing vote that Muslims provide in England and is preparing in advance for when its own constituency — the Scots — inevitably lose trust. Much of the SNP’s support seems to be based on the fact that they aren’t Labour (these days often seen as an English party due to its London-centric outlook). Scots vote for Labour in the Westminster elections because they’re more Scottish than the Tories, and because the Labour party gave them their shiny new parliament but don’t expect them to be grateful for it.

Scotland, at least in British cultural history, has always had a reputation as both the home of rabid socialists who make Che Guevara and Lenin seem laissez-faire, and penny-pinching industrialists who could make Scrooge look positively generous (it’s possible these two traits are related, but I think that would be better handled by a psychologist). Neither reputation is entirely fair but it is fair to say that your average Scot, whilst socialist at the macro level, will react harshly when that socialism is applied at the individual level. The Times article I linked in the previous paragraph demonstrates this quite aptly, where the SNP’s Local Income Tax policy, an attempt to take in more tax revenue whilst pretending to “reform” the system. Support is hovering just on the safe side of 50%, had high approval ratings until it was realised that it would be dipping an extra hand into the sporran.

Approval for that policy is now just shy of 50%, from 88% last year. It’s in areas like this where the Islamic swing vote becomes important. The SNP, acting on its socialist instincts, will use the Muslim vote to push through contentious policies just as many other European governments have done in the recent past. The fact that the “local income tax” will only affect earning households and not households whose income is derived entirely from benefits — a very large number of which are Muslim — only sweetens the deal.

Now, ‘Ratbiter’ writes from a centre-left position, along with much of Private Eye’s staff (I regularly find myself eating bits of it in frustration at how obtuse the publication can be — especially when it comes to “climate change”) which means that any “nationalism” is considered to be the same — populist, right-wing, somehow “bad” in an indefinable way. Except the SNP demonstrates that the problem isn’t nationalism, but socialism wearing nationalism’s cloak. Nationalism seen through a libertarian or free-market lens will not be authoritarian simply because that would interfere with the rights of the individual.

The idea that a nationalist party could ally itself with Islam is only contradictory when you ignore the actual politics of that party. The Islamic colonisation effort is anathema to any real nationalist party, as it would be to anyone concerned with freedom and the rights of man, but it is almost a requirement of any socialist-minded party to support Islamic immigration.

Where you see “nationalism” allying itself with Islam, be sure to check for the little authoritarian streak on its belly.

It’s usually red.

We received a refreshing email yesterday from a Canadian reader named Rier, who is not entirely in agreement with our political opinions, but is nonetheless a staunch supporter of our Counterjihad stance.

One of the despairing criticisms that is sometimes leveled at us and other right-wing blogs is that we are preaching to the choir, living in an echo chamber, etc., and that we have no effect on the larger world outside our own parochial corner of the blogosphere.

Rier’s email indicates that this is not entirely true. With his permission, the entire text is posted below:

Baron and Dymphna:

I am a Canadian viewer who for the vast majority of my voting life (nearly 30 years now) has voted consistently on the Left. Nonetheless I have tremendously enjoyed your website because I have come to agree, especially in the last couple of years (although the background of my “conversion” goes back over many years), with many of the criticisms that you and other conservatives make of things like immigration policy and our governments’ inadequate responses to Islam and its Jihad against the world. I find the present Left in my own country and around the world deceitful and treacherous in attempting to deny, cover up, or simply ignore these issues.

Undoubtedly I do not always agree with your perspective — though I probably do more often than not these days — but I commend you and other conservatives for at least being willing to state the obvious. For that reason I was heartened to see the Social Democrats defeated in Sweden defeated a couple of years ago, and I have concluded that in the upcoming Canadian federal election I will be voting for the Conservative party.

I think that a good long period of Conservative majority rule in this country — and the re-election of the Republicans in the U.S. and the Right elsewhere in the West — may be the only thing that can reset the political spectrum by forcing the Left to reconsider its pathological policies. I mention all of this as a means of encouragement, as you, and other bloggers tackling these issues, may be having an influence in places where you don’t always expect to.

Regarding your own current election campaign in the States, a little while ago I watched some CNN analysis of the Friday evening presidential debate, in which someone (perhaps posing as an expert in this field but maybe just some reporter — sorry I have to be so short on specifics as I didn’t consider the important of these details until long after the fact) used analysis of body language and facial expressions to critique the performance of the candidates. Listening to this guy made my blood boil! His conclusions seemed highly questionable at best as far as I could see — at times clearly ridiculous, in fact — and definitely biased against McCain.

– – – – – – – – –

The commenter was using things like the set of McCain’s eyes when he was smiling to suggest that McCain was suppressing anger when that was clearly far from evident, and at one point the commenter accused McCain of “showing disdain” for Obama.

CNN portrays the two candidates and in their desperation to find whatever evidence that they can (sound or not) to discredit McCain and promote Obama. I note that in making his point about his vision of negotiations with Iran he referred angrily to McCain’s interpretation of his policy using the term “ridiculous”. This was the angriest language that I had noticed anywhere in the debate to that point. And again, CNN did not seem to comment on this surliness on the part of Obama, but only on McCain’s, regardless of how desperately they had to read things into his “body language” to pull it off.

Similar conclusions were being drawn about Sarah Palin based on (if I recall correctly) the tautness of the facial muscles around her lips. Ironic, isn’t it, considering that most liberals would probably condemn that kind of “behavioural profiling” as an “unjust intrusion on privacy” and tantamount to “police state” tactics?

CNN, and possibly other left-wing liberal MSM sources, seem to be trying dishonestly to use their reporting function to skew the real story — and not, I think, doing a very good job at it, I must say, assuming that viewers are observant — but it does concern me that gullible persons among the American electorate may fall for it.

I hope that American audiences will find ways to hold them accountable and work to destroy the “edge” that they are trying to give to the Obama campaign. To that end I have written this in the hope that I can alert you and, through you, others of like mind to something that hopefully the conservative blogosphere can respond to.

— Rier

Apparently gun control in France is not as effective as one might have hoped:

French policeman shot in clashes

A French police officer has been shot and wounded during clashes with youths that broke out after a teenager died while fleeing police.

The officer appeared to have been shot in the leg with a hunting rifle, said the police prefecture in Romans-sur-Isere, a southeastern town located 60 miles from Lyon in the Rhone Valley on the edge of the Alps. The officer’s life was not in danger.

Dents from bullets and buckshot were also found in police vehicles nearby.

[post ends here]

Most of our readers are familiar with Pat Condell, the English comedian whose scathing videos circulate virally on the internet. In them he denounces Islam, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, and the British Labour government, among other things, with characteristically blunt humor.

Now it seems that YouTube has had enough of this outrageous Islamophobe, and has acted to censor him. Henrik and Holger Danske of Europe News have done the research:

YouTube censors Pat Condell’s latest video

The outspoken English comedian Pat Condell (official web site here ) has had his latest video blocked by YouTube. You can watch it here.

Welcome to Saudi Britain

The most urgent message in his video is this: If you live in Britain please sign this petition against the creeping poison of sharia law before October 4th when it closes.

Apparently YouTube, which has had some challenges with Turkey and Pakistan, have decided that it is easier to block ‘problematic’ content themselves than standing up for freedom and have Pakistani Internet operators wreak havoc on them.

We are still waiting for the day when big media realize they have a responsibility to stand up for freedom of expression.

In his latest video, Pat Condell sure manages to step on some toes. But that is well deserved, for what happens is serious and what he has to say is important. Too important to censor, so here is a transcript of the start of the video:

– – – – – – – – –

Hi everyone

You may remember that a couple of weeks ago, it was revealed that Sharia courts are now operating here in Britain, with the full backing of the law, even though they discriminate against women as a matter of cause.

And what this means is that those women who are intimidated into using these courts, as some of them will be, and everyone knows it, they will now find that they have the full weight of the British legal system lined up against them, alongside the patriarchal bigotry in their own communities.

Those women who are cheated out of their just entitlements in these places, as some already have been, will find that they have no recourse to the real law to put things right. In other words, we are now accommodating Saudi Arabian legal principles here in Britain.

Last weekend’s elections in Austria produced a massive tidal shift of votes away from the Greens and the Socialists towards two parties of the Right. Our Austrian correspondent ESW has a report on what happened, drawn from Austrian news sources and accompanied by her own analysis.

Austrians are in for interesting political times: General elections this past Sunday changed Austria’s political landscape with a pull to the right.

The Social Democrats lost votes, and the Conservatives lost even more. Both can no longer be considered “forces” in the political spectrum; they are, at best, mediocre in size (29% and 25%, respectively). The Green Party has withered into irrelevance. On Sunday, party leader Alexander Van der Bellen proudly announced that he considers the Greens the last Gallic village in Austria with regard to upholding human rights (he was alluding to Asterix, the famous comic series).

The winners on this historic day were, however, the FPÖ (Freedom Party) and BZÖ (Haider’s “new” party), which together make up the right-wing parties. Heinz-Christian Strache was able to increase the number of his voters from 11% to 18%, while Haider tripled his support to 11%. And while the center-left parties pretended to be stunned, political commentators and many others were not surprised: the parties’ success had been looming for the last couple of weeks. Polls were in complete agreement about the outcome. Together FPÖ and BZÖ gathered nearly 30% of the votes.

Sunday, September 28, 2008, was probably one of the hardest days in Wilhelm Molterer’s life. In July, he called for new elections with the now famous words, “Ladies and gentlemen: Enough is enough!” He and his party were hoping to win the elections in order to regain the post of prime minister, lost after the 2006 elections.

The conservative party’s election campaign focused on budget problems, security issues, and family issues (such as additional payments to families). However, the Socialist Party, though lagging behind in early polls, was able to attract many voters by introducing a new party leader. Molterer, on the other hand, appeared “old” and “used”. He is not the glossy type; he felt most comfortable in the second row, behind Wolfgang Schüssel, the ÖVP prime minister from 2000-2006.

The Socialists scored by opening monetary floodgates, distributing money to everyone, without explaining to the taxpayer how to pay for these additional payments (to the pensioners, to families). In addition, university tuition was scrapped, leaving universities with a massive budgetary hole. Thrilled about saving 370 euros per semester, most university students thus voted Socialist.

After ÖVP’s massive losses on Sunday, the party was quick to get rid of Molterer and install a new party leader. On Monday, Josef Pröll, minister of agriculture and long considered party crown prince, was named the new party leader. Since Pröll favors a grand coalition, this decision can be interpreted as a signal to the Socialist party: more of the same, another grand coalition, a form of government so despised by many Austrians. Socialist party leader Werner Faymann has said all along that he favors another grand coalition. What he neglects to mention is his inability to form any other coalition as he has repeatedly ruled out every form of government with either FPÖ or BZÖ.
– – – – – – – – –
Socialist doctrine rules out any form of cooperation, even contact, with the two parties on the right. While this decision cannot be considered democratic, it is supported by the party. Michael Häupl, the mayor of Vienna, even went so far as to rail to the gathered crowd of SPÖ supporters in the part tent: “Those right-wing populists! Those idiots! They are s**t!” He added that in 1938 Jews evoked fear and hatred, nowadays it is all foreigners (who are feared and hated). He intentionally compared FPÖ and BZÖ with the Nazis. “Starting tomorrow, we will fight the right wing populism and neo-fascism! Never again! Never again!” The crowd also chanted, “Never again!” (Die Presse)

Commentators in the foreign press were in agreement about the increase of BZÖ and FPÖ votes: A radical, rather disgusting move to the right “happened” to Austria, away from a moderate middle to hatred of foreigners and pseudo-patriotism. The newspaper Kurier analyzes the fact that not every FPÖ and BZÖ voter is a right-wing xenophobe.

One of the strongest motives to vote for one of the two parties was indeed to protest against the coalition parties, ÖVP and SPÖ, coupled with the hope that their vote will bring with it a wind of change. According to one pollster, Strache’s statements on immigration were not a determining factor to vote for FPÖ. A prominent political scientist adds that one should not consider these voters neo-Nazis or right-wing nationalists.

More men than women voted for FPÖ. Sixteen-year-olds — who were allowed to cast their vote for the first time — mainly voted for Strache. Fear (about the economic situation) was another prominent reason for voting for FPÖ and BZÖ.

The article concludes by dispelling the assumption that FPÖ takes a stance against all foreigners: this is too simple, especially in view of the fact that many non-Muslim immigrants — especially Serbs — voted for Strache.

One single mother talks about her fear of living in her apartment complex (note: these huge apartment buildings are built and financed by the city of Vienna and its residents traditionally vote socialist. Rent is usually very affordable. Until recently, these apartments could only be rented by Austrians; the Socialist government in Vienna, amid heavy criticism, decided to “open” these apartment buildings to immigrants as well. Since then, FPÖ has been able to garner strong support among residents.) She says she can no longer allow her son to play outside because she is afraid. “We live in strict separation between Austrians and foreigners. When I sit down on a bench with foreigners, they get up and leave.”

It is interesting to look at voter motivation, as it seems that young voters are aware of the most pressing problems in Austria (Muslim immigration and the EU).

Voters under 30:

EU-critics voted for FPÖ and SPÖ. The latter’s decision to call for EU referenda in the future was a very controversial one, and not only heavily criticized, but also rejected by ÖVP.

The European Union — always the guarantor of democratic rights as demonstrated in 2000, when ÖVP formed a coalition government with FPÖ — has already signaled its fear of a “Vienna virus”, as in EU skepticism. Austria is no longer considered a reliable partner. EU MEPs are threatening the possibility of imposing sanctions, as occurred in 2000, if the parties do decide on a new center-right coalition government. However, members of the EU commission deny this. One spokesman added, “We have no comment on the election results.” France, who had initiated the sanctions against Austria in 2000, also has no comments. Even French newspapers are strangely silent, only reporting on the results, without analysis. No comment either from the foreign ministry or the ministry for European affairs.

The one country that did have something to say was Israel. Igal Palmor, spokesperson of the Israeli foreign ministry: “We do not have a comment on the results of the Austrian elections. However, we do note the rise of xenophobic elements promoting hate as well as Holocaust deniers. We are very concerned.”

What concerns me most is another grand coalition. This is the worst possible scenario. This form of coalition government is extremely unpopular among Austrians as it divides Austria in two halves: red and black. Every decision, every appointment is made according to this division. If, for instance, Austrian Airlines needs a new board of directors, the political affiliations of the appointees are put in the foreground. Two directors are conservative, two directors are socialist. This is sickening and wrong. In addition, the economic wing in the ÖVP is in strong favor of a grand coalition, especially in view of Austria’s EU membership.

If there another coalition between ÖVP and SPÖ I can almost guarantee major losses for ÖVP in the next elections, no matter when they are called. However, I do not know what is better for ÖVP: Parliamentary opposition or a coalition with FPÖ and BZÖ. What I do know is that I am completely and utterly against any cooperation with SPÖ. It would be disastrous for Austria.

I would also like to add that I completely reject the insinuation that all Austrians are Nazis. It simply is not true. First, there are, like in many other countries, such as the United States, those very few who might appreciate a revival of National Socialist doctrine. But seriously, does anyone really think that this could happen again, either in the U.S. or in Europe? Is it not enough for 99.99% of Austrians to completely reject this doctrine?

What else must an Austrian do so he is not called names every day? Should we not worry more about the continued and sustained Islamization of Europe? Or the introduction of sharia?

Second, it is much easier to label someone a Nazi without even considering the fact that Nazis were National SOCIALISTS, i.e. found on the far left of the political spectrum. If anything, FPÖ and BZÖ voters are national(istic), wanting their home country to remain theirs. And what is wrong with that?

And thirdly, I find it appalling that seemingly the entire world (save the Muslim one, of course) believes Austria is a Nazi country where once you get off the plane, you have storm troopers waiting for you to haul you off to a concentration camp and swastikas dangling in the wind. And please do not tell me this is the Austrians’ fault because they voted for FPÖ and BZÖ. Educate yourself in Austrian political parties, and you will quickly see the lack of real choice if you oppose mass (Muslim) immigration and Islamization.

At the end of his terrible day, Molterer said: “It is very hard to tell the truth in Austria.”

I can’t help but agree with him.

We Americans are used to being scorned, sneered at, and condescended to by the elites of European culture. It’s normal; it’s business is usual. If you’re an American, four out of five Europeans of the upper and middle classes will look down their noses at you.

The Swedes and the French are in competition to see who can loathe America more. Based on today’s example from The Local, the Swedes are winning:

Swedish Nobel Committee supremo Horace Engdahl has shocked the global literary establishment by denouncing the cultural “ignorance” of authors from the United States.

[…]

“The US is too isolated, too insular. They don’t translate enough and don’t really participate in the big dialogue of literature. That ignorance is restraining,” said Engdahl.

None of this is new or surprising. It’s a dog-bites-man story.

But until recently I had no idea that a Swede could actually lose his job for being supportive of the USA and Israel. That’s what happened to Lennart Eriksson, who committed the grave crime of keeping a private website which expressed conservative opinions. In 21st-century Swedistan, such behavior is simply unacceptable.

Here’s a press release about Mr. Eriksson’s case that was sent to me by several Swedish readers:

Court Case for Swede Exercising Freedom of Expression

The Swedish Migration Board is in court pursuing a claim against an employee charged with being a Conservative who also wrote favourable comments on his private website about the US and Israel as pillars of democracy. The Swedish Migration Board feels that Conservatives and people who express themselves favourably about these two countries are not fit to hold a unit management position.

Lennart Eriksson, 52, has worked at the Swedish Migration Board, Göteborg, Sweden in various capacities for more than 20 years. In October 2007 he was ousted from his job as unit manager. The reasons are twofold: because he ran a website on the Internet in which he gave his opinions on various issues, and because he is a Conservative in his personal political affiliations.

Political views dictated to employees

On his website, which his employers knew about for many years, Eriksson voiced appreciation of the US and Israel as examples of thriving democracies. He also praised US general George Patton as a hero of World War Two. Eriksson has never spent work-time on his website and he has never used his work computers for this purpose. Neither do his employers contend that he ever did so.

Lennart Eriksson sued the Swedish Migration Board in Mölndal county court, Göteborg. He maintains he has in effect been fired from his job as asylum assessment unit manager, camouflaged in the form of a demotion or transfer. Lennart Eriksson feels that whatever the terminology, there is no legal or justifiable cause for the move. The Migration Board confirms that Lennart Eriksson has been transferred as a result of the opinions he expressed on his private website.

– – – – – – – – –

Trial venue and dates

The main hearing will take place on Friday October 10 and Monday October 13, 2008, starting at 09:00 on both days. The court’s address is: Mölndals tingsrätt, Södra Vägen 25, Göteborg, Sweden.

The case is of fundamental importance in a country that is nominally a democracy. The right to freely express opinions on political, cultural and social issues without risk of reprisal is the very foundation of a democratic society. The opinions that Lennart Eriksson expresses are based on a strong democratic foundation whose cornerstone is the unassailable affirmation of every individual’s equal human value. In the political perspective, Lennart Eriksson’s opinions are traditionally Conservative.

Political persecution

Political persecution is unfamiliar in a country where generations of citizens have been told that this sort of thing cannot occur at home. The Swedish Migration Board fulfils a vital social function. Protecting human rights and offering asylum to victims of persecution are among the Board’s central roles. However, with the Swedish Migration Board revealing that it will not hesitate to victimise its own employees for political beliefs that are at odds with those of its managers, its credibility and the public’s confidence in its operations risk irreversible erosion.

On trial: freedom of expression in Sweden

This trial follows hard on the heels of another high-profile case in which a Swedish intern working at a Swedish embassy abroad was summarily fired and sent home when his political affiliations were discovered. That case was taken up by Sweden’s Chancellor of Justice who ordered the Foreign Ministry to pay the sacked intern compensation for wrongful dismissal. The verdict against the embassy was remarkable for its particularly brusque wording.

That case bore an uncanny resemblance to the situation in which Lennart Eriksson finds himself: the freedom to have political beliefs and to express them privately resulting in a state-run institution terminating an employee’s tenure.

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

For further information, please contact:
Ilya Meyer, Göteborg, Sweden
Phone +46 31 690450
Mobile phone +46 708 690450
Email: ilya.meyer@transtext.se

Earlier today I posted the introduction to this series of videos. Here’s Episode 1:

[Post ends here]

Fausta’s podcast is on right now, and her topic touches on the current financial crisis as well as what AMDG talked about in his post about government financing of the left.

She says that her guest “Matthew Vadum, senior editor at Capital Research Center, will explain how Financial Affirmative Action came about and how it works.” He will particularly explain the practice of “greenlining”, the loaning of money to members of minority groups who would not otherwise qualify.

The proposed “bailout” of America’s financial institutions is now deeply intertwined with a hard-left political shakedown racket.

It’s an hour-long program today, and a very interesting podcast. Also: if you tune in live, you’ll be able to call in to the show.

You can listen directly from Fausta’s blog, or at the Blog Talk Radio site.

[nothing follows]