This is the third of five installments of Fjordman’s book Defeating Eurabia
. Click here for Part 1 and Part 2.
For those who wish to republish his work, please read his conditions.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.
The Spanish and the Portuguese — Once and Future Dhimmis?
This essay was first published at the Gates of Vienna blog in June 2008. It is republished here with some additions.
In May 2008, the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, stated that Islam is part and parcel of Europe and condemned the concept of a clash of civilizations. “Islam today is part of Europe. It is important to understand this. One should not see Islam as outside Europe. We already have an important presence of Islam and Muslims among our citizens,” Barroso told a press conference after a dialogue between EU leaders and twenty high-level representatives of Christianity, Judaism and Islam in Europe. The Grand Mufti of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Dr. Mustafa Ceric, responded that Islam is indeed part of Europe but unfortunately Turkey is not yet part of Europe. “Following this logic Europe has to prove that Islam is part of Europe by not delaying the acceptance of Turkey to the EU,” he said.
I find this especially sad since Mr. Barroso, prior to becoming the unelected leader of the EU, was Prime Minister of Portugal, a country that was for centuries under the Islamic yoke. Do the Portuguese miss their past status as dhimmis? The reaction of the Nordic countries to mass immigration and Muslim intimidation, with the exception of Denmark, has been pathetic. I’m certainly not proud of it, but at the very least countries such as Norway, Finland and the Baltic nations have had little historical exposure to Muslims. The Portuguese and the Spanish do not have this excuse, after centuries of Islamic occupation and hard struggles to regain control over their lands, which makes their current actions all the more difficult to understand.
Some Portuguese readers assured me that the situation was worse in other Western European countries than in Portugal, partly because other nations have more developed welfare states and are thus more attractive for those seeking welfare payments. I admit I know less about the situation in Portugal than in Spain, which is why I will concentrate mainly on Spain here. I do of course not believe that all Portuguese are like Barroso, just like not all Spaniards are like Zapatero (thank God). If all Europeans were like are so-called leaders, we would already be lost. But on the other hand, I haven’t seen anything indicating that Portugal is immune from the problems of the rest of Western Europe.
Observer Soeren Kern thinks that “Since Spanish Socialists (more often than not) have trouble winning arguments on their own merit, the preferred tactic is to demonize their opponents instead.” He’s undoubtedly correct about that, although I do no see how that makes Spanish Socialists different from their counterparts elsewhere. According to Kern:
“Italian voters in April [2008] returned Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to a third term in office. The center-right leader was given a strong mandate to crack down on runaway immigration and spiraling street crime, two hot-button issues that are intrinsically linked, not just in the minds of Italians, but in those of many other Europeans too, especially in Spain. As a result, Spanish Socialists are (rightly) worried that Berlusconi’s get-tough approach will jeopardize their own fantastical vision of turning Europe into a post-modern multicultural utopia. It therefore comes as no big surprise that Spanish Socialist Deputy Prime Minister María Teresa Fernández de la Vega, who is also commonly known as Spain’s high-priestess of political correctness, recently lashed out at the no-nonsense immigration policies of the new Italian government. Her pontifical rebuke declared that the Spanish executive ‘rejects violence, racism and xenophobia, and therefore cannot agree with what is happening in Italy.’“ Moreover, “By rewarding illegal immigrants with Spanish (and thus European) documentation, Zapatero has unleashed what is known as the ‘ call effect ‘ to people as far away as Kashmir who now believe that Spain is an easy gateway into Europe.”
Gustavo de Aristegui, the foreign affairs spokesman for the conservative (but in my view still a bit too soft) Popular Party, explains in his book The Jihad in Spain: The obsession to reconquer Al-Ándalus that, in schools throughout the Muslim world, maps are used with Spain and Portugal colored green because they are still considered part of dar al-Islam, or the House of Islam. According to antiterrorist sources, eight Jihadist groups have settled in Spain, located mostly in Catalonia, Madrid, Andalusia and Valencia. Their threat is real, since most of these sleeping cells “can be activated at any time and perpetrate criminal attacks.”
– – – – – – – – –
As AMDG from the blog La Yijad en Eurabia says: “The fact that Spain is one of the targets of the Third Jihad is not surprising. Muslims have the religious obligation to expand Islam — mostly political Islam; conversion can be forced later on in many ways — and in particular they have the compelling obligation to retrieve those lands on which Islam once ruled. Al Andalus — that is Spain, and not only the south of Spain, the modern Andalucía — was once under Mohammedan yoke and is therefore among the priorities of the Jihad. The answer by Spaniards to this threat cannot be more discouraging. Spanish government withdrew its troops from Iraq immediately after the first terrorist attack, even if they were not combat troops. Their next initiative was the proposal of the Alliance of Civilizations.”
The Socialist PM José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero was swept to power by the Jihadist train bombings in Madrid in March 2004, the largest peacetime attacks in Spain’s modern history. He has been surrendering his country to Muslims every day since then. Zapatero, who has said that “sexual equality is a lot more effective against terrorism than military strength,” appointed a pregnant woman as Minister of Defense in April 2008, thus signaling to everybody that his country has no intentions of defending itself.
There are serious plans afoot to create a tunnel linking Spain (and thus Europe) physically to Morocco and Muslim North Africa. The great project of the tunnel under the Strait of Gibraltar will be presented by the two countries to the European Union in mid-October 2008. The announcement was made by Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos at the end of a meeting held in Tangier with his Moroccan counterpart, Tayeb Fasi Fihri. The project presentation said that this was “a very ambitious project” which will unite Africa and Europe. According to the most optimistic forecasts, the first railway carriages might pass under the Strait by 2025. As soon as the project is approved by the EU, it is expected to be funded by the World Bank, the European Investment Bank and several Arab investment funds.
As usual in Western countries, Socialists who undermine their own countries are de facto allies with Big Business interests, the same business interests that have championed the borderless EU common market, who desire bigger markets and an abundant supply of cheap labor, and tend to view defended national borders as an obstacle to both. According to a study by the Group for Reflection and Proposal on Business and Immigration, Spain “needs” over two million new foreign workers until 2020, many of whom will undoubtedly be Muslims.
In June 2008, it was announced that an “ interfaith meeting “ sponsored by Saudi Arabia was to be held in Madrid. The dialogue would be held by the Saudi-based Muslim World League. “Prominent figures among followers of the divine messages will take part in dialogue concerning life in human societies, international cooperation, human rights, and issues of security, peace and living together in the world,” said a statement by the agency. Yet while the Saudi king promotes interfaith dialogue, Saudi school textbooks still teach hatred and intolerance of everything and everyone non-Islamic.
As the Middle East Media Research Institute ( MEMRI ) says, “According to an article in the London daily Al-Hayat, the Arabic language held sway during the Saudi-sponsored interfaith World Conference on Dialogue, held July 16-18, 2008 in Madrid. It is noteworthy that the conference brought Saudi Arabia to the center of the European and international political scene, after France had, one week previously, brought Syria and Qatar to the forefront of politics during the Mediterranean conference in Paris [proposing the creation of a Mediterranean Union; My note].”
Here are some excerpts from the Al-Hayat article:
“At Madrid’s international airport, the invitees to the international interfaith dialogue conference were greeted in Arabic; airport officials at passport control and security personnel at the Auditorium Hotel spoke fluent Arabic; [Arabic was spoken at] all conference activities and at the reception held for the occasion. It can [therefore] be said that the Spanish capital, Madrid, speaks Arabic… At the conference, [jointly] sponsored by Saudi King ‘Abdallah bin ‘Abd Al-’Aziz and Spanish King Juan Carlos, the language of the Koran held sway…The Muslim greeting al-salam ‘aleykum was the expression most frequently used by the participants, who were of all kinds and from all backgrounds. Over 250 Arabic speakers — senior officials, organizers, diplomats, members of the press — were present at the conference, organizing and running [its activities]. Spain has embraced the Arabs and espoused their culture and language. Dialogue, upon which people all over the world have pinned their hopes, may reshape the world.”
These people are obviously not interested in “mutual understanding” on equal terms; they are gloating over what they perceive as a European nation once again submitting to Islamic rule. As I’ve stated in my online essay Socratic Dialogue vs. Islamic Dialogue, Muslims understand the term “dialogue” in a way that differs sharply from that of Westerners. For them, “dialogue” does not mean an open-ended attempt to rationally debate a topic in order to arrive at the truth. Truth is already given: It’s called sharia, and the only “dialogue” that is acceptable is one that will lead to the implementation of sharia, one way or the other. When they invite to a “dialogue,” they mean that we should negotiate our surrender, or else…
According to Soeren Kern, the “interfaith conference” was organized by the Saudi-sponsored Muslim World League, which happens to be the principal agent for the propagation of Wahhabi Islam in Europe. Zapatero (like his Saudi counterparts, but for different reasons) “views Judeo-Christianity as public enemy number one because it is the main impediment to the realization of his vision for a socialist multicultural utopia in which everything goes. And he hopes his pact with Islam will accelerate Spanish history. Zapatero and his socialist advisors believe Muslims are the ‘useful idiots’ of the left. And Muslims believe Zapatero and his socialist friends are the ‘useful idiots’ of Islam. Such is the future of Spain.”
Poul E. Andersen, former dean of the church of Odense, Denmark, warns against false hopes of dialogue with Muslims. During a debate at the University of Aarhus, Ahmad Akkari, one of the Muslim participants, stated: “Islam has waged war where this was necessary and dialogue where this was possible. A dialogue can thus only be viewed as part of a missionary objective.” When Mr. Andersen raised the issue of dialogue with the Muslim World League in Denmark, the answer was: “To a Muslim, it is artificial to discuss Islam. In fact, you view any discussion as an expression of Western thinking.”
Since its inception, Islam has been waging an aggressive war against the rest of mankind with the purpose of bringing every single human being on earth under Islamic rule. Infidels have been presented with three options: Convert to Islam, die, or submit under Islamic rule as a dhimmi, a second-rate citizen in your own country subject to serious financial pressure, constant verbal humiliations and frequent physical abuse. Islam hasn’t changed much. Unless we are prepared to accept conversion or dhimmi status, we have to fight back. The Spanish and the Portuguese knew that once. One can only hope that they will remember it again.
Let me conclude by adding some words about infiltration of the democratic system. In July 2008, the congress of the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) in Madrid was scheduled to approve a motion to propose voting rights to immigrants in local elections, organization secretary and second in the ranks of PSOE, Jose Blanco, said in an interview. According to PSOE’s calculations, quoted by El Pais, the measure will concern 1,300,000 immigrants coming from Muslim countries such Morocco and from Latin America. The new voters might change the political equilibriums in cities where they have a strong presence, like Madrid and Barcelona, and presumably tilt the scales permanently towards the Socialists.
There are setbacks to this strategy. In 2008, when a right-wing coalition brought PM Silvio Berlusconi back to power in Italy, the Northern League and its secretary Umberto Bossi said: “The workers don’t vote for the Left any more. The Northern League is the new workers’ party.” Nevertheless, it remains true that immigrants from developing countries vote overwhelmingly for left-wing parties that support a generous welfare state. Mass immigration has already tipped the scales in favor of Socialist parties in a number of European elections.
I described this phenomenon in my essay Electing a New People: The Leftist — Islamic Alliance. Since this was published in the spring of 2006, some of the specific details are outdated, but the general conclusion is not: In every single country I have surveyed, from Norway and Denmark via Britain, Germany, Holland and Belgium to Spain, immigrants lean heavily towards the political Left, which means that left-wing parties can simply import a new people to stay in power, at least until immigrants form parties of their own.
Bertolt Brecht (who was himself an apologist for Communist dictatorships) wrote a satirical poem after the 1953 East German risings:
“The solution
After the uprising of 17 June
The Secretary of the Writers’ Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the People
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?”
At the beginning of the 21st century, electing a new people seems to be exactly what Socialist parties in Europe are doing. Perhaps the greatest idea of the left-wing parties after the Cold War was to re-invent themselves as Multicultural parties and start importing voters from abroad. In addition to this, they have managed to denounce the opposition as racists, bigots and extremists. A new alliance of convenience between Leftists and Muslim immigrants is taking shape. I think the deal is that the Leftist parties get a number of new clients, or voters, in return for giving Muslims privileges and subsidies, as well as keeping the borders more or less open for new Muslims to enter. As one Muslim put it: “I vote for the Socialists because they give me more money.” The Leftists are, in essence, electing a new people, replacing the one already there with one more supportive of their agenda.
There is, of course, nothing new in buying votes and “clients” by promising them access to other people’s money. This was the essence of Leftism in the first place. However, although this is probably a flaw in the democratic system, democracy has still functioned within the borders of stable nation states. This flaw gets a lot more dangerous when combined with massive immigration, where certain political parties import people from other nations, even vocal enemies of their country, to shore up their short-term support in elections. This will in the longer term breed resentment among the native population, who will in this way be forced to fund their own colonization. In the context of Europe, Muslim immigration could turn democracy into a self-defeating system that will eventually break down because native Europeans — correctly, I might add — no longer feel that it serves their interests.
Leftists and Muslims have a mutual short-term interest in keeping the Leftist parties in power, and a mutual long-term interest in weakening the traditional Christian culture of Europe, which Socialists at best view with indifference, at worst as an obstacle blocking the road to their Utopia. Besides, Socialists traditionally place little ideological importance on such trivial matters as national borders. I believe Lenin once said that borders between Soviet Republics were unimportant, as Socialism would transcend all national and religious boundaries and render them a thing of the past, anyway. The idea has never entirely disappeared.
The same collaboration happened in Iran, where popular “reformers” such as Ali Shariati in the years before the 1979 revolution infused Islam with aspects of Western thought and made the Marxists believe that they could coexist with Islam. So they cooperated in overthrowing the Shah — and then all the godless Socialists were the first ones to hang from lamp posts around the country when Khomeini and his Islamic cronies seized power. The secular Leftists in Europe know fully well that they do not agree with religious Muslims on some issues, but they believe they are the senior partners in the alliance and that they can “ride the tiger.” That may be true now, but for how long will the situation remain like this? Who is using whom?
In Denmark, writers Helle Merete Brix, Torben Hansen and Lars Hedegaard believe that the Muslim immigration and the increasing clashes we are witnessing are part of the third Islamic Jihad, a third attempt to conquer and subdue the West. The fist one came with the Arabs more than a thousand years ago, the second with the Turks in the early modern era. Will three times be the charm for Muslims? Will they succeed this time?
During the first Jihad, Charles Martel, “The Hammer,” founder of the Carolingian Empire, the first Western power after the fall of Rome, defeated the Arabs in the Battle of Tours in 732, thus saving Western civilization, and by extension much of the world, from Islam.
During the second Jihad, the Turks did manage to conquer Constantinople and much of south-eastern Europe, but Jan Sobieski, king of Poland, routed the Ottoman armies that had laid siege to Vienna in 1683. Leading a combined force of Polish, Austrian and German troops, Sobieski attacked a numerically superior Turkish army until their lines were broken and the Turks fled in confusion. This was the last time Muslims came close to threatening the West in traditional warfare. They now prefer demographic warfare through migration combined with terrorism, and they have in some ways been more successful at infiltrating the democratic West peacefully than they ever were at conquering the pre-democratic West by force. Muslims are already inside Vienna, quietly taking over, and no Sobieski is in sight. In Vienna, Austria in December 2006, Santa Claus was removed from kindergartens. Municipal officials insisted that the sight of a strange bearded figure would evoke fear in kids, but many observers accused them of kowtowing to a growing Muslim population.
The third Jihad started with the oil embargo, the influx of Saudi petrodollars and the beginnings of Eurabia and Muslim immigration to the West in the 1960s and early 70s. During the third Jihad, Leftists all over Europe seem to be opening the gates of Europe from within. “You want to conquer Europe? That’s ok. Just vote for us and help us get rid of capitalism and eradicate the Christian heritage of Europe, and we’ll let you in. In the meantime, you can enjoy some welfare goodies, and we will ban opposition to this undertaking as racism and hate speech.”
In addition to a destructive ideology of Globalism, the concept that all national borders should be erased and that this is a positive good, an ideology held only by the Western world, the situation is made worse by the fact that globalization of transportation has put severe pressure on our nations in a manner which was unthinkable only a few decades ago. When the Christian Gospels were written down at the end of the first century AD, the population of the Roman Empire was perhaps 60 million people, give or take a few million. This mirrors the annual global population growth in the early twenty-first century. In other words:
The global population grows by another Roman Empire every single year. Our current political and economic system wasn’t designed to cope with such numbers. It needs fundamental change, or it will soon collapse into civil wars or dictatorships or both.
We have a situation where some parties deliberately import Muslims because they vote overwhelmingly for left-wing parties. A political system where it pays to import enemies isn’t sustainable. Any political system must first and foremost ensure the survival and continued physical existence of the community and nation it serves. After that comes ensuring the prosperity and liberty of this community in the best possible way. However, when I look at the situation in Western countries today, I cannot see that democracy always ensures our liberty and prosperity, and in many cases it functions so poorly that it threatens our survival.
Currently, the democratic system is in my view not working properly in any Western country. It is more or less dead in Western Europe, where most of the real power has been transferred to the unelected organs of the European Union, anyway. Virtually all Western countries have lost control over their borders. This is not a sustainable situation. You can call your political system a democracy, a dictatorship, a republic, a monarchy or whatever you want, but a country that does not control its territory will eventually die.
The most important thing to realize is that democracy is a tool, a means we use to achieve an end. Too many people today confuse it with the end itself. “Democracy” has come to mean something that is good, something everybody wants, a bit like sex or chocolate. But there is no rational reason to assume that democracy of universal suffrage is uniformly good and can be applied with equal success in all circumstances, a huge mistake Americans made in a predominantly Muslims country such as Iraq, where “democracy” and majority rule simply means sharia and state-sponsored harassment of minorities.
Leading Islamic scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and others have hailed the coming Islamic conquest of Rome, just like Constantinople was conquered in 1453. “Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor, after being expelled from it twice. Islam entered Europe twice and left it… Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies.” The Saudi Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd Al-Rahman Al-’Arifi, imam of the mosque of King Fahd Defense Academy, concurred: “We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it. Yes, the Christians…will yet pay us the Jizya [poll tax paid by non-Muslims under Muslim rule], in humiliation, or they will convert to Islam…”
Unless native Europeans rebel against the unholy alliance of power-hungry left-wingers, selfish and short-sighted businessmen and treasonous EU elites who continue to import Muslims to our shores, Mr. Qaradawi could end up being right in his predictions.
Probing the Infidel World
by Baron Bodissey (Gates of Vienna), September 15, 2008
Most of us have become familiar in recent years with the concept of a terrorist “probe”, an operation mounted to test the defenses of the West and perhaps throw a feint to keep our security forces off-balance.
The most famous probe was the “Syrian musicians” on Flight 327, as reported by Annie Jacobsen in Terror in the Skies. Ms. Jacobsen persisted in the face of government spokesmen and the media who ridiculed and vilified her in an attempt to cover up official incompetence, but the reality of what she wrote about was later confirmed by independent investigation. The terror operatives of Flight 327 were apparently seeing how far they could go in a dry run, simulating the assembly of an explosive device in the restroom of the aircraft using components brought on board separately by the “musicians”.
The infamous “flying imams” were a different sort of probe. Unlike the Syrian musicians, their activities were clearly intended to arouse public suspicion and be exposed, so that CAIR-funded lawsuits could intimidate passengers into ignoring suspicious behavior, and force the government to relax its security procedures on airliners.
In addition to these obvious incidents, Muslims engage in other forms of probing on all fronts of their interactions with the West. Islam is, after all, an entire way of life, and the terror attack is just one aspect of the war that is constantly being waged against the kuffar. In every possible arena of conflict — political, legal, cultural, and military — Islam continually pushes the envelope, testing the limits of infidel tolerance and searching out weaknesses.
Every morning I sit down at this computer with a cup of coffee and make my way through a huge batch of emails. Many of them are tips sent in by our dedicated army of tipsters, who scour the global news outlets and send us anything that looks interesting. This flood of articles sometimes juxtaposes seemingly disparate pieces of information, and patterns emerge that might otherwise go unnoticed.
Today was no exception. Four articles that have nothing to do with one another came through this morning in rapid succession, and made me think of probes.
Here’s the first one. According to AKI:
Turkey: Spanish PM to Attend Ramadan Dinner With Erdogan
Istanbul, 15 Sept. — Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero will attend a fast-breaking Ramadan dinner or ‘iftar’ with his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in Istanbul on Monday. Iftar is the meal in which Muslims break the fast at the end of the day. According to Turkish media reports, Zapatero will share the meal with Erdogan and 2,500 guests and the two leaders are expected to discuss bilateral, regional and international issues. Erdogan and Zapatero are co-chairs of the United Nations-led Alliance of Civilisations initiative, aimed at improving dialogue and understanding in order to counter extremism.
So why might this be considered a probe? Mr. Erdogan invited Mr. Zapatero to an iftar dinner; what’s the big deal?
To the average bozo Western politician, it’s no deal at all. It’s another rubber-chicken occasion; you go, you eat, you press the flesh, you ask favors and do people favors — it’s business as usual.
But not to Muslims.
When a kafir [infidel] comes to an iftar dinner, it’s a signal to Muslims that the infidels have conceded their own inferior status as dhimmis. They have acknowledged the supremacy of Islam.
You can bet that’s the signal received by TV viewers across the Muslim world when they see Mr. Zapatero doing his little multicultural dance on the nightly news.
Think about it: do you ever see a Muslim prime minister or head of state attending a Mass, or a Passover Seder, or a Christmas dinner? No, you don’t, not unless it’s one of those “interfaith” occasions done up with full multicultural regalia and politically correct piety, where every faith is represented. If a Muslim attended an event dedicated solely to the ritual observances of another religion, he would be an apostate. That’s why he won’t do it.
So it’s a probe. “Let’s see if the kafir will bow to us: that tells us how far we may push him in the direction of what we want.”
Here’s another example, this one from the USA (MyCentralJersey.com):
For First Time, Plainfield Schools to Close for Islamic Holiday
PLAINFIELD —City schools will be closed for an Islamic holiday for the first time in district history when Eid ul-Fitr is celebrated Thursday, Oct. 2. Eid ul-Fitr is the Islamic holy day marking the end of Ramadan, a currently continuing period of sunrise-to-sunset fasting and religious observance representing the holiest month of the Islamic calendar. The school board voted to include the off day on the 2008-09 district calendar during an April meeting. “We believe in celebrating the diversity of our students, staff, parents and community, and we are excited to embrace this holiday,” said district information officer Eric Jones. “I think it’s a testament to what the Plainfield Public Schools is all about — we believe in celebrating who we are.”
In this case the infidel thinks he’s celebrating diversity, but the Muslim knows that he’s just moved another small step closer to full official recognition of the Islamic religion in the state of New Jersey. The probing nature of the occasion is made obvious by the next paragraph:
School board member Rasheed Abdul-Haqq was instrumental in an April push to have both Eid ul-Fitr and Eid al-Adha, a December holy day on the Islamic calendar, included as being districtwide off days. Only the former was included on the calendar, but Abdul-Haqq said he hoped Eid al-Adha — a festival day of celebration and feasting referred to as “The Big Eid” in many heavily Muslim countries around the world — will ultimately be reconsidered as a districtwide off day.
In other words: “We’re not done. The success of this probe will cause us to probe further, and then further still.”
Abdul-Haqq, who is Muslim, said he felt the step to have the one off day still represented a move in the right direction for the district.
Yes indeed. One small step in the direction of full sharia.
It’s happening all over the place:
“It is getting more and more common… the number of schools (to do so) is increasing every year,” said Javed, who added that many local school districts that may not close school for Islamic holidays do not penalize Muslim students who do not attend school those days. “I think this is a positive, that the communities are integrating and recognizing other people’s beliefs, respecting other people’s religions… I think of it as a good thing for this country.”
A probe here, a probe there. Find the weak point, and probe a little further there. If the probe meets resistance, try another location.
This story from Switzerland seems innocuous enough. There’s good money to be made from the manufacture of halal foods, so what’s wrong with a commercial operation doing business with Muslims? Money has no religion, right?
According to Der Spiegel:
Why a Swiss Village Makes Halal Pastry
A Swiss village is churning out puff pastry that adheres to strict Islamic food guidelines and is exported half way across the world. It’s all part of the growing global demand for halal food products. Walter Leisi is holding two rolled cylinders of dough in his hands, each wrapped in glossy foil, one labeled in French and the other in Arabic. Each package contains the same puff pastry, a concoction of 196 layers of flour, margarine, butter, water and salt — the same, but for one difference, a tiny but decisive difference: one is preserved with alcohol and the other with potassium sorbate. They taste the same, but they smell somewhat different. The dough preserved with potassium sorbate smells “slightly more cheesy,” says Walter Leisi, 63, a jolly Swiss man wearing a purple short-sleeved shirt and a gold watch. Leisi is the director of a Nestlé plant in the Swiss town of Wangen bei Olten. He is also the inventor of Leisi-Quick, the world’s first ready-made puff pastry…More and more Muslims are choosing a devout lifestyle, and this includes strict observance of the dietary restrictions in the Koran, which classify food as being either “halal” or “haram,” allowed or forbidden.
From an Islamic point of view, an infidel business has decided to conform with the dictates of sharia, and follow halal guidelines. Just as in the case of sharia finance, a Muslim hears an infidel submitting to the will of Allah.
It doesn’t matter that the kafir businessman thinks he’s done no such thing. To the servants of profit it’s a purely commercial decision, but to the servants of the Prophet it’s a concession to Islam.
It’s another successful probe.
The final example has nothing directly to do with Islam. No Muslims are involved in it. But when I read the story, it made me think of all these different probes.
Many of our readers have heard about the new Swedish law mandating government surveillance of all emails, phone calls, and other telecommunications. But according to The Copenhagen Post, the effects of Den Svenska Storebror will reach far beyond the borders of Sweden:
Journalists Union Warns of Swedish Surveillance
A new Swedish anti-terror law that takes effect on 1 January will allow the country’s intelligence services to monitor all correspondence going in and out of the country and may include phone calls placed entirely within Denmark, according to the Danish Union of Journalists (DJ). DJ has told its members to stipulate in all their phone calls, emails and other correspondence to Sweden that the material may be listened to or read by the Swedish authorities. The union has also indicated that some emails and phone calls within Denmark may be at risk of being intercepted if the signal passes through Swedish air- or cyberspace. Mogens Blicher Bjerregaard, DJ’s president, said the new law will result in many reporters’ sources ‘clamming up’ for fear of reprisals.
To be fair, the Swedish government has mounted this ambitious operation in order to intercept communications by terrorists and other enemies of the State. But whenever a government votes itself powers such as these, they are inevitably used to monitor and intimidate ordinary citizens. Any tool designed to spy on criminals can just as easily be used to suppress dissent and keep Sven Svensson in line.
Since Sweden has the most exacting Multicultural regime in the world, expect politically incorrect dissidents to be surveilled and harassed. When people become afraid that the government is listening in on their every conversation, they will be that much less likely to object to the party line. They’ll be that much more inclined to shut up and resign themselves to whatever is coming their way.
And, needless to say, what’s coming their way is an Islamic probe. And then another one. And then another one after that…
All those probes are looking for infidel soft spots, and the softest infidel spot of all is now the entire nation of Sweden.
Fjordman’s comment:
In September 2008, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called on the international community to treat “Islamophobia” and criticism of Islam as a “crime against humanity.” He said this addressing PM Zapatero, his Spanish partner in the UN-sponsored “Alliance of Civilizations,” and many other guests in Istanbul at a celebratory iftar meal.
At the same time in Istanbul, or Constantinople as it was once called, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the spiritual center for hundreds of millions of Orthodox Christians, has been reduced to a small, besieged enclave in a decaying corner of Istanbul. Almost all of its property has been seized by successive Turkish governments, its prelates are taunted by extremists who demonstrate almost daily outside the Patriarchate, calling for its ouster from Turkey. The ecumenical patriarch is often jeered and threatened when he ventures outside his walled enclave, state bureaucrats take pleasure in harassing him and the authorities block his efforts to make repairs of the few buildings still under his control (one of the traditional stipulations of dhimmi status) and issue veiled threats against him.
Muslims in Turkey feel free to harass the few non-Muslims who remain in the country and have never apologized for one thousand years of ethnic cleansing against Christian Europeans. When Erdogan talks about “dialogue,” he means unilateral surrender to Islamic rule, which is exactly what a good Muslims should desire according to Islamic law.
Anatolia, the region we now call “Turkey,” was once a land inhabited predominantly by Greek-speaking Christians. The gradual Jihad eradication of these communities has extended well into our own time. As late as in 1955, serious riots broke out in Istanbul, with looting in Greek neighborhoods and the destruction of many churches and synagogues. More than 5,000 shops belonging to the Greek minority were looted by an emotional crowd of several thousand people. The Turkish Muslim riots resulted not only from “fervid chauvinism, or even [from] the economic resentment of many impoverished rioters, but [from] the profound religious fanaticism in many segments of Turkish society.” Greeks and Armenians were savagely beaten and there were gang rapes. Turkish writer Aziz Nessin says that any male passer-by the Turks considered a Greek was forced to show if he had been circumcised. In some cases, Nessin says, Turks carried out “circumcisions” on the spot with knives.
The Execution of Britain
This essay was first published at The Brussels Journal, June 2008. It is republished here with some additions.
I will defend all Western and indeed infidel countries against Islamic Jihad, but I admit I feel especially close to Britain, not just because of the long cultural and historic ties between Scandinavia and the British Isles, but also because I appreciate the good that has come out of British culture. It makes me all the more sad to see how humiliated this great nation is today, and how many natives feel forced to leave what once was their country.
In May 2008, 18 year-old Ben Smith was stopped in a routine check. The police officer noticed an English flag on the parcel shelf and ordered him to remove it because it was “racist towards immigrants.” One of the first things foreign powers usually do when they invade a country is to ban its national symbols. The fact that you can no longer run your flag in parts of Britain — and the Netherlands, Sweden, France, etc. — shows that the country is de facto under occupation, not just by Muslims, but by Multiculturalists and Globalists of all kinds.
In an essay entitled Put away the flags, Howard Zinn, the left-wing author of the best-selling book A People’s History of the United States, writes that “On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed. Is not nationalism — that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder — one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?” He concludes that “We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.”
The problem is, rights can only be protected by sovereign states upholding their territorial integrity. How is “the global community” or “the human race” going to protect Mr. Zinn’s liberties? For a free society to function, the state has to pass laws in the best interest of its citizenry and enforce these within its territory. Otherwise, self-government is impossible. In order to defend this territory from outside aggression, people need to identify with it as something more than just a random space on a map. By removing sovereign states, you remove the very foundations of a free society. Maybe some groups actually desire this?
The British Foreign Minister Milliband stated late in 2007 that the European Union should expand to include Muslim nations in North Africa and the Middle East. The French President Sarkozy and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed this early in 2008. Since the EU involves the free movement of people across borders, European leaders are thus opening the floodgates to tens of millions of Muslims at a time when native Europeans already feel like aliens in their own cities. It’s the greatest betrayal in the history of Western civilization and it has been planned for many years, as those who have read Bat Ye’or’s writings about Eurabia will know.
I believe native Europeans should seriously consider creating a European Indigenous People’s Movement to protect our interests. Our authorities currently reward those who use violence and punish those who don’t. Native Europeans are ignored if we protest peacefully against mass immigration or the expanding pan-European superstate. Muslims get concessions while we are treated with increasing hostility from those who are supposed to be our leaders.
DNA studies have proved that a large majority of those who live in the British Isles today are descended directly from the Ice Age hunters, despite the Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Norman invasions. This accounts for 88% of the Irish, 81% of the Welsh, 70% of the Scots and 68% of the English. Yet the UK Commission for Racial Equality in 1996 claimed that “everyone who lives in Britain today is either an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant.” As Professor David Conway demonstrates in his book A Nation Of Immigrants?, after the invasion led by William the Conqueror in 1066, the total number of Norman settlers in Britain was never more than five per cent of the population. The inflow now is 25 times any previous level and frequently from totally alien cultures, not from neighboring territories and cultural cousins as previously.
PM Tony Blair expressed “profound relief” over the end of a hostage crisis in 2007 where British soldiers had been kidnapped by the Islamic Republic of Iran, telling the mullahs that “we bear you no ill will.” Blair will be remembered as one of the worst leaders in history. Even Chamberlain didn’t flood his country with enemies and present this as something positive. Mass immigration has been going on for decades but showed a spectacular increase under Blair’s and Brown’s Labour regime. The spike was so powerful that it is tempting to speculate whether the authorities had deliberately set out to dismantle their own nation.
According to writer Robert Rowthorn, before Labour came to power, the number of people leaving Britain roughly balanced the number arriving. Then Blair’s government “embarked on a policy that will totally change the nature of many of the communities in which we live without consulting any of us. Labour has never formally announced that it is committed to increasing immigration indefinitely. There was nothing about increasing immigration in Labour’s manifesto of 1997, or of 2001, or of 2005.” Although his government has presided over a virtual explosion of immigration, Blair had the gall to accuse the rivalling Tories of exploiting the issue. He attacked the way the Tories had linked immigration with racism in campaign posters. “It is an attempt deliberately to exploit people’s fears, to suggest that for reasons of political correctness, those in power don’t dare deal with the issue,” he said.
In a British poll from January 2007, a massive 82% disagreed (57% strongly) as to whether the government was in control of immigration. When asked if the government was “open and honest” about the scale of immigration into Britain, 80% disagreed. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch, said: “After a decade of efforts to stifle debate, there is now a fundamental lack of trust between the Government and the public on this issue.” The numbers “reflect a deep underlying resentment among the public that they have not had any opportunity to express their views — still less to be consulted — on a matter of major importance to them and to the future of our country.”
Newspaper columnist Leo McKinstry believes that the English are being turned into second-class citizens in their own country: “England is in the middle of a profoundly disturbing social experiment. For the first time in a mature democracy, a Government is waging a campaign of aggressive discrimination against its indigenous population.”
Similar things are happening all over the Western world, not just in England or Britain, but Britain is definitely one of the worst countries. I’ve been debating with people which country is most likely to get the first Eurabian civil war triggered by mass immigration. There are several possible candidates, but my money is on Britain, because the anger among ordinary citizens is only rivaled by the brutal political repression tactics.
In April 2008, David T, a stunned father and his little boy, were banned from swimming at a popular public sports center in east London because this was a “Muslim men-only swimming” session. Several Christian priests have been physically attacked by Muslims in east London, leading one bishop to worry about “no-go-zones” for Christian in some parts of the country. In early June, a Muslim police community support officer ordered Christian preachers to stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham. They were threatened with arrest for committing a “hate crime” and were told they risked being beaten up if they returned. In March 2008, two Islamic terrorists were moved to different prisons after complaining that their fellow inmates were “too white.” Dhiren Barot had masterminded a radioactive bomb plot involving limousines packed with nails and explosives and Omar Khyam plotted to blow up the Bluewater shopping centre in Kent.
Keith Best, head of the Immigration Advisory Service, stated that immigrants are “better citizens” than native Britons. Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers’ Alliance pressure group was shocked and replied that “Taxpayers shouldn’t be funding an outfit that describes them as being second-rate citizens.” But apparently, now they do.
How do native Brits react to this? Well, some get angry, as they should. Bryan Cork, 49, was jailed for six months for “racist slurs” after he had shouted insults at Muslim worshippers outside a Cumbria mosque, including “proud to be British” and “go back to where you came from.” This was after the London Jihadist bombings in 2005. Judge Paul Batty told him that racism in any form would not be tolerated. I hear much talk about “national suicide” these days, but Mr. Cork apparently had no desire to commit national suicide, he was held down by his own authorities for refusing to accept the organized destruction of his nation. What we are dealing with here isn’t suicide; it’s an execution of an entire nation, perhaps an entire civilization, the greatest civilization ever created by man.
Even children face this kind of ideological intimidation. Codie Stott, a teenage British schoolgirl, was forced to spend hours in a police cell after she was reported by her teachers for “racism.” She had objected, in the mildest possible terms, to being placed during class with a group of South Asian immigrants who talked among themselves in a language she didn’t understand, most likely Urdu. For this, she was dragged to the local police station and had her fingerprints taken. 18-year-old Jamie who has Down’s syndrome and the mental age of a five-year-old was charged with “racism” after an argument with an immigrant. Meanwhile, the UK is being brought to its knees in an epidemic of crime and white native girls get raped by immigrants in spectacular numbers, just like all over Western Europe.
Why do people still take this lying down? I wonder about that sometimes. Maybe they feel that their votes don’t matter and have resigned into a state of quiet apathy. Since many are dependent upon government support and being branded a “bigot” could cause you to lose your livelihood, people still have too much to lose by openly opposing these policies. Such subtle blackmail can be quite effective in suppressing dissent. This could, however, change rapidly in the event of a serious economic downturn. Another crucial element is confusion. People are deliberately kept in the dark by the media and the authorities regarding the full scale of what they are facing. Combined with Muslim violence and intimidation of critics, we have a climate of fear and confusion. People who are scared and confused can be easily controlled.
I’ve recently been re-reading the books of American evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond, especially Guns, Germs, and Steel. He has some valid points, but his most important flaw is his complete failure to explain how the Greater Middle East went from being a global center of civilization, which it was in ancient times, to being a global center of anti-civilization. This was not caused by smallpox or because zebras are more difficult to domesticate than water buffaloes. It was caused by Islam. Diamond, with his emphasis on historical materialism, fails to explain the rise of the West and especially why English, not Arabic, Chinese or Mayan, became the global lingua franca. What’s so special about those rainy and foggy islands?
As Australian author Keith Windschuttle told a New Zealand audience, “The concepts of free enquiry and free expression and the right to criticise entrenched beliefs are things we take so much for granted they are almost part of the air we breathe. We need to recognise them as distinctly Western phenomena.” He warns that the survival of this great achievement now depends entirely “on whether we have the intelligence to understand their true value and the will to face down their enemies.”
No other civilization on earth ever created an equivalent of the European university system. One of the most important reasons why Europe surpassed China during the early modern age was more political freedom and free speech. The reason why English became the dominant language is because Britain and its offspring enjoyed great political liberty even by Western standards, and a corresponding economic dynamism. As Nathan Rosenberg and L.E. Birdzell Jr. put it in How The West Grew Rich:
“If only because colonialism has become synonymous with infamy, it is worth recalling that from the Greek colonization of the Mediterranean to the colonial ventures of the West, some colonies were immensely successful from the viewpoints of both the colony and of its country of origin. Colonialism planted the seeds for the early development of today’s North and South American economies — an awesome accomplishment. But the Spanish, Portuguese, English, French, and Dutch colonial experiences and their consequences were various…By far the most striking accomplishment of British colonialism was that it seeded several advanced Western economies, to the substantial benefit of the colonies: the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and Singapore. These colonies’ economic accomplishments also benefited Britain, for controlled and exploitive trade with an economically backward colony is much less beneficial to an advanced country than its trade with other advanced countries. France built and lost a large colonial empire, remembered for the violent collapse of its Indo-Chinese rule and the almost equally violent end of its rule over what was probably its most economically successful colony, Algeria. In retrospect, there is little reason to think that its colonial ventures contributed positively to France’s economic growth.”
Probably no empire in world history has been more benevolent than the British Empire, yet a report from February 2008 recommended that patriotism should be avoided in school lessons because British history is “morally ambiguous.” I suppose Islamic history isn’t, with almost 1400 years of brutal Jihad warfare on several continents?
I’m sure the British are being told that the ongoing mass immigration is a result of their “colonial history.” I live in a country with no colonial history, yet we are still subject to mass immigration. We are also being told that we should allow Pakistani or Nigerian flags to celebrate our Constitution Day because this will be “good for integration.” This has nothing to do with colonialism. So what does it have to do with? Well, I’m starting to wonder whether it has something to do with the Western love affair with free speech and political liberty. Those who desire a world where society is regulated and everybody does what the authorities tell them to do fear this Western preference for political self-determination.
If we look at the West during the past thousand years, we have generally enjoyed an unusually high degree of freedom and power sharing. This has been the case more in some periods and countries than in others, but in the big scheme of things this remains true. However, although this arrangement has been good for our civilization as a whole, some of our elites apparently are jealous of the more authoritarian system in other cultures. They want to turn the West into a “normal,” meaning more corrupt and less free, civilization, aided by the forces of globalization. We are witnessing rising nepotism, and perhaps those at the top desire this.
In The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West, Lee Harris writes that: “What strikes us as irrationalities in the economic systems of Third World nations, such as the red tape documented by [Peruvian economist Hernando] de Soto, is not irrational at all from the point of view of the dominant elite: It is part of what keeps them dominant. With enough red tape, they can stay king of the mountain forever.”
This reminds me a great deal of what Western elites are now doing, attempting to create a permanent, dominant oligarchy by keeping the native population in check through a combination of red tape and bureaucracy as well as intimidation from imported immigrants and “anti-racists.” Instead of having Western practices exported to Third World countries, Third World practices are imported to the West, along with Third World immigration.
The political elites no longer believe in stupid things such as borders, cultures and national sovereignty. Islam upsets their world-view, so they ignore it and move on with their post-national project, anyway. The most hardcore Leftists side with Islam because its hatred of the West and its concept of a global umma coincide with their own globalist outlook. Yes, I know that Socrates supposedly stated “I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world,” but I don’t think he meant it quite as literally as Western elites do now. Socrates didn’t have an entire village of Muslims transplanted to his street during the space of a single generation.
Our traditional freedoms were the result of a specific culture, developed over centuries of hard struggles. Maybe other cultures have to go through similar struggles of their own to achieve this, and some will perhaps never be able to do so. We should protect our freedoms at home before we try to export them, and we should protect them by preserving the European-derived culture which created them.
Our enemies, internal and external, want to destroy us because we represent liberty, or at least we once did, and they want to destroy Britain in particular because it gave birth to the most powerful pro-liberty culture within the Western tradition. I hope the British can regain their strength and throw off their traitor class, but they need to do so soon. We cannot allow the greatest nation in history to be destroyed by the planet’s most barbaric cultures. The British people, like their Western counperparts elsewhere, have every right to desire self-determination and limit or completely halt immigration as they see fit to ensure this. Those who say otherwise are evil. They need to be exposed as such and removed from power.
At the same time as sharia law has gained official recognition as a part of the British legal system and Muslims proudly talk about conquering the Western world, a British woman was arrested because of a supposedly “racist” doll she kept in her window. In al-Britannia a Muslim man can claim benefits for children with multiple wives and brag about subduing the country and reducing its traditional inhabitants to second-rate citizens or worse, but you cannot have a “racially insensitive” doll in your own home, at least not if you’re white.
In a survey published in April 2008, one in three medical doctors in Britain said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long. At the same time, Muslim men with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits. Baroness Warnock, an influential government “ethical” adviser suggests that elderly dementia sufferers may have a “duty to die” because they are a financial burden to the state. Elderly Brits have to die, with or without “encouragement,” so that the state can afford to pay for all the Nigerians and Bangladeshis who flood the country. The “welfare state” now means that the natives should watch grandma die because she’s getting old anyway and we need the money to pay Muslims with multiple wives and numerous children so that they can feel comfortable while they colonize the country.
These incidents may seem unrelated, but they are not. Make no mistake about it: Harassing the natives in order to crush them mentally and destroy any ideas they might harbor about defending their country against foreign colonization is a deliberate strategy on the part of the authorities and the ruling Multiculturalist oligarchy, whether you identify this as the British Labour Party or the European Union (both are correct). Of course, this is about the entire Western world, not just Britain, but Britain is arguably the worst example of all. I am not aware of arrests for “racist” dolls even in Sweden, Belgium or al-Canada, and they are bad cases of suicidal Multiculturalism. Britain in 2008 is no longer the nation that gave us Shakespeare, Newton or Adam Smith; it is the world’s largest open-air prison, an enlarged Marxist reeducation camp, a horror story where the authorities wage cultural and demographic warfare against the indigenous people of the country. The only good news is that I sense that native Britons are getting angrier by the day, and will not go quietly into the night.
Will Holland Survive the 21st Century?
This essay was first published in September 2008 at the Gates of Vienna blog, and is reproduced here with some additions.
Let us consider the case of the Netherlands. Islamic practices there gain more and more public acceptance. There is talk of making Islamic holidays public holidays because Holland is a “Judeo-Christian-Islamic” society, whatever that is. There are plans for a Muslim-only hospital, and former Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner stated that the Dutch should give Muslims more freedoms to behave according to their traditions: “For me it is clear: if two-thirds of the Dutch population should want to introduce the Sharia tomorrow, then the possibility should exist,” according to him. “It would be a disgrace to say: ‘That is not allowed!’“
The idea is by no means far-fetched. Unofficial sharia courts have been operating for years in major European cities and gradually gain official acceptance. In September 2008 it was made known that British authorities will formally accept rulings of sharia courts on certain matters. This means that Britain has not just culturally but also legally surrendered to its new Muslim masters. The political elites will put up no resistance whatsoever to continued Islamization.
Britain is one of the worst countries in the Western world, which says a lot given how bad many others are, but it belongs to a growing group of nations where the authorities have more or less surrendered to Islamic rule, openly promote Islamic “culture”, and harass those who resist. One could add Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, and probably France to the list, which keeps growing. Norway, Spain, Austria, Germany and others are not far behind.
The Netherlands, which for centuries was a haven for those seeking more freedom of thought, is becoming an increasingly totalitarian society as a direct result of mass immigration in general and Muslim immigration in particular. This is the reason why the insightful Hans Janssen, Professor of Modern Islamic Ideology at Utrecht University, stated that a peaceful society that wishes to remain existent “will have to find a way to defend itself through non-peaceful means from people who are not peaceful.” According to Jansen, Muslim fundamentalists frequently make threats, but Dutch media remain silent about them.
Public broadcaster NPS is producing a television programme with the objective of giving the Dutch population a positive view of Muslims and other immigrant groups. Meanwhile, in 2008 it was revealed that a policeman of Moroccan origins in the Rotterdam police corps has been unmasked as a spy for the Moroccan intelligence service. He led a project that trained 57 Moroccan problem youngsters as ground personnel for Rotterdam Airport. The Public Prosecutor’s Office (OM) decided not to prosecute him, allegedly because this could potentially generate negative publicity about the “Multicultural” society. Even after this was revealed, the policeman unmasked as a spy for a foreign country continued working at Rotterdam Airport. The airport management saw no reason to refuse him a job.
In contrast, the Dutch Labor Party (PvdA) tried to muzzle a (then) member who was fighting for the rights of Muslim apostates because they feared he would cause the party electoral damage. As most other left-wing parties in the Western world, they get a disproportionate number of immigrant votes. The man in question, the brave ex-Muslim Ehsan Jami, in the spring of 2008 decided to close down his organization of former Muslims who defy the traditional death penalty for leaving Islam. He claims people are scared to join the organization because of threats from Muslims.
Slotervaart, a Moroccan neighborhood in Amsterdam, has been plagued by riots and arson. Just as in similar areas in Sweden, France, England and elsewhere, emergency personnel from the fire brigade and ambulance services are at risk of physical attacks when they enter. Western Europe’s major cities have become notorious for their rapidly expanding “no-go” zones, from Birmingham, London and Bradford via Marseilles, Paris, Antwerp and Brussels to Copenhagen, Berlin and Hamburg. There are now many areas into which even the police dare not venture without substantial backup. In certain urban areas the fire brigade and ambulance services are reluctant to answer calls in Muslim neighborhoods, where “youths” set fire to public buildings, and then lay an ambush for the fire brigade when it arrives.
In mid-September 2008, the bus service in the Dutch town of Gouda announced it would not drive though the Oosterwei neighborhood. The decision came following complaints from bus drivers who report that on their route through the neighborhood they are being spit on, threatened and robbed by Moroccan youth, who systematically kick against the buses as well.
It has earlier been revealed that Moroccans, Turks and other Muslims in the Netherlands receive direction from their home countries. Ethnic Turks have received instructions from Turkey on how to vote in Dutch elections.
In mid-September 2008, politician Geert Wilders said during a speech in Parliament that Moroccans are colonizing the Netherlands. According to Wilders, Moroccans didn’t come there to integrate, but “to subjugate the Dutch” and rule over them. “We lose our nation to Moroccan scum who go through life while abusing, spitting and molesting innocent people,” Wilders stated. “They happily accept our dole, houses and doctors, but not our rules and values”, he said. According to him there are “two nations.” The cabinet’s nation is that of “climate hysterics and uncontrollable Islamization.” The other nation, “my nation,” Geert Wilders said, “is that of the people who have to foot the bill and are being robbed and threatened by Islamic street terrorists.”
Seven minutes after the speech began, “a technical error” occurred in the television broadcast which was mysteriously solved the very second Wilders finished his speech. The state TV is notoriously biased in their pro-Multicultural opinions and belief that Wilders is evil.
As I wrote in my online essay “ Democracy and the Media Bias,” in democratic societies the press, the Fourth Estate, should supposedly make sure that the government does its job properly as well as raise issues of public interest. In practice, we now seem to have a situation where the political elites cooperate with the media on making sure that some topics receive insufficient or unbalanced attention while others are simply kept off the agenda altogether. Together they form a new political class.
Before the rise of maverick politician Pim Fortuyn, the Dutch political scene had to a great extent been a closed club whose members, regardless of party affiliation, shared similar views in the widest possible sense. Most of the journalists belonged to the same club. If the majority of the populace didn’t quite agree with this elite on sensitive issues — and the most sensitive of them all was Muslim immigration — this hardly mattered much. Since all those who were in positions of power were in basic agreement, the will of the people could safely be ignored. Journalists and rival politicians — notice how they worked in lockstep — smeared Fortuyn as a dangerous “right-wing extremist.” Indirectly, this led to his murder by a left-wing activist who stated that he killed him on behalf of Muslims because he was “dangerous” to minorities.
Pim Fortuyn was indirectly murdered by the political, cultural and media elites whereas filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered by Muslims. MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been driven from the country. The Islam-critical MP Geert Wilders is still there, but he is subjected to similar smears as Fortuyn was about being a racist, receives daily threats from Muslims and not-so-subtle hints from the establishment that he should tone down his criticism of Muslim immigration. The Dutch spirit between 2001 and 2008 appears to have been broken, as things are slowly returning to normal. The extended political elites are once again firmly in control of public debate, and the embarrassing peasant rebellion has been successfully struck down. If only that Wilders person could shut his mouth…
Perhaps Holland’s chance of saving itself died with Fortuyn. I hope not. I have always loved the Netherlands, and it would be extremely sad if a once-great nation that has spent so much time and energy on keeping the sea out will be destroyed by a tidal wave of sharia barbarism.
There were warning signs of these problems in the early 1990s, but the Dutch and other Westerners chose not to heed them. The case of the Danish cartoons is closely related to another Islamic assault on free speech, the death sentence given by Iranian leader the Ayatollah Khomeini to Salman Rushdie for his “blasphemous” book The Satanic Verses in 1989. The weak and feeble response from the West then, when Muslims “only” threatened one author and his publishers, paved the way for the situation today, when Muslims feel strong enough in the West to threaten entire countries.
A few people did understand what was going on. Several of them came from a Muslim background and understood the stakes involved. One of them was Ibn Warraq, who was inspired to write Why I Am Not a Muslim after the Rushdie case, but there were others. The Flemish orientalist Koenraad Elst describes how, in Amsterdam in 1992, Mohamed Rasoel, a Pakistani immigrant, was charged with racism for his book The Downfall of the Netherlands, Land of the Naive Fools. The judge decided that Rasoel had made “unjustified generalizations” by contrasting “soft Dutchmen” with “crude, cruel, corrupt and bloodthirsty Muslims” and that it was a racist pamphlet written with the purpose of inciting hatred.
Rasoel warned in his book that the Dutch were mistaken to tolerate the mushrooming growth of their Muslim population. He predicted that this would lead to a civil war and, at best, the country’s partition. This was during the heat of the Rushdie controversy. The book was taken from the shelves in most bookstores throughout the Netherlands, and quickly forgotten about.
Mohamed Rasoel himself stated that: “It proves that the general thrust of my book is correct, that Dutch society is changing and becoming less tolerant. Freedom of opinion is already being sacrificed. I don’t blame this state attorney, he is a nice man but rather dumb and naïve like most Dutchmen…Muslims are allowed to shout: kill Rushdie…When Muslims say on TV that all Dutch women are whores, it is allowed…It is ridiculous and scandalous that I have to justify myself in court for discrimination of Muslims.”
In the book, Rasoel stated that “Being offended is sometimes purely a form of aggression.” A fitting commentary to both the Rushdie situation and the cartoon Jihad nearly a generation later. “The future is already here. The Netherlands is no longer the safe nation of the past, where a girl could walk alone through the park at night. The Dutch, and I mean those who aren’t six feet under ground already, have all in all turned into a frightened people, afraid to make jokes about Muslims, to offend them, fool them, and criticize or correct them…Dutchmen have basically been driven into a corner by the Muslims.”
Remember, this was written around 1990. And Rasoel warned that it would get much worse:
“The behavior of the Muslims currently hasn’t fully deployed yet, and can be compared to the one of the boy who is new at a club. It takes a while before the ice is broken and he starts to move more at ease, until at last his true nature becomes visible. And though the Dutch will fight for their norms and values, the Muslims will not only surprise them once again with their barbaric methods, they will punch straight through their soft and decent defense…Afterwards the Muslims will steadily continue to overmaster and dominate the Dutch, who will have no choice but to participate in a game of tug of war where they will steadily lose ground…By 2050 there will be no Netherlands left, or at least, nothing worth calling it that.”
Maybe, if the Dutch and other Westerners had been able to widely read and debate these prophetic words of Mohammed Rasoel, critics of Islam such as Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh would still be alive today, and Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others would not have to live with 24 hours police protection.
American author Paul Berman in his essay/booklet Who’s Afraid of Tariq Ramadan describes the situation of Dutch-Somali former Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who now lives in the USA:
“Even in the United States she is protected by bodyguards. I happened to attend a different conference in Italy a few days earlier and met the very brave Egyptian-Italian journalist Magdi Allam, who writes scathing criticisms of the new totalitarian wave in Il Corriere della Sera—and I discovered that Allam, too, was traveling with a full complement of five bodyguards. The Italian journalist Fiamma Nierenstein, because of her well-known sympathies for Israel, was accompanied by her own bodyguards. So Salman Rushdie has metastasized into an entire social class, a subset of the European intelligentsia—its Muslim wing especially—who survive only because of their bodyguards and their own precautions. This is unprecedented in Western Europe during the last sixty years. And yet if someone like Pascal Bruckner mumbles a few words about the need for courage under these circumstances, the sneers begin. Today the menace to society is declared to be Hirsi Ali and people of similar minds, of whom there are quite a few: John Stuart Mill’s Muslim admirers, who are said to be just as fanatical as the fanatics. During the Rushdie affair, courage was saluted. Today it is likened to fascism.”
Censorship is spreading fast in once-tolerant the Netherlands. In May 2008 the cartoonist writing under the pseudonym Gregorius Nekschot became the first-ever cartoonist to be arrested in the modern Western world. He was arrested at his home in Amsterdam and taken into custody for interrogation, suspected of “publishing cartoons which are discriminating for Muslims and people with dark skin.” At the same time, the city of Amsterdam developed teaching material warning children against the politics of the Islam-critical politician Geert Wilders. MP Wilders called the campaign “sickening.”
Wilders’ movie Fitna from March 2008 produced strong reactions from Muslims on a global basis and condemnations from dhimmi appeasers in the Western world. Although the short film didn’t do anything other than quote the Koran and statements by Muslim leaders, the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned it as offensively anti-Islamic. “There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.” The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour joined in on condemning the tone and content of Fitna and noted that the Dutch and others should prohibit any advocacy of racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination or hostility. In plain words, they should ban criticism of Islam.
There are already examples where small Dutch websites have been prosecuted for carrying readers’ comments critical of Islam and Muslims, thus setting a legal precedent for the suppression of free speech on the Internet. This despite the fact that far more offensive material is routinely posted on Islamic online forums and is never subjected to any punishment. Similar developments are taking place in other European countries. This is encouraged not only by national authorities but by EU officials, who have expressed their desire to “regulate” blogs and similar websites more because they are often more critical of Multiculturalism, mass immigration and general EU policies than are the mainstream media.
What this means is that Dutch authorities are giving in to demands from Islamic countries and kneel at the feet of their new Muslim masters. There can be no doubt that there is considerable political pressure on the police and others to enforce Multicultural speech codes and silence dissenters among the natives. Since we see clearly that Muslims can post negative remarks about the natives, but the natives are not allowed to post negative remarks about Islamic culture, this means that the natives are de facto second-rate citizens in their own country. This is coincidentally the status that they are supposed to have according to sharia, which means that the authorities are now enforcers of Islamic law.
Some observers say that the political elites in Western Europe are “powerless” to stop street violence. But they are aggressive in suppressing criticism of continued mass immigration, which indicates that they are not so much powerless as actively hostile to the natives.
In Brussels, Belgium, gangs of Muslim immigrants harass the natives on a daily basis. We have had several recent cases where native girls have been gang raped by immigrants in the heart of the EU capital, yet when the natives wanted to protest against the Islamization of their continent on September 11th 2007, the demonstration was banned by the Socialist mayor of Brussels, whose ruling party is heavily infiltrated by Muslims. Those who attempted to carry on with a peaceful protest were arrested by the police.
Former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt has said: “Belgium is the laboratory of European unification.” What kind of confidence does it inspire in citizens that their leader talks about their country as a laboratory? Are their children guinea pigs? Apparently, yes.
In 1960, 7.3% of the population of Belgian capital Brussels was non-Belgian. Today the figure is 56.5%. Jan Hertogen, a Marxist sociologist, can hardly hide his excitement over this great experiment in social engineering, and believes this population replacement “is an impressive and unique development from a European, or even a world perspective.” Yes, it is probably the first time in history that a nation demographically has handed over its capital city to outsiders without firing a single shot, but judging from trends in the rest of Europe, it won’t be the last. The European Union and the local Multicultural elites will see to that.
The courageous Flemish writer Paul Belien has argued in his book A Throne in Brussels that Belgium is used as a blueprint for the wider European Union. Belgium is an artificial state dominated by a French-speaking bureaucratic elite, and could be viewed as a laboratory for what the Eurabians want to do to the rest of the continent, such as population replacement, largely by Muslims, and silencing opposition to this by legal harassment and through various mechanisms de facto disenfranchise the native population.
The Dutch writer Margriet de Moor provides another example of why Multiculturalism is a massive experiment in social engineering, every bit as radical and dangerous as Communism. Ms. de Moor lives in some kind of alternate reality where “Europe’s affluence and free speech” will create an Islamic Reformation. But Muslim immigration constitutes a massive drain on the former, and is slowly, but surely destroying the latter: “When I’m feeling optimistic I sometimes see the Netherlands, a small laconic country not inclined towards the large-scale or the theatrical, as a kind of laboratory on the edge of Europe. Now and then the mixture of dangerous, easily inflammable substances results in a little explosion, but basically the process of ordinary chemical reactions just continues.”
What kind of person refers to her own country as a laboratory? Ms. de Moor sounds like a scientist, dispassionately studying an interesting specimen in her microscope. I’m sure Theo van Gogh would be pleased to hear that he was basically a lab rat when he ended up with a knife in his chest for having “insulted” Islam, along with that of the “racist” Pim Fortuyn the first political murder in Holland for centuries. What was once one of the most tolerant nations in the world is now being ruined by Muslim immigration. But hey, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, right? These murders were an unfortunate business, no doubt, but one mustn’t call off the entire Multicultural experiment because of a few minor setbacks.
Dozens of Dutch boys and girls have been systematically abused, intimidated and molested by a group of older boys in the Utrecht neighbourhood of Overvecht. Children aged 8, 9 and 10 have been dragged into bushes and coerced into performing sexual acts on boys a few years older. Most of the children involved are of Moroccan background. A municipal council member said that the problems are not being addressed. “This has been going on for almost a year. People just talk and talk and talk. And nothing is done,” she said.
In March 2007, native Dutch residents of the city of Utrecht rioted to protest against harassment by Muslim youths and government inaction to stop this. The authorities immediately suppressed the riots by sealing off the area and installing surveillance cameras to control Dutch non-Muslims, but they have done virtually nothing to address the underlying problem of violence from immigrant gangs. The case is far from unique.
Such incidents demonstrate that the authorities throughout Western Europe are now dedicated to implementing continued mass immigration and Multiculturalism no matter what the natives think. If they object, they will be silenced. The Dutch voted “no” by a very large margin to the proposed EU Constitution that will formally dismantle their country, as did Irish and French voters, but they are simply ignored. At the same time, the EU elites obediently respond to calls from Islamic countries to ban “stereotypes and prejudice” targeting Islam. European political elites implement the agendas of our enemies and ignore the interests of their own people. They are thus collaborators and traitors and should be treated accordingly.
The interesting question is this: Are the elites merely appeasing Islam, which they certainly are doing, or are they actively promoting and expropriating it for their own ends? As Iranian ex-Muslim Ali Sina puts it in his excellent book Understanding Muhammad: “Islam was an instrument of domination. After Muhammad, others used his cult for the very same purpose.” Maybe this is happening in the EU as well?
Sina rejects the Multicultural concept that all cultures (except European culture, which is evil and should be eradicated) are worth keeping:
“If any culture needs to be preserved, it is the Western, Helleno-Christian culture. It is this culture that is facing extinction. It is to this culture alone that we owe the Enlightenment, Renaissance, and democracy. These are the foundations of our modern world. It would be a terrible mistake not to preserve this culture. If we do nothing, we face a future where democracy and tolerance will fade and Islam’s more primitive instincts will subjugate humanity. All cultures are not made equal… Islam is not a culture. It is the antithesis of culture. It is barbarity, savagery and incivility. Islamic civilization is an oxymoron, while Islamic terrorism is redundancy. We owe our freedom and modern civilization to Western culture. It is this culture that is now under attack and needs protection.”
It is not Political Correctness to say that in some cases it’s actually people from an immigrant background, people who were not born into the West such as Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina and Wafa Sultan, who are at the forefront of defending free speech in Western countries, while many white Marxists want to silence free speech as “racism” and actively embrace Islam. We thus have a highly unusual situation — possibly unique — where some of the people who were born into a civilization attack it from within whereas others who were not born into it defend it.
As I put it in my essay “ The Welfare State is Dead, Long Live the Welfare State,” Americans say “In God we trust.” Is the welfare state, on some deep, subconscious level, a substitute for God? An omnipresent State instead of an omnipresent God? Europeans lost belief in God in Auschwitz and the trenches of WW1. We no longer trust in God, so we put our trust in the State, to create a small oasis of security on a continent that has had such a turbulent history.
The slogan is “security from cradle to grave.” But right now the welfare state clearly does not provide financial or physical security in much of Western Europe, at least not for the natives. It pays for more cradles to Muslim immigrants while it leads some of the natives prematurely to their graves. Taxes are a form of disguised jizya, the poll tax paid by submissive non-Muslims under Islamic rule, taken from us and given to those who colonize our lands.
The welfare state breeds passivity and obedience to the state’s agenda since so many are dependent upon it for their livelihoods. For rulers, this can be quite useful. The stated purpose of the welfare state is to alleviate poverty, but we should remember that a powerful state bureaucracy which deals with all aspects of life leaves a great deal of power to those on top of that bureaucracy, ruling people who have been pacified and emasculated by decades of state indoctrination and interference in their private lives. I suspect one of the reasons why Europeans put up with a powerful EU bureaucracy running much of Europe’s affairs is that we have already been accustomed to this on a national level.
My advice to Westerners in general is to arm themselves immediately, first of all mentally with knowledge of the enemy and pride in their own culture and heritage, but also physically with guns and the skills to use them. Friedrich Nietzsche stated in the nineteenth century that “God is dead.” In the early twenty-first century it would be fair to say that “The State is dead,” the replacement God in which we placed our trust after the other God died.
Every single day we get more evidence that the authorities are totally incapable of protecting any semblance of security and freedom for its citizens. The only thing the state still seems to be capable of doing is indoctrinating our children with hatred of their own civilization and taking away our money so that it can be given to those who colonize our countries and abuse our children, verbally and physically.
My bet is still on Britain, or possibly Denmark, as the first Western country to face a civil war due to mass immigration, but the Netherlands is a potential candidate as well. I just wonder whether the Dutch are already a broken nation. Their political elites have chosen surrender and will enforce sharia and ban everybody disagreeing with this as “extremists.” Native Dutchmen will either have to fight back or leave their country behind and watch it die from a distance. A significant number of them have chosen the latter option. In 2008, the Netherlands is the only Western European country experiencing net emigration, although similar trends are visible in the UK and to lesser extent other countries. It’s the best and brightest among the natives that are leaving, in exchange for low-skilled immigrants from developing countries.
What is happening in Western Europe now is a textbook case of a situation where the social contract is no longer upheld. The natives pay extremely high tax rates to nation states that no longer protect their borders and are both unwilling and incapable of upholding a bare minimum of law and order. The laws are in any case no longer passed with our interest in mind, but by dedicated Multiculturalists and Globalists specifically hostile to our interests. The European Union is the very definition of tyranny.
As John Locke says in the Second Treatise on Government:
“The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property, and the end why they choose and authorize a legislative is that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power and moderate the dominion of every part and member of the society… whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people… By this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society.”
Thomas Jefferson stated that “I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” He also said that “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
We would do well to heed those words.
A Tribute to Italy
This essay was first published at the Gates of Vienna blog in July 2008. It is republished here with some changes and additions, among them quotes taken from the essay Why Western Art is Unique, and Why Muslim Immigration Threatens It at The Brussels Journal.
In 2008, after the center-right government of Silvio Berlusconi gained power in Italy, Spain’s vice-president Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega accused the Italians of racism. “The [Spanish] government rejects violence, racism and xenophobia, thus it does not agree with what is happening in Italy,” said Fernandez de la Vega. Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International warned that the new immigration restrictions were part of a worrying trend, and that Italian politicians were legitimizing the use of “racist language.” Later, the president of the city of Milan, Filippo Penati, proposed to fine Muslims who pray on the streets or sidewalks outside of the local mosque because they create obstacles for others.
“For some time Italy has been the gateway of the Mediterranean, but this door now needs to be slammed shut because we have a duty to defend our citizens and guarantee their safety” said Italy’s Minister for Community Policies, Andrea Ronchi. “We shall punish illegal immigrants, irregular stays by foreigners who commit crimes on our territory. And this is our full right as a nation.”
Is it? In the view of various “human rights” organizations, European countries do not have the right to defend our borders or citizens. That would violate the “human rights” of those who colonize our countries and harass our children in the streets of our cities. We’re viewed as a big, fat and stupid cow whose only reason to exist apparently is to be milked by others. Or worse, we have a duty to die, to dismantle our nations and applaud our annihilation.
According to a survey from April 2008 funded by the Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP), the funds transferred from Europe to eight southern Mediterranean countries (Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey) represent between 2% and 20% of the gross domestic product of these countries. The incomes received by immigrants and then sent to their countries of origin are a resource on which the governments in the Arab and Muslim world are becoming increasingly dependant. The European Union wants this trend to continue and expand, and Muslims will intimidate anybody who challenges these pro-Arab policies.
In May 2008, Libya threatened “catastrophic repercussions to her relations with Italy” if Roberto Calderoli was once again appointed minister. The threat came from the son of leader Muammar Gheddafi, Saif El Islam, who thundered against the Northern League representative. As Minister of Reforms in 2006, reminded a note from the Rome office of the Libyan news agency, Calderoli in the course of a TV interview had showed a T-shirt “with offensive drawings against Islam” (one of the Danish Muhammad cartoons), a gesture which sparked protests with hundreds of angry demonstrators attacking the Italian consulate in the Libyan city of Bengasi. The final toll of the bitter clashes with the police forces which had been marshalled to protect the consulate was 11 dead and 35 wounded.
It is highly revealing how, whenever a Western country appears to be serious about restricting mass immigration, human rights organizations, various international NGOs, UN and EU agencies as well as some national governments will make common cause with immigrant groups in exerting pressure on this country to abandon its defenses in the name of “human rights, international law, tolerance and anti-racism.”
I have my issues with Mr. Berlusconi, but whatever his other faults, he is not a dhimmi. His predecessor, the Socialist PM and former EUrocrat Romano Prodi, who was in the process of turning Italy into a leader of the Axis of Appeasement together with his Spanish colleague Zapatero, is a passionate cheerleader of Eurabia. Muslims see the distinction, too.
In June 2008, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and prominent Italian journalist Magdi Allam, an Egyptian-born former Muslim who converted to Christianity in 2008, were the targets of death threats posted on a popular Islamic website said to be close to the Jihadist organization al-Qaeda. In an article in the Corriere della Sera, Allam stated that we cannot allow reality to be determined by the negators of Jihad, the deniers of Israel or the apologists for Palestinian terrorism. He warned against granting legitimacy to Al-Azhar in Egypt, the most prestigious institution for sharia scholars and religious matters in the Sunni Islamic world:
“Let it be clearly understood, once and for all, that Al Azhar is a fortress of Muslim extremism and of Muslim terrorism. Let the Minister of the Interior send back to their countries of origin those Imams who are submissive adherents of this ideology. Let the Minister of Foreign Affairs clearly denounce the agreement of cooperation signed on June 15, 2005, between Al Azhar and five Italian universities, signed by Ambassador Antonio Badini with the rector of Al Azhar, Sheikh Ahmad al Tayyeb, who on April 4, 2002 said: ‘The solution to Israeli terror can be found in suicide attacks that will sow terror in the hearts of the enemies of Islam.’ Let everyone stop legitimizing the ideologues of the Muslim Brotherhood, beginning with Tariq Ramadan. Let the state, and local institutions, stop handing over the mosques to UCOII. The lesson we must all learn from the latest scandal emanating from the Grand Mosque of Rome, is that before accrediting any Muslim as an official interlocutor, it is necessary to make him subscribe to a declaration in which he publicly recognizes the right of Israel to exist and condemns unequivocally Palestinian terrorism.”
There are some encouraging signs of resistance in Italy. What is so special about this country? I have heard suggestions that political correctness and self-loathing is a “Protestant disease” and that Catholic countries are less prone to contracting it. I am willing to consider that possibility, but I haven’t seen any convincing evidence for it so far.
I cannot give a good explanation as to why Lutheran Denmark is stronger than Norway, Finland, and Sweden, culturally speaking closely related nations. I suspect one of the causes is that Denmark has enjoyed a healthier culture of debate and tolerance for public dissent than Norway or Finland, with Sweden being a particularly nasty example of the long-term effects of ideological indoctrination and suppression of dissent. Although very far from being a paradise, tiny Denmark has a genuine debate about immigration that would be respectable for a much larger country. Britain is more than ten times as large, yet is currently one of the worst nations in the Western world. Exactly why, I don’t know. It is possible that they have particularly treasonous political elites, but I do suspect that the British, the source of the first truly global lingua franca, suffer from a post-Imperial Stress Syndrome.
Possibly the worst country in Europe, demographically speaking, is France. The French Revolution made France into a culturally wounded nation, and the legacy of French rule in North Africa and Syria has left the French with the illusion that they “understand” Arabs and Muslims, and now want to use them as a tool to prevent France’s long-term decline into irrelevance as a Great Power. Sadly, the French try to export their self-destructive ideologies to other countries through the European Union.
Among the larger countries in Western Europe, Italy currently ranks as the healthiest one, if we ignore the appallingly low birth rates it shares with the rest of Europe. I am disappointed with the Spanish. Maybe they, too, suffer from a post-Imperial Stress Syndrome, just like the British and the French. I hope the Germans will wake up and smell the coffee; they have no obligation to surrender their great country to vastly inferior cultures, but they may be too weighed down by their recent history to play a leading role in the European resistance just yet.
Why Italians are more resistant to colonization through mass immigration is uncertain, but they are. One cause is certainly the legacy of the great journalist and writer Oriana Fallaci, who during the final years of her life did more to wake people up to the Islamic threat than perhaps any other individual in the entire Western world.
In The Force of Reason, Oriana Fallaci recalls how, in 1972, she interviewed the Palestinian terrorist George Habash, who told her that the Palestinian problem was about far more than Israel. The Arab goal, Habash declared, was to wage war “against Europe and America” and to ensure that henceforth “there would be no peace for the West.” The Arabs, he informed her, would “advance step by step. Millimeter by millimeter. Year after year. Decade after decade. Determined, stubborn, patient. This is our strategy. A strategy that we shall expand throughout the whole planet.” Fallaci thought he was referring simply to terrorism. Only later did she realize that he “also meant the cultural war, the demographic war, the religious war waged by stealing a country from its citizens.”
A single Italian city such as Venice or Florence contains more great works of art and architecture than has been produced in the entire Islamic world during 1400 years. Even their critics will not deny that Italians have a love for art and design, for food, wine and for enjoying life. After reading the history of science and technology, my impression is that their contributions to commerce and science, too, are sometimes underrated. In southern Europe, Italians, in my view, outperformed the Spanish in science despite the fact that the latter held extensive colonies for centuries whereas the Italians did not. The commercial revolution which created the seeds for Western capitalism took place in the Italian city-states.
It has become customary to attribute the birth of modern European science to the legacy of “Arabic and Islamic science,” whatever that is. Yet the Renaissance took place in northern Italy, which had extensive contacts with the Byzantine Empire. Likewise, it is common to attribute the major breakthroughs in Western Europe to the surpluses generated by “colonialism.” However, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Germans outperformed the French and often the British in technological ingenuity, despite the fact that the latter ruled much of the world whereas the Germans held only marginal colonies.
Both Italians and non-Italians often make jokes about Italian bureaucracy or lack of such. Italy is definitely a less “efficient,” in the meaning of “bureaucratically organized,” country than, say, Britain or Sweden, but these are hardly nations to emulate today. Contemporary Britain makes George Orwell’s 1984 look tame.
Throughout much of the Western world, the state-sponsored bureaucracy is no longer there to look after our interests; it is there to force us to surrender our countries to aliens in the name of ideologies promoted by unaccountable transnational organs which do not have our interests in mind. In this situation, reluctance to allow faceless bureaucrats to run your life is a blessing, not a curse, and the ingrained Italian distrust of bureaucrats is one of the reasons why Italy is among the leading Western European nations in resisting cultural surrender.
Italians still love their culture, as they should, and have no intention of surrendering it to anybody. It is inconceivable to write European history from the Roman Empire until today and leave out the massive Italian contributions. Those visiting Rome will be struck by the immense visual power of its buildings, paintings and monuments, stretching back hundreds and in many cases thousands of years. The long-term survival of these invaluable monuments is directly threatened by Muslim immigration.
Raphael Israeli, professor of Islamic, Middle Eastern and Chinese history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel, is the author of numerous books. In The Islamic Challenge in Europe, he describes how hostile Muslims in Italy behave against the country’s cultural treasures, a phenomenon which enraged Oriana Fallaci:
“Some years back, when Europe was still complacent about Muslim immigration, a famous Italian film director gave an interview to a major Italian daily where he deplored the outrageous conduct of the immigrants. He particularly lamented the fact that every Friday, a Muslim crowd squatted in front of one of the most celebrated cathedrals of Europe in Florence, to perform their Friday prayer. As a liberal, he certainly could not deny Muslims their right to freedom of worship, but at the risk of being labeled ‘racist,’ he courageously stated the obvious when he asked ‘why do the Muslims come to this particular spot,’ sometimes from their far-away suburbs, just in order to state their challenge to the Christian symbol. The Muslims have their places of worship, even in the very heart of Rome the capital and no one interferes with them, so why did they need to provoke their Christian hosts?”
Muslims are at best indifferent towards non-Muslim cultures, past or present, at worst actively hostile to them. Saladin, the twelfth century general loved by Muslims for his victories against the Crusaders, is renowned even in Western history for his supposedly tolerant nature. Very few seem to remember that his son Al-Aziz Uthman, who was presumably influenced by his father’s religious convictions, tried to demolish the Great Pyramids of Giza, Egypt, only three years after his father’s death in 1193. The reason why we can still visit them today is because the task at hand was so big that he eventually gave up the attempt. He did, however, manage to inflict visible damage to Menkaure’s Pyramid, the smallest of the three large pyramids at Giza. It is tempting to view this as a continuation of his father’s Jihad against non-Muslims:
“When king Al-Aziz Othman, son of [Saladin] succeeded his father, he let himself be persuaded by some people from his Court, who were devoid of good sense, to demolish the pyramids. One started with the red pyramid, which is the third of the great pyramids, and the smallest….They brought there a large number of workmen from all around, and supported them at great cost. They stayed there for eight whole months…This happened in the year 593 [i.e. 1196 AD].” (transl. SACY, Description de l’Egypte IX, 468)
The legend that the missing nose of the Great Sphinx at Giza was removed by Napoléon Bonaparte’s artillery during the French expedition to Egypt 1798-1801 is incorrect. Sketches indicate that the nose was gone long before this. The Egyptian fifteenth century historian al-Maqrizi attributes the act to Muhammad Sa’im al-Dahr, a Sufi Muslim. According to al-Maqrizi, in the fourteenth century, upon discovering that local peasants made offerings to the Sphinx, al-Dahr became furious at their idolatry and decided to destroy the statue, managing only to break off its nose. It is hard to confirm whether this story is accurate, but if it is, it demonstrates that Sufis are not always the soft and tolerant Muslims they are made out to be.
Far from damaging the Sphinx, the French brought scientists to catalogue the ancient monuments, thus founding modern Egyptology. The trilingual Rosetta Stone, discovered in 1799, was employed by philologist Jean-François Champollion to decipher the Egyptian hieroglyphs in 1822. In this task, he made extensive use of the Coptic language. Arab Muslims had controlled Egypt for more than a thousand years, yet never managed to decipher the hieroglyphs nor for the most part displayed much interest in doing so. Europeans did so in a single generation after they reappeared in force in Egypt. So much for “Arab science.” And they did so with the help of the language of the Copts, the Egyptian Christians, one of the few remnants of ancient Egypt that the Arab invaders hadn’t managed to completely eradicate.
Sita Ram Goel and other writers have tracked the destruction of numerous pre-Islamic temples in India in the book Hindu Temples — What Happened to Them. Infidels would be well-advised not to believe that such cultural Jihad is a thing of the past. Within a few years, thousands of churches have been destroyed in Indonesia, and many more Serb Orthodox churches and monasteries have been damaged by Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia. An attack on statues at a museum in Cairo by a veiled woman screaming, “ Infidels, infidels! “ shocked the outside world. She had been inspired by Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, who quoted a saying of Muhammad that sculptors will be among those receiving the harshest punishment on Judgment Day. The influential Yusuf al-Qaradawi agreed that “Islam prohibits statues and three-dimensional figures of living creatures” and concluded that “the statues of ancient Egyptians are prohibited.”
The great Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan were demolished by the Taliban regime in 2001, who decreed that they would destroy images deemed “offensive to Islam.” The Taliban Information Minister complained that “The destruction work is not as easy as people would think. You can’t knock down the statues by dynamite or shelling as both of them have been carved in a cliff. They are firmly attached to the mountain.” The statues, 53 meters and 36 meters tall, the tallest standing Buddha statues in the world, turned out to be so hard to destroy that the Taliban needed help from Pakistani and Saudi engineers to finish the job. Finally, after almost a month of non-stop bombardment with dynamite and artillery, they succeeded.
Judging from the experiences with the Bamiyan Buddhas, it is tempting to conclude that the only reason why the pyramids of Egypt have survived to this day is because they were so big that it proved too complicated, costly and time-consuming for Muslims to destroy them. Had Saladin’s son Al-Aziz had modern technology and engineers at his disposal, they might well have ended up like countless Hindu temples in India or Buddhist statues in Central Asia.
As a European, I fear for the future of the Louvre in Paris, the National Gallery in London, the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam and Michelangelo’s paintings in the Sistine Chapel in Rome. There is every reason to believe that they will end up the same way as the Bamiyan Buddhas. Although it may not happen today, tomorrow or even the day after tomorrow, sooner or later, pious Muslims will destroy these priceless works of art and consider it their sacred duty. Muslim immigration threatens many of the masterworks of the Western tradition of art, the most inventive and groundbreaking mankind has ever seen, with annihilation. History will never forgive us for our cowardice and stupidity if we allow these treasures to be destroyed just because we think history is boring or don’t want to say anything unfashionable about other cultures.
The official reason given by Muslims for why non-Muslims are not allowed to visit the cities of Mecca and Medina is because they might damage or destroy the Islamic Holy Sites. But since Muslims have a proven track record through more than a thousand years, from Malaysia to Armenia, of destroying non-Muslim places of worship and works of art, perhaps we should then, in return, be entitled to keep Muslims permanently away from our cultural treasures? Italians and others should heed this warning.
Italy is by no means immune to the problems affecting the Western world, but her odds are better than those of several other nations. Through contact with Italians, I gain the impression of a country whose national heart is still beating, a people who are still in touch with their roots and believe that their national survival is desirable. This is no mean feat given the suicidal state of our civilization in this age. When observing Italy, I see sickness but also life; and where there is life, there is hope. Something tells me that the story of Italy as a vibrant heartland of European civilization still contains more chapters to be written. If we are lucky, her struggle for survival and rebirth can inspire others beyond her borders.
France: Can a Wounded Nation Heal Itself?
This essay was first published at The Brussels Journal in August 2008. It is adopted here with some additions, especially from two essays from 2006, The Fall of France and the Multicultural World War and Beheading Nations: The Islamization of Europe’s Cities.
Here is a quote by Nicolas Sarkozy from 2006, before he became French President:
“[S]ecurity is the responsibility of the State, I am against militias, I am against the private ownership of firearms, and I’m trying to make you think about that. If you are assaulted by an armed burglar, he’ll use his weapon more effectively than you anyway so you’re risking your life. If the criminal is not armed and you are and you shoot, your life will be ruined, because killing someone over a theft is not in line with the republican values that are mine. The private ownership of firearms is dangerous. I understand your exasperation for having been burglarized two times, I understand the fear that your wife and daughter may have but the answer is in the efficiency of the police and the efficiency of the judiciary process, the answer is not in having guns at home.”
Yes, but what happens when the state neither can nor wants to protect its citizens, which is clearly the case in France and in many other Western countries today? Here is another quote by the same man, this time as president, in July 2008, when he announced the creation of a new “Mediterranean Union” in a huge meeting between European and Arab leaders: “The goal of this summit for the Mediterranean, of this Union for the Mediterranean, is that we learn to love each other instead of continuing to hate each other and wage war,” Sarkozy told a news conference. That same month he also declared that Ireland will have to hold a second referendum after Irish voters rejected the EU Constitution, the same Constitution which French and Dutch voters had previously rejected but which was implemented anyway under another name, the Lisbon Treaty. In saner times we would have called this a coup d’état, committed not just in one country but in many countries simultaneously.
The European Union is an organization of corrupt parasites and power-grabbing traitors, mixed up with some dangerously naive fools. EU leaders are intent on flooding their countries with even more Muslims at the same time as immigrants commit countless acts of violence against native Europeans. The greatest organized betrayal in history is celebrated as a victory for peace and tolerance. Our so-called leaders open the floodgates to people who are, always have been, and always will be hostile to everything we hold dear, and tell us to love them. Unfortunately, others have rather different plans for us.
Iranian writer Amir Taheri explains how al Qaeda’s chief theoretician, Sheik Abu-Bakar Naji, in his new book Governance in the Wilderness suggests that low-intensity war should be extended to anywhere in the world with a significant Muslim presence, creating parallel societies resembling “liberated zones” set up by Marxist guerrillas in parts of Latin America in the twentieth century. The Jihadis are to begin by giving areas where Muslims live a distinctly Islamic appearance, by imposing special styles of dress for women and beards for men. Then they start imposing Islamic law. In the final phase, they should create a parallel system of taxation and law enforcement. This is already being implemented in many European urban areas.
Sheik Abu-Bakar Naji recommends that Islamic Jihad should be everywhere, with “countless small operations” that render daily life unbearable for the infidels, who, when leaving their homes every morning, should be unsure whether they’ll return in the evening. Naji recommends kidnappings, exhibition killings to terrorize the enemy, suicide bombings and countless gestures that make a normal life impossible. Once parallel societies are established throughout the world, they would exert pressure on non-Muslims to submit. Naji believes that, subjected to constant intimidation and fear of death, most non-Muslims would submit because “The West has no stomach for a long fight.”
While Islamic theoreticians are making long-term plans for how best to terrorize our children and destroy our societies, the EU is opening up for more Muslim immigration and banning opposition to this as “racism.” The only possible conclusion native Europeans can draw from this is that our so-called leaders are now either outright enemies or reduced to obedient puppets for those who are our enemies. So no, Mr. Sarkozy, we should no longer expect the state to protect our security. We need to take care of that ourselves. How? Well, by adopting a second amendment everywhere in Europe as soon as possible, but also by arming ourselves with real knowledge of our history and the achievements of our ancestors, rather than the hostile propaganda passing for “truth” we are being spoon-fed in the media and the education system these days.
In July 2008, President Nicolas Sarkozy, while laying the foundation stone of new rooms for the Arts of Islam at the Louvre in Paris, stated that “France is a friend of Arab countries. Islam is the bearer of one of the oldest and most prestigious civilizations in the world,” and the new exhibition is “an opportunity for the French and all visitors to the Louvre to see that Islam is progress, science, refinement, modernity.” Prince Alwalid Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah’s nephew, is an important donor to the project. “France wants peace, France does not want the clash of civilizations between East and West,“ said the French president. “France says to the Arab countries that it will help them acquire the energy of the future, nuclear energy used for peaceful civilian purposes.”
So, France wants peace, and since we all know that Islam is peace, does that mean that France wants Islam? Probably not all the French, but their political elites certainly seem to want it or else have resigned themselves to that prospect.
I like many aspects of French culture, but I admit I deeply distrust modern French political culture. At least since the late eighteenth century, France has been stuck in a pattern with shifts between an incredibly elitist political class, violent upheavals and Utopian ideologies. Frankly, one of the most disturbing things about the EU is that it exports this unhealthy bureaucratic and political culture to the rest of the continent. There is no doubt that France is disproportionately responsible for the mess much of Europe is in now. The EU was a French idea, and so was Eurabia. Both have been viewed as tools to promote otherwise declining French influence on the international arena.
Several prominent French leaders stated in 2005 that the proposed EU Constitution (largely written by a former French President) was basically an enlarged France. Justice Minister Dominique Perben said: “We have finally obtained this ‘Europe à la française’ that we have awaited for so long. This constitutional treaty is an enlarged France. It is a Europe written in French.” Education Minister François Fillon stated: “This Constitution allows the French ambition to assert itself in the big Europe that General de Gaulle hoped and prayed for.”
But with burning cars, hundreds of de facto Islamic mini-states in the heart of France and notoriously arrogant political elites hell-bent on importing even more Muslims, exactly why should other Europeans want to live in an enlarged France? The country is currently set on a path to cultural suicide and has a worse demographic profile than any other Western European nation.
Things went seriously wrong with Europe starting with World War I in 1914, which radicalized the continent, paved the way for the totalitarian states of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and in the long run perhaps the European Union. But you could argue successfully that some of the seeds of our current problems were planted as far back as in 1789. In my book, the French Revolution is one of the worst disasters ever to befall this continent, and I simply cannot understand why so many people celebrate it as something positive. France is a wounded nation, a nation that worships its wounds and wants everybody else to share them, too. Until a sound and healthy French culture has been restored, if that is indeed still possible, others should forcefully reject any claims to French moral or intellectual leadership.
That being said, there are still many good people left in France, but they fight with tremendous odds against them. I do not speak any of the Romance languages, and I regret that sometimes. The French professor of medieval history Sylvain Gouguenheim recently published a book entitled Aristote au Mont Saint-Michel: Les Racines Grecques de l’Europe (Aristotle at Mont Saint-Michel: The Greek Roots of Europe). It looks interesting and right down my alley, but I cannot read it until it has been translated into English.
Gouguenheim said it was in light of a 2002 recommendation from the European Union that schoolbooks give a more positive rendering of Islam’s part in European heritage “that an attempt at a clarification becomes necessary.” He makes the case that Islam was impermeable to much of Greek thought, that the Arab world’s initial translations of it to Latin were not so much the work of “Islam” but of Middle Eastern Christians, and that a wave of translations of Aristotle began at the Mont Saint-Michel monastery in France 50 years before Arab versions of the same texts appeared in Islamic-occupied Spain.
Aristotle’s works on ethics, metaphysics and politics were disregarded by the Muslim world because they were viewed as incompatible with the Koran. Europeans, he says, “became aware of the Greek texts because it went hunting for them, not because they were brought to them.” Gouguenheim calls the Mont Saint-Michel monastery, where texts were translated into Latin, “the missing link in the passage from the Greek to the Latin world of Aristotelian philosophy.” Outside of a few thinkers — he lists Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Abu Ma’shar and Averroes — Gougenheim considers that the “masters of the Middle East” retained from the ancient Greeks only what they considered to be compatible with the Koran.
The notion that the West “owes” its progress to medieval translations of “Islamic science,” which Mr. Gouguenheim criticizes, is the official ideology of the European Union. The fact that he receives powerful opposition when questioning it is not accidental. The ridiculous concept that we have a “shared” cultural tradition with Muslims is being propagated by all EU organs in close cooperation with Islamic countries. Pro-Islamic Multiculturalism is the ruling ideology of the EUSSR, just like Communism was the ruling ideology of the USSR and its satellite nations. Questioning it is a thought crime.
In The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy, scholar Kenneth Pomeranz claims that several Asian countries, especially China, were at least as advanced as Europe as late as the early nineteenth century. Europe didn’t diverge critically from Asia until then, and the Industrial Revolution started in Britain in part due to a geographical accident because they had easy access to coal, and in part due to overseas colonies and markets. It didn’t have anything much to do with superior science or technology.
The Chinese did have the world’s largest economy for a long time (and may well have so again later this century). They have always been good at engineering and applied technology, but weaker in the mathematical sciences and in scientific theory. As late as the seventeenth century AD, there was a consensus among Chinese scholars that the earth is flat. This didn’t change until they were confronted with European astronomical and geographical knowledge by Jesuit missionaries. By that time, Europeans had known that the earth is spherical for two thousand years. The idea that educated medieval Europeans believed in a flat earth is a myth.
In Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, a largely — and in my view excessively — pro-Mongol book, Jack Weatherford claims that the Mongol conquests in the thirteenth century triggered the Renaissance in Europe by opening up the continent to ideas from Asia, for instance gunpowder and printing. So, we now have claims that the Renaissance was what caused the great advances in Western science, and that it was triggered by Muslims in the twelfth century or Mongols in the thirteenth century. At the same time, there was supposedly nothing special about Europe until the late eighteenth or early nineteenth centuries.
An intelligent reader will quickly see that all of these different claims cannot be true at the same time, yet they are all made at the same time. The point here is not whether any of them are correct, the point is to put down any sense of pride people of European origins might have in their historical achievements. It is a bit ironic that European culture is constantly derided for being racist, oppressive and evil, yet everybody else seems very busy with claiming the honor for having created it. If we are racist oppressors who rape the earth and create global warming, why are Muslims and others so eager to take credit for having created our culture? Shouldn’t they feel ashamed of themselves instead?
The truth is that the scientific revolution was the greatest achievement of the human mind in history, and it was done by Europeans, not by anybody else. This particular form of ideological disinformation takes place all over the Western world, and there is no specific reason for singling out the French in this regard. I suspect many ordinary French citizens are just as fed-up with this nonsense as everybody else is. I wish good French people the best of luck in reclaiming their dignity and their country. Given the state of things, they are going to need it.
What about basing French national identity on the Battle of Tours on October 10, 732, when the people who were eventually known as the French halted an Islamic invasion of the heartland of the European continent? By doing so, they saved not only their own nation; they saved the greatest civilization mankind has ever seen. That really is something to celebrate, unlike the happenings of 1789 which led to senseless mass slaughter and widespread intra-European wars. If the French need historical inspiration, they should follow the example of the right Charles next time. That would be Martel, not de Gaulle.
As I warned in the essay The Fall of France and the Multicultural World from 2006, French Jews are leaving the country in ever-growing numbers, fleeing a wave of anti-Semitism. Hundreds of ghettos are already de facto following sharia, not French law. The French military are not always squeamish, but there are estimates that 15% of the armed forces are already made up of Muslims, and rising. How effective can the army then be in upholding the French republic? At the same time, opinion polls show that the French are now officially the most anti-capitalist nation on earth. France has chosen Socialism and Islam. It will get both, and sink into a quagmire of its own making.
Some believe France will quietly become a Muslim country, others believe in civil war in the near future. I’m not sure which of these scenarios is scarier. People keep talking about the nuclear weapons that the Islamic Republic of Iran may soon have, and that is indeed worrisome, but what about the hundreds of nuclear warheads the French have? How do we handle an Islamic France, still the heartland of the European continent, with Muslim control of hundreds of nukes? And how do we handle a Bosnia or Lebanon with a population much larger than either of these countries, and with hundreds of nuclear warheads at stake?
If Muslim immigration continues, the impending fall of France could mark the starting point of the Balkanization of much of Europe, perhaps even North America. I fear this is a world war. Maybe future historians will dub it the Multicultural World War. I find this to be more accurate than “The Islamic World War” because what will cause this world war is Western cultural weakness rather than Islamic strength. This world war may very well be in the form of a global civil war, where you get a string of violent collapses instead of countries invading other countries. Multiculturalism and uncontrolled mass-immigration destroy the internal cohesion of the decadent West, which will slowly fall apart as it has lost the will to defend itself and the belief in its own culture. The wars in the Balkans in the 1990s will in hindsight be seen as a prelude to the Multicultural World War. Rather than a Westernization of the Balkans, we could get a Balkanization of the West.
Although France is one of the worst countries, it is by no means the only one in trouble. As I stated in my essay Beheading Nations: The Islamization of Europe’s Cities from 2006, we have seen videos on TV of Muslim Jihadists beheading infidel hostages. Less attention has been paid to the fact that Muslims are beheading entire nation states. Although this is happening in slow motion, it is no less dramatic. Historically, the major cities have constituted a country’s “head,” the seat of most of its political institutions and the largest concentration of its cultural brainpower. What happens when this “head” is cut off from the rest of the body?
In many countries across Western Europe, immigrants tend to settle in major cities, with the native population retreating to minor cities or into the countryside. Previously, Europeans or non-Europeans could travel between countries and visit new cities, each with its own, distinctive character and peculiarities. Soon, you will travel from London to Paris or Amsterdam and find that you have left one city dominated by burkas and sharia to find… yet another city dominated by burkas and sharia. For some reason, this eradication of unique, urban cultures is celebrated as “cultural diversity.”
In France, Muslims already have many smaller states within the state. Criminologist Lucienne Bui Trong wrote that: “From 106 hot points in 1991, we went to 818 sensitive areas in 1999.” The term she used, “sensitive areas,” was used to describe Muslim no-go zones where anything representing a Western institution (post office truck, firemen, even mail order delivery firms) was routinely ambushed with Molotov cocktails. The number was 818 in 2002, when the French government decided to stop collecting the statistics.
Famed Sociologist Max Weber has defined a state as an entity with a “monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Since hundreds of ghettos in France (and elsewhere) are already outside of police control and effectively under the rule of local militias, hasn’t France already ceased being a functioning state?
In some of these areas, the phenomenon of gang rape “has become banal.” Violence against and pressure on women is part of daily life in the suburbs, where boys can dictate how girls should dress. Pressure is mounting for Muslim women to wear veils. In 2002, a 17-year-old girl was set alight by an 18-year-old boy as his friends stood by. The support group “Ni Putes, Ni Soumises“ (“Neither Whores nor Submissives”) says the number of forced marriages has risen in recent years, with roughly 70,000 girls pressured into unwanted relationships each year in France. A leaked study conducted between October 2003 and May 2004 under the auspices of France’s inspector-general of education, Jean Pierre Obin, described an educational system where Muslim students regularly boycotted classes that concerned Voltaire, Rousseau and Moliere, whom the students accused of being anti-Islamic. Orbin’s report cited Muslim students’ refusal to use the “plus” sign in mathematics because it looks like a crucifix; Muslims boycotting class trips to churches, cathedrals and monasteries; and forcing wholesale changes in school lunch fare to accommodate their religious practices.
The influence of Islamic groups is a growing threat to French business, a leading intelligence expert warned, citing the discovery of secret prayer-rooms at the Disneyland theme-park outside Paris. A report commissioned by several retail and courier companies stated that the strategy is to “take control of Muslims within the workforce” and then “challenge the rules in order to impose Islamic values.” French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy said that the riots in 2005 were rather “well organized.” Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post noted that some Muslim leaders explained that what they wanted was autonomy in their ghettos: “They seek to receive extraterritorial status from the French government, meaning that they will set their own rules based, one can assume, on Sharia law. If the French government accepts the notion of communal autonomy, France will cease to be a functioning state.”
Following three weeks of unrest, the police said 98 vehicles torched in one day marked a “return to a normal situation everywhere in France.” Some of the rioters left boasting messages on various Internet forums. “We aren’t going to let up. The French won’t do anything and soon, we will be in the majority here.” One observer stated: “In France, the majority of young Muslims believe that French society is dying, committing suicide. More like 10 percent to 20 percent of them believe that they are in the process of replacing European civilization with an Islamic one.” In the southern city of Marseille, Muslims make up at least a quarter of the population, and rising fast.
In the Netherlands, Muslims will soon make up the majority in all major cities. “Today, we have 1 million Muslims out of 16 million Dutch,” according to Frits Bolkestein, Dutch politician and former EU Commissioner. “Within 10 years, they will have an absolute majority in both Amsterdam and Rotterdam. We are staring into the face of a shortly to be divided community. Muslims have the right to their own schools, so there is no teaching of evolution, gay teachers are not tolerated but anti-Semitism is.” A researcher for the Netherlands Ministry for Immigration and Integration found that 40% of young Moroccan Muslims in the Netherlands rejected Western values and democracy. Six to seven percent were prepared to use force to “defend” Islam, and the majority were opposed to freedom of speech for offensive statements, particularly criticism of Islam.
Dyab Abu Jahjah is the founder of the Arab European League (AEL). The AEL, founded in Belgium in 2000, has branches in the Netherlands and France and intends to spread across the EU. Jahjah, who has called the 9/11 attacks “sweet revenge,” recruits Muslim youth to spread his ideology, which calls for the introduction of sharia in Europe. “We have three basic demands,” he says. “Bilingual education for Arab-speaking kids, hiring quotas that protect Muslims, and the right to keep our cultural customs.” “ Assimilation is cultural rape. It means renouncing your identity, becoming like the others.” Jahjah has also demanded that Arabic should be made an official language in Belgium. Belgium’s Jews, in particular Antwerp’s diamond merchants, have felt threatened by the Arab European League (AEL), which issued a statement: “The AEL calls on the Jewish community in Antwerp to cease its support of, and distance itself from, the state of Israel. If not, attacks in Antwerp are almost unpreventable.”
Security sources in Germany warned that the country was home to between 3,000 and 5,000 potential Islamic suicide attackers. A Berlin court in 2005 ruled that a well-known Turkish religious leader should be extradited to Turkey. In his Berlin mosque he repeatedly said that “all Germans were stinking people and doomed to go to hell because they were useless creatures and infidels.” Shortly before, the press spokesman of this mosque had told about the Turks’ strong interest in fostering good relations with native Germans. TV correspondent Reinhard Laska feared that the opinions voiced by the Imam were only the tip of the iceberg: “There was nobody in the mosque who stood up and demanded that the Imam stop his nasty talk about Germans,” he said. “Nobody seemed to mind at all.” In 2006, “Valley of the Wolves,” a virulently anti-Semitic film about the Iraq war, sold out to cheering audiences from Germany’s 2.5 million-strong Turkish community.
Dozens of women in Germany have been murdered in so-called honor killings in the past decade. Their crime? Trying to break free and live Western lifestyles. Within their communities, the killers are revered as heroes for preserving their family dignity. Much of this insular and ultra-religious world is out of public view, “often hidden in inner-city apartments where the most influential links to the outside world are satellite dishes that receive Turkish and Arabic television and the local mosque.” “In these families, loyalty and honor are elevated virtues and women are treated little better than slaves, unseen by society and often unnoticed or ignored by their German neighbors.” It caused an outcry when a group of 14-year-old Turkish boys mocked one victim during a class discussion. “She deserved what she got. The whore lived like a German.”
In Denmark, the nation-wide organization of Women’s Crisis Centres claims that a number of taxi drivers with immigrant background are spying on female immigrants who are in hiding, sending information about their whereabouts to their families. It was a group of taxi drivers who informed a Pakistani man where he could find his sister. He murdered her in broad daylight outside a train station because she had married a man from Afghanistan against her family’s orders. 80% of the women seeking help at crisis centres in the city of Oslo, Norway, are from immigrant background.
Prominent critic of Islam Lars Hedegaard, quoted by Bruce Bawer in While Europe Slept takes a dark view of the future:
“‘If there’s any hope,’ Hedegaard suggested dryly, borrowing a line he knew I’d recognize from 1984, ‘it lies in the proles.’ Yet we both knew that the ‘proles’ — if they did take over the reins from the elite — might well lead Europe back down the road to fascism. He did admit that he was glad to be living in Denmark and not elsewhere in Western Europe: ‘If there’s any place where there’s hope, it’s got to be this country.’ But Hedegaard didn’t hold out much hope even for Denmark. ‘Unless they build up a cadre of intellectuals in Europe who can think,’ he said, America ‘can kiss Europe good-bye.’ The Continent’s future, he predicted, ‘is going to be vastly different than we imagine. It’s going to be war. Like Lebanon,’ with some enclaves dominated by Christians and others by Muslims. There will be ‘permanent strife,’ and no one will have the ‘power to mollify or mediate… It will be more gruesome than we can imagine.’ When the horror comes, he warned, the journalists who helped to bring it about will ‘wag their heads and flee — and leave it to those who can’t flee to fight it out.’“
The massive concentration of Muslims in major European cities will have dramatic consequences, some of which are already visible. If it is allowed to continue, it will destroy the coherence of society that is necessary for our legal systems to work. Increased urban insecurity means that the state is not able to guarantee the security of its citizens. If ordinary citizens feel that the state is no longer able to guarantee the safety of their loved ones, then perhaps native Europeans will create groups and “clans” of their own, to counter the Muslim clans. The result will be a re-tribalization of our countries. The downfall of the nation state, if it happens, will be chaotic, painful and bloody. Can it still be avoided? Only time will tell.
Eastern Europe and the New Threats to Freedom
This essay was first published at the Gates of Vienna blog in September 2008. It is republished here with some changes.
“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” — Writer Theodore Dalrymple to FrontPage Magazine
The Dutch cartoonist Nekschot (‘Neck Shot’), a friend of the late Theo van Gogh, the filmmaker who was slaughtered by a Muslim, in 2008 became the first-ever cartoonist in modern Western history to be arrested. Gregorius Nekschot was kept in custody for 30 hours for cartoons that are “discriminatory against Muslims and people of darker skin,” as the Public Prosecutor’s Office (OM) in Amsterdam put it. Around 10 police dragged him out of his home in Amsterdam, seized his computer and telephone and told him that his real name would be revealed. Nekschot was released two days later. A complaint had been filed against him in 2005 by the Dutch imam Abdul Jabbar van de Ven, a radical Dutch convert to Islam. After the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, Abdul Jabbar van de Ven said on TV he would thank Allah if he could arrange for the Islam-critical MP Geert Wilders to die, “for example of cancer.”
The arrest of Gregorius Nekschot for a “Multicultural thought crime” was another low for the Netherlands, a country which a few years earlier was known for its openness and tolerance. It was also a new low for the “free West,” which suddenly looks a lot less free.
Lars Hedegaard, President of the Danish Free Press Society/ Trykkefrihedsselskabet has, together with colleagues Helle Merete Brix and Torben Hansen been one of the leading forces behind making tiny Denmark into a frontline state in the battle against Islam. Bruce Bawer gives an account of a meeting with Hedegaard and Brix in Copenhagen in his best-selling book While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from within:
“Hedegaard was of the view, however, that the Danish establishment’s benign neglect of Islamic extremism must have deeper causes than snobbism or hippie nostalgia.. After all, he said, the Islamicization of the Nordic countries was ‘the most fundamental transformation’ they’d experienced in a millennium. Something so monumental, in his opinion, could not be explained simply by a few people’s foolishness or class snobbery. ‘Heavy consequences,’ he insisted, ‘must have heavy causes.’ The surrender of Denmark to Muslims had to be the result of some deep-seated compulsion…His theory was that Western Europe’s ongoing surrender to radical Islam had its roots in the psychic devastation of the First World War. For while that conflict marked America’s ascent to the rank of Great Power, Europeans took it as a devastating proof, Hedegaard said, ‘that our culture was worthless. It was basically destroyed. And that prepared the way for two sorts of totalitarianism’ — Nazism and Communism — and for ‘atrocities of a magnitude that is hard to imagine.’ Those atrocities, in turn, placed upon Europeans an unbearable burden of guilt. The Nazis, he said, ‘made Europe think it is doomed and sinful…and deserves what it has coming.’“
The destruction brought about by WW1 and WW2 did indeed finished off much of Europe’s self-confidence. The problem is more complex than that, though. If you look at which countries suffered the most during these wars, there is no automatic correlation between that and which countries are most culturally suicidal today. Poland, for instance, is less suicidal than my country, which didn’t take part in WW1 and suffered less than many other nations during WW2. Sweden didn’t (formally) participate in either war; neither did Switzerland. Both of these countries lack a colonial history (if you believe this is about a “post-colonial guilt complex”), yet Sweden is absolutely crazy, as those reading my essays would know.
In June 2008, Swedish lawmakers voted in favor of a controversial bill allowing all emails and phone calls to be monitored in the name of national security. The new law, set to take effect on January 1st, 2009, will enable the National Defence Radio Establishment (FRA) — a civilian agency despite its name — to tap all cross-border Internet and telephone communication. Critics say the law — passed by a parliament with a “center-right” majority — will make Sweden more totalitarian than the former Communist dictatorships of Eastern Europe. Even the infamous Stasi in East Germany didn’t have as extensive means of surveillance against private citizens as Sweden will now have.
In order to explain this, we need to consider the prolonged and extremely destructive impact of Marxism in its various forms. It is supremely ironic that the countries in the western half of Europe, which during the Cold War were a part of the “free world,” are in some ways more damaged by Marxist indoctrination than the countries in the eastern half of Europe, where people lived under Communism for generations. We in the West have been undermined by a different strand of Marxism, one seemingly less serious since we have no Gulag here (yet), but one which slowly erodes your very will to live and removes your identity as a people.
Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky thinks the West lost the Cold War. “There were no Nuremberg-type trials in Moscow. Why? Because while we won the Cold War in a military sense, we lost it in the context of ideas. The West stopped one day too soon, just like in Desert Storm. Just imagine the Allies in 1945 being satisfied with some kind of Perestroika in Nazi Germany — instead of unconditional surrender. What would have been the situation in Europe then, to say nothing of Germany? All former Nazi collaborators would have remained in power, albeit under a new disguise. This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union in 1991…Communism might have been dead, but the communists remained in power in most of the former Warsaw bloc countries, while their Western collaborators came to power all over the world (in Europe in particular). This is nothing short of a miracle…When the Nazis lost the Second World War, racial hatred was discredited. When the Soviets lost the Cold War, the tenet of class hatred remained as popular as ever.”
Bukovsky argues that while there might have been a Western military victory, Socialism still prevailed as a popular idea throughout the world. He writes: “Having failed to finish off conclusively the communist system, we are now in danger of integrating the resulting monster into our world. It may not be called communism anymore, but it retained many of its dangerous characteristics….Until the Nuremberg-style tribunal passes its judgement on all the crimes committed by communism, it is not dead and the war is not over.”
According to Czech President Václav Klaus, although Communism or the “hard version” of Socialism is probably over this has not automatically led “to a system we would like to have and live in.” The dominant economic and social system of current Western civilization is based on big and patronizing government, on “extensive regulating of human behavior and on large-scale income redistribution.”
Klaus urges all freedom loving Europeans “to understand this contemporary version of world-wide socialism, because our old concepts may omit some of the crucial features of what is around us just now. We may even find out that the continuous use of the term socialism can be misleading.” The new version of post-Marxist collectivism wants privileges for organized groups, and “in consequence, a refeudalization of society…, multiculturalism, feminism, apolitical technocratism (based on the resentment against politics and politicians), internationalism (and especially its European variant called Europeanism) and a rapidly growing phenomenon I call NGOism.”
It is no exaggeration to say that a generation after the Cold War ended, various Marxists or related left-wingers control much of the education system and the media in the Western world. As I’ve written in my essay Democracy and the Media Bias, native Europeans face three enemies simultaneously when fighting against the Islamization of their lands:
- Enemy 1 is the anti-Western bias of our media and academia, which is a common theme throughout the Western world.
- Enemy 2 are Eurabians and EU-federalists, who deliberately break down established nation states in favor of a pan-European superstate.
- Enemy 3 are Muslims.
The fact that members of the media and the academia tend to be more, sometimes a lot more, left-leaning politically than the average populace is well-attested and documented in all the Western countries I have been able to check, and it seems a fair guess that this trend is universal throughout the Western world. But why is the situation like this?
One could claim that this is the effect of the Western Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, or alternatively a product of the Cold War. But if you believe the esteemed Friedrich Hayek in his writings about Socialism and the intellectuals, the trend was discernible already in the late 1940s, before the Cold War. How do we explain that? One plausible hypothesis could be to assume that those with conservative viewpoints will generally direct their energies towards business and commerce, while those with left-leaning sympathies desire to get into positions where they can influence people’s minds. Over time, this could mean that in an open society, the media, the academia and the intelligentsia will tend to gravitate towards the political Left and become dominated by people sympathetic towards Utopian ideas. Because of the positions they have gained, their political bias will significantly influence what information is presented to the general masses, and how.
The most important reason for the general passivity of Western Europeans is that they still don’t understand just how bad the EU is and how organized its pro-Islamic betrayal is. The EU’s primary weapon is deception, combined with extreme levels of organizational complexity and incomprehensible bureaucratic language. The EU’s secondary weapon is the general Western respect for law and reluctance to stage armed rebellions. Nevertheless, it is true that Western Europeans follow rules and regulations without asking too many questions. I have earlier asked whether the EU could have been established if people had not been accustomed to living in complex welfare state bureaucracies before, and the likely answer to that is no. The EU is an empire of bureaucrats, established in countries where bureaucrats already ruled. Their work has been made easier by populations conditioned by generations of indoctrination with cultural Marxism.
Cultural Marxism is an invention designed to destroy Western capitalism. Since under Soviet occupation there was no capitalism to be destroyed, cultural Marxism never came to existence there. I have explained this in the essay Political Correctness — The Revenge of Marxism.
I have heard people who have grown up in former Communist countries say that we in the West are at least as brainwashed by Multiculturalism and Political Correctness as they ever were with Communism, perhaps more so. The scary thing is, I sometimes believe they are right. A Norwegian newspaper called Dagens Næringsliv exposed the fact that the largest “anti-racist” organization in the country, SOS Rasisme, was heavily infiltrated by Communists and extreme Leftists. They infiltrated the organization in the late 1980s and early ‘90s, in other words, during the downfall of Communism in Eastern Europe. They went directly from Communism to Multiculturalism, which should indicate that at least some of them viewed Multiculturalism as the continuation of Communism by other means. It speaks volumes about the close connection between economic Marxism and cultural Marxism. They just have different means of reaching the same ends.
The separation of church and state in the West paved the way for greater political liberty, but it was never intentionally designed to do so. In other words: One of the greatest inventions in European history was unplanned. In contrast, the Communist societies in Eastern Europe planned the entire society down to the last detail, and they failed miserably. The lesson is: You cannot plan everything and shouldn’t try. Yet the EU is now doing this same mistake, only in a slightly different way. That is why calling it the EUSSR is more than just a joke.
Multiculturalism has infected the entire Western world, not just Western Europe, but it has become institutionalized to an alarming degree in the EU. Maybe the countries of east-central Europe will be the strongholds of European civilization in this century; that is conceivable. But as long as they are members of the European Union, the official Multiculturalism and cultural Marxism of the EUSSR will slowly but surely destroy them, too. This is why it is of such great importance to get rid of the EU, to ensure that at least some regions of Europe can survive and hopefully regenerate.
I have used the word “totalitarian” about the EU a number of times. What I mean by that is not that the EU is a fully totalitarian entity today, but that it is adopting measures which will increasingly move the organization and the continent towards totalitarianism. Frankly, the pace with which the EU moves in a totalitarian direction is greater than I anticipated a couple of years ago. This trend has been aided by the tensions created by mass immigration in general and Muslim immigration in particular. I have more than once wondered whether mass immigration has been introduced specifically to destroy any internal coherence in formerly stable, democratic nation states and facilitate the transfer of power to a new authoritarian oligarchy. Even if that wasn’t the intended result, it certainly is the actual result so far.
History has demonstrated that in order commit evil on a truly monumental scale, you need the support of ideology backed by bureaucrats, jurists and the machinery of a totalitarian state. The Hungarian author Imre Kertész, Holocaust survivor and winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, writes in the magazine signandsight.com that “the genuine novelties of the twentieth century were the totalitarian state and Auschwitz. The anti-Semitism of the nineteenth century, for instance, was as yet barely able, nor even would have wished, to imagine a Final Solution. Auschwitz, therefore, cannot be accounted for by the common-or-garden, archaic, not to say classical concepts of anti-Semitism…In order to murder millions of Jews the totalitarian state had need, in the final analysis, not so much of anti-Semites as good organisers. We need to see clearly that no totalitarianism of party or state can exist without discrimination, and the totalitarian form of discrimination is necessarily mass murder.”
Discrimination against native Europeans is now mandatory in the EU, as they are the only ethnic groups who should not be allowed to retain their culture. Racism against whites is rarely presented as a problem. It is presumably OK, merely an extension of the official government policies.
Kertész warns, timely in these Multicultural days, that “a civilisation that does not clearly proclaim its values, or which leaves these proclaimed values high and dry, is stepping on the path to perdition and terminal debility. Then others will pronounce their values, and in the mouths of these others they will no longer be values but just so many pretexts for untrammeled power, untrammeled destruction.”
This is exactly what is happening in the capital city of the European Union, in Brussels, Belgium. In September 2007 Freddy Thielemans, the mayor of Brussels, banned a demonstration against the Islamization of Europe, even though virtually all kinds of demonstrations are usually allowed. When some demonstrators did show up for a peaceful demonstration anyway, they were brutally arrested by the police. According to Thielemans, “I decided to forbid the September 11 demonstration,” the mayor wrote, because “First and foremost the organizers have chosen the symbolic date of 9/11. The intention is obviously to confound the terrorist activities of Muslim extremists on the one hand and Islam as a religion and all Muslims on the other hand…Such incitement to discrimination and hatred, which we usually call racism and xenophobia, is forbidden by a considerable number of international treaties and is punished by our penal laws and by the European legislation.”
Mr. Thielemans ‘ ruling Socialist party, the largest party in Brussels, caters for Muslim immigrants. The majority of its municipal council are Muslims. Even though Mr. Thielemans is against criticism of Islam, he doesn’t mind mocking Christians. In 2005, upon hearing the news of the death of Pope John Paul II, he ordered “Champagne for everyone!” This means that the authorities in the heart of the EU are enforcing sharia law and banning the natives from protesting against their own displacement. The authorities no longer have any legitimacy whatsoever.
Native Europeans are guinea pigs in an evil social experiment, a recycled version of the Communist idea of perpetual peace. Since wars are caused by “differences,” the way to permanently end all wars is to permanently end all differences. While the Communists focused on economic differences, the Globalists and Multiculturalists focus on cultural, religious and racial differences. Once these have been erased and all people have been merged into one, starting with white majority Western nations since they are most “different,” we will all live in peace. There will be no more national borders or national laws. All laws will be passed by the United Nations, and the world will be as one. We will be one global nation, one nation, under sharia. We may no longer be able to walk the streets in our cities in safety, but it’s for a good cause.
I wonder what future generations will call this time period. The Age of Insanity? The Age of Humiliation? Or perhaps the Age of Betrayal? There are many alternatives. Let us hope it will be followed by an Age of Revival.
On Germany and Muslims
First published at the Gats of Vienna blog in August 2008. Republished here with some additions.
In December 2004, the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned European Union leaders that they would pay a heavy price in escalating violence from Islamic extremists if the EU rejected Turkey as a member and confirmed itself as a Christian club. Turkey is a member of a Muslim club, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), yet doesn’t face escalating violence from Christian extremists because of this. Mr. Erdogan failed to mention that, yet his thinly veiled threat was well understood by European leaders. In September 2005 Jack Straw, the then Foreign Secretary of Tony Blair’s Labour government in Britain, stated that snubbing Ankara’s EU membership hopes would give ammunition to Islamic extremists, while welcoming it into the EU would help avert a “clash of civilizations.”
Obviously pleased with this progress towards European submission to Muslim demands, PM Erdogan in February 2008 suggested that Germany should found Turkish-medium high schools and universities and pleaded for existing German high schools to hire teachers from Turkey. The suggestion took German Chancellor Angela Merkel by surprise.
As Austrian blogger correspondent ESW wrote in April 2008:
“There are currently three hotspots regarding mosques (including the works such as minarets): One is located in the provincial capital of Linz, about 120 miles west of Vienna. Another mosque is planned in Bad Vöslau, a small town south of Vienna. The hottest spot, however, is located in Vienna, in the district of Brigittenau, a district with one of the highest percentage of immigrants (read Muslims) in Austria… ATIB has been planning the massive enlargement of this mosque for the past decade. These plans include the erection of a larger mosque with an area of 1,500 square meters and a capacity of 1,000 worshippers, a Turkish supermarket (why Turkish? An Austrian supermarket isn’t good enough?), a kindergarten, seminar rooms, as well as apartments. These plans go far beyond the argument of ‘free religious practice’ in order to build a large mosque. The area surrounding the mosque is bound to become a pilgrimage center. The already unbearable effects of this cultural center include noise, exhaust pollution, and a lack of parking. The organizers of the civil resistance group are demanding the shutdown of this Islamic center and its moving to a suitable location outside residential areas.”
ATIB is the Turkish-Islamic Union for Cultural and Social Cooperation in Austria. Turkey supports the mosque-building in Europe where there are large Turkish communities, in Germany, Austria and elsewhere. Turkey sees its citizens as soldiers to spread its ideology. As Turkish Prime Minster Erdogan says: “Don’t assimilate, assimilation is the greatest crime.”
In December 2007, a Turkish lawyer filed a complaint after the Italian football club Inter wore a shirt with an “offensive symbol.” The shirt’s scheme saw a big red Christian cross on a white background, a symbol of the city of Milan. Swiss football referee Massimo Busacca vowed that he would wear a whistle with the Swiss Cross symbol on it during of the Saudi championship, despite the fact that many in Saudi Arabia had called for Busacca to sport a different whistle to avoid offending Muslims. The Swiss Cross is Switzerland’s national flag.
In the spring of 2006, police were deployed at a Berlin school after teachers complained that they could not cope with their students’ aggression and disrespect. A teacher who recently left the school told the Tagesspiegel newspaper that ethnic Arab pupils were bullying ethnic Turks, Germans and other nationalities. “School for them,” said Petra Eggebrecht, former director of the Rütli school, “is simply a place to fight for peer recognition, where young criminals become idols.” Young people are also easy targets for Islamist organisations. Outside the Rütli school, the children greeted visitors in Arabic.
When reporters went to school they were pelted with paving stones by masked youths from the schoolyard as the district’s mayor stood helplessly at the entrance of the building. An increasing problem in German schools is that Arab male students often refuse to respect the authority of women teachers. Students at the Ruetli Hauptschule were not shy about expressing their views to reporters. “The German (students) brown nose us, pay for things for us and stuff like that, so that we don’t smash in their faces.” But there are also conflicts between Arab and Turkish students, mirrored in battles between the city’s foreign-dominated youth gangs. Integration of foreign youths in Berlin is often poor. Even second and third generation children frequently do not speak fluent German and many fail to complete school — all of which leads to a high jobless rate among immigrant youths. White German families are moving out of districts like Neukoelln.
Muslims in European countries are busy building parallel societies, and there are now rapidly expanding no-go zones in various German cities where the natives, even the police, risk being physically attacked by Muslim gangs. A gym in the city of Cologne, Germany, is specifically designed for Muslim women. In the Ehrenfeld city district, Muslim women who want to be physically fit can follow the lead of female personal trainers at the “Hayat” (which means “life” in Turkish) gym and still keep their clothes on. Others want to open up more fitness centers where Muslim women can get a great work-out while remaining “modest.”
In late August 2008 an elderly Cologne Council member, Hans-Martin Breninek, was beaten unconscious and sent to hospital by young Turks. The group of Turks, who had a “fighting dog,” managed to flee before the police arrived. Thanks to people passing by, Breninek was not more severely wounded as he lay on the ground. This happened in the heart of Cologne, yet this did not deter the “youths” from attacking the 67-year-old man. He was handing out information warning against the Islamization of his country and his continent.
Meanwhile, Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, considered the plans to hold an anti-Islamization congress in Cologne on Sept 19-20 2008 to be counterproductive to interfaith dialogues. “Any plan to organize an anti-Islam congress would be counter-productive to interfaith dialogs which also involve European nations,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Teuku Faizasyah said. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), of which Indonesia is a prominent member, expressed deep concern regarding the planned congress and expressed hope that all elements of the community in Germany and the rest of Europe would be strongly opposed to the planned congress and “reject hatred and racism.”
The OIC has a newly established Islamophobia Observatory based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. At the same time, thousands of Christian churches have been destroyed by Muslim mobs in Indonesia in recent years, and practicing any other religion than Islam is banned by law in Saudi Arabia. Those violating this, even in their private homes, risk being deported or worse.
Groups in Switzerland, among them the Swiss People’s Party, managed to collect enough signatures to force a nationwide referendum on banning minarets, the distinctive towers of Islamic architecture. The president of Switzerland, Pascal Couchepin, said the government would recommend that voters reject the proposed minaret ban.
Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey warned that the anti-minaret campaign would provoke Muslim anger and cause security problems. (Swiss conservatives earlier criticized Calmy-Rey for wearing a headscarf during a visit to Iran, saying it was a sign of submission.) World Radio Switzerland said it was unusual for the government to take a position against a referendum initiative so quickly. It said “Swiss diplomacy and economic sectors are worried that this kind of initiative could unleash the same kind of anger [and] calls for a boycott” as those that met the publication of the Danish cartoons satirizing Muhammad.
Foreign Minister Calmy-Rey told Swiss ambassadors gathered in the capital Bern that they needed to talk to “heavyweight political figures” on the world stage even if they are considered persona non grata. “This even goes as far as sitting down at the same table as Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden,” she said.
Sticking to their usual pro-Islamic, Multicultural agenda, the headline in British newspaper The Guardian was: “Islamophobia: Swiss far right seeks vote on minarets ban.” Recep Tayyip Erdogan, ex-mayor of Istanbul, now Turkey’s Prime Minister and a “reformed, moderate Muslim,” has earlier stated that “the mosques are our barracks, the minarets our bayonets, the domes our helmets, and the believers our soldiers.” As Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch says:
“The minaret is merely a sign of power. It is a sign of dominion over the nearby churches and synagogues. Why do you think that, according to the Shari’a, no church or synagogue can be built higher than a nearby mosque? Why do you think that mosques were always built on the highest ground? For a nice example, see the mosque in Grenada that was opened a few years ago. The Spanish government thought it would be a great idea. They thought it would be a demonstration of real ‘tolerance’ for Muslims that would somehow be reciprocated. Of course it wasn’t. That mosque looms over a convent and a church, and with its Call to Prayer has disrupted the quiet lives of the nuns, who actually dared to protest. To no avail. Of course. Minarets are claims of power. They are claims to dominance. That is what they are. And that is what these Swiss, who were called — you know what they were called — ‘far right-wing’ Swiss, have properly identified.”
The United Nation’s “expert on racism,” Doudou Diène, stated that the Swiss campaign is evidence of an “ever-increasing trend” toward anti-Islamic actions in Europe. In August 2008, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination said there was room for improvement but that the Swiss authorities were motivated and taking the issue seriously. During the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review the Swiss had to answer numerous questions about the “xenophobic climate” in Switzerland and the “incitements to racial hatred by certain political parties.”
The UN committee was looking for “top-down” leadership from the Swiss government to help change the mindset of the general public and for it to be a “champion for this cause,” clearly a call for more Multicultural propaganda and public indoctrination through the media and the education system. The committee also addressed the absence of an anti-discrimination law in Switzerland. Switzerland is not a member of the EU, but the EU has in recent years, in close cooperation with pan-European organizations such as the Council of Europe and international Islamic organizations, passed a number of draconian anti-discrimination laws more or less ordering native Europeans to submit to continued colonization through mass immigration.
Norway, which is not a full member of the EU but an associated member and subject to most EU legislation, passed a radical Discrimination Act in 2005, covering all sectors of society. The Act says more or less explicitly that in cases of suspected discrimination, the natives are guilty of “discriminating” against immigrants until proven otherwise. It was passed by national authorities following transnational initiatives and recommendations by the Council of Europe, with virtually no public debate. Similar laws have been passed by the EU, in close cooperation with the CoE, the Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and others, in Sweden, Germany, Belgium and a number of other countries I am aware of.
The United Nation’s racism watchdog called on Germany and Switzerland to combat rising racial discrimination against ethnic minorities, specifically mentioning Muslims. Doudou Diène also levelled tough criticism at Switzerland in a 2007 report for what he said were “discriminatory tendencies.” During an international media conference in Oslo in June 2007, Mr. Doudou Diène, the United Nations Special Envoy for racism, xenophobia and intolerance, urged the media to actively participate in the creation of a Multicultural society, and expressed concerns that the democratic process could lead to immigration-restrictive parties gaining influence in Western nations, for instance in Denmark and Switzerland.
Diène said that it is a dangerous development when increasing numbers of intellectuals in the West believe that some cultures are better than others, and stated that “The media must transform diversity, which is a fact of life, into pluralism, which is a set of values.” Getting diversity accepted is the role of the education system, and acceptance is the role of the law. “Promoting and defending diversity is the task of the media.” Societies must recognize, accept and promote diversity, which for some curious reason always seems to imply Islamic sharia.
Doudou Diène is the ultimate symbol of the loss of Western identity and willpower. He represents Senegal, an African Muslim country which is a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the largest voting bloc at the United Nations, sponsored by Arab oil money. The OIC has become increasingly aggressive in recent years in infiltrating UN organs and promoting concepts such as “Islamophobia” as dangerous trends which should be banned by international law. Western countries are still the greatest financial contributors to the UN, which means that we are supposed to finance a deeply corrupt organization increasingly dedicated to destroying our countries and turning them into obedient dumping grounds for the excess population growth in Islamic countries. In Africa, the few remaining whites suffer from brutal racist persecution at the same time as millions of Africans take it for granted that they can colonize European cities and get paid for this. So the motto is “Europeans in Africa bad, Africans in Europe good.”
In Austria, the authorities have indicted politician Susanne Winter on charges of incitement and degradation of religious symbols and agitation after Ms Winter said that Muhammad was “a child molester” because he had married a six-year-old girl. She also said he was “a warlord.” The politician, a member of the Austrian Freedom Party FPÖ, added that Islam is “a totalitarian system of domination that should be cast back to its birthplace on the other side of the Mediterranean.” She warned for “a Muslim immigration tsunami,” saying that “in 20 or 30 years, half the population of Austria will be Muslim” if the present immigration policies continue. Following her remarks, Muslim extremists threatened to kill Winter and she was placed under police protection. Later, the Justice Department in Vienna announced that Ms Winter would be charged with “incitement and degradation of religious symbols.”
It says quite specifically and repeatedly in Islamic religious texts that Muhammad married one of his wives, Aisha, when she was six years old, and had sex with her when she was nine and he was in his fifties. Since Muhammad is the “living Koran” and his personal example, his Sunna, is valid for time eternity, this is still allowed today according to sharia law. As Dr. Ahmad Al-Mu’bi, a Saudi Arabian marriage officiant, said on TV June 19, 2008: “The Prophet Muhammad is the model we follow. He took ‘Aisha to be his wife when she was six, but he had sex with her only when she was nine.” In August 2008, the Saudi mother of an eight-year-old girl was trying to stop her daughter marrying a much older man, one of many similar marriages in the country. The father’s consent is needed to validate the marriage contract between the girl and the man, who is in his fifties.
When Susanne Winter suggested that Muhammad had sex with a child, she was stating a fact which is recognized in Islamic sources, and for this she gets legally prosecuted. Muslims have been at the gates of Vienna several times. This time, they are already on the inside and increasingly dictating the terms, turning the local authorities into enforcers of sharia rather than protectors and servants of their people. Sadly, Austria is far from unique in this regard.
When reading about a topic seemingly unrelated to Islam, about the creation of the first mechanical clocks (this innovation took place only in Europe), I found out that the Germans paid “Turk money” in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries until they became strong enough to refuse. [Correction from a reader: “You misunderstood the meaning of Türkensteuer or Türkenpfennig. It was not a tribute for the Turks, but in contrary money for financing the wars of the German Empire against the Turks!”] It is almost impossible to overestimate the prolonged impact Jihad has had on European history since the seventh century AD. The southern half of Europe obviously suffered the most, but almost no region of the continent totally escaped the Islamic threat. The Germans were never under Islamic rule, but even they had to pay tribute, or jizya, for a while.
I am increasingly becoming aware of how much Islam isolated Europe from the rest of the world. Even in Greco-Roman times, especially during the principate, the mature period of the Roman Empire in the first and second centuries AD, there were regular contacts between Mediterranean Europe and India via Egypt and the Red Sea. After the seventh century, this region was controlled by largely hostile Muslims, which made regular trade with the major Asian civilizations beyond the Middle East very difficult.
There were few Europeans travelling to the Far East before Marco Polo and others following the Mongol conquests. Not zero, but few. Europe was during this time surrounded to the south and east by largely hostile Muslims, and to the north there was ice and more ice. The only possibility Europeans had to escape the clutches of Islam was to go west or southwest, which is what they eventually did. Contact with the Americas was to a large extent triggered by a desire to get away from the Muslim stranglehold on the continent. Muslims kept Europeans in a state of artificial geographical isolation for the better part of a thousand years.
I know many Austrians and Germans still suffer from a guilt complex from WW2, but this is deeply misplaced with regards to Muslims, and Turks in particular. Turks are guilty of more than one thousand years of persecution and genocide against various European peoples and are in no position to complain, with their main victims in the Balkans. They threatened European freedom for centuries, and many Muslims both within and outside of Turkey now apparently want to resurrect the Ottoman Empire and use the Balkans as a launching pad for Jihad against Europe. They get help in this undertaking from the European Union.
The EU is, among other things, a continuation of the propaganda methods of Nazi Germany and the unaccountable bureaucracy of the Soviet Union, two entities that put together killed more than one hundred million people. This makes it all the more insane that the Eurocrats and their Multiculturalist cheerleaders get away with labelling their critics “extremists.” EU Commissioner Margot Wallstrom said in 2005 that Europeans had to vote “yes” to the proposed EU Constitution or risk a new Holocaust. Forget the part that the EU is in the process of turning itself into a pan-European totalitarian state, a process that would be more or less completed with the proposed Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. The EU is thus using the memory of a previous totalitarian state in order to create a new totalitarian state. The organization is directly responsible for triggering a massive wave of street violence and political violence across the European continent, at least the Western half of it.
The Germans have been — and still are — among the most dynamic of all European peoples. They are under no obligation to surrender they country and their dignity to barbarian and inferior cultures, and have every right to expel intruders from their lands and refuse to accept unlimited mass immigration. Original sin is a Christian concept, and in Christianity, it applies equally to all peoples, not to any particular nation. Young Germans should know their history, but they bear no guilt for what happened generations before they were born. I cannot see any particular reason why the Germans should be seen as the bad guys this time around. They are perhaps guilty of being too supportive of the EU, but I would still consider the EU to be primarily a French idea. As for Political Correctness, it has mainly been developed and spread from the English-speaking world, although it does contain seeds of earlier European ideas.
The entire Western world has been infected by the mental virus of Political Correctness. We are all sick, but some countries still have stronger immune systems than others. I don’t think Germany is any sicker than France, Britain or Spain. Germany will be weighed down by its history and thus prevented from taking an early leading role in Europe’s struggle for survival, yes. The early phases will likely be led by the Italians and smaller countries such as Denmark and Switzerland. But I wouldn’t count the Germans out in the longer term. They have a golden opportunity to redeem themselves and play a role as defenders of European civilization.
When Gandhi asked the British to leave India he said, “You must understand that India is for Indians the way that England is for the English.” As one American blog reader commented, Gandhi is considered a good guy and a hero while any German, Swiss, Austrian, Italian, Serb or Greek who says that his country belongs to his people is vilified. It’s time we stop accepting this. Europeans have every bit as much right to fight for our existence as everybody else does.
Freedom Fighting “Fascists”
This essay was first published in September 2008 at the website Atlas Shrugs. It is republished here with some later changes.
In late 2007 and early 2008, I was involved in a heated argument with the major American blog Little Green Footballs and its owner Charles Johnson. I haven’t been thinking much about it since then because it consumed too much energy and I found it to be a waste of time. However, recent events have caused me to look at these issues once more. In the city of Cologne (Köln), Germany, a scheduled anti-Islamization demonstration was disrupted by an unholy alliance of Eurabian Multicultural elites and extreme Leftist “anti-Fascists.” As Thomas Landen put it in The Brussels Journal:
“Last weekend’s events in Cologne demonstrate what European conservatives are up against. A conference protesting the building of a mega mosque run by Turkish radicals was violently disrupted by thugs who gained the approval of the local German authorities and the German media. The international media, including the so-called ‘conservative’ media, have either not written about the Cologne incidents or done so by branding the conservatives as ‘Neo-Nazis’ and the thugs as ordinary citizens bravely fighting back ‘Nazism.’ An example of the latter can be found in The Times of London.”
According to magazine Der Spiegel, “an estimated 40,000 protesters turned up in Cologne’s downtown Heumarkt area, many wearing clown suits, to disrupt the rally. They blocked urban trains to keep delegates away and raided a tourist boat shaped like a whale — called the ‘Moby Dick’ — where the far-right gathering had been hoping to hold a press conference. A Pro Cologne spokesman said, ‘Stones, bricks and paint bombs were thrown and the panoramic windows of the Moby Dick were shattered.’ Police cancelled the rally after 45 minutes. Pro Cologne organizers had to dismantle microphones and other equipment in Heumarkt while the overwhelmed riot cops tried to hold back the crowd of protesters.”
According to Der Spiegel, Police had prepared for about 1,500 far-right activists, organized by the local ‘Pro Cologne’ movement, to make a public show of discussing what they called the ‘Islamization’ of Europe.”
As the esteemed American writer and columnist Diana West commented: “The suggestion here is that no non-’far-right activist’ could possibly be so ‘far right’ as to imagine Europe is being Islamized…The point of the anti-Islamization rally was rational discussion. But Cologne proved it values neither reason nor discussion. ‘The city was ready.’ For mob rule.”
The supposedly conservative newspaper Die Welt put up an online poll asking their readers whether they thought it was OK to ban the anti-Islamization demonstration. According to the major blog Link Text Politically Incorrect, as of midnight 86% disagreed with this policy. Suddenly, in the middle of the night, thousands of votes miraculously came in and the poll ended with exactly 50% in favor of the ban. Die Welt deleted the comment section because many comments criticized the decision to ban the Pro Cologne meeting.
Several eyewitnesses who were present this weekend were shocked by the behavior of the police, who in their eyes seemed to be acting as a surrogate of the left-wing “antifa” groups (supposedly anti-Fascists, although they tend to behave pretty much exactly like Fascists).
Aviel, a Jewish man who was beaten up in Cologne on 20 September, explains:
“My [Jewish] friend, Michael Kucherov was the first casualty here on Friday. He got beaten up for trying to enter the first of our [=Pro Cologne] meetings on Friday. I sorely resent myself for not being there at that time for him. It rips me apart to hear about a Jew being beaten up in the streets of Germany. Well he wouldn’t be the only Jew. The next day as I was trying to enter Heumarkt, I was beaten up by Antifa thugs on Eibahnstrasse. In both incidents, as we were being beaten up, they were yelling and screaming ‘Nazi’ which was quite odd. Michael dressed in a suit but I was wearing my kippa and quite easily identified as a Jew so you can understand how odd it seems to be beaten by Germans in the street and called Nazi when you are Jewish. Anyway, I am going home with a broken rib but my pride still intact. I could have tried to escape or run but no way no how and I going to run or get on my knees for these people. Not this Jew. And one more thing, just let them all know that we (Jews) aren’t all soft. Living here in Europe, we battle thugs and islamists all the time and still ask for more. That’s why I traveled from France to Germany to make this conference. We are on the frontline of a battle which grows darker by the minute.”
A Norwegian man blogging under the name maalmannen experienced something similar and posted many photos from the event:
“On several occasions, I observed people trying to join the demonstration being attacked and chased away by the leftist counter-demonstration. In one case, an old woman carrying a lot of anti-Islamization posters was attacked by a gang of Antifa activists. The rest of the crowd shouted ‘Nazis raus’ [Nazis out] when these criminals attacked the old frau and took all her posters away from her, and then ordered her to leave or risk more attacks.”
Spanish writer AMDG from the blog La Yijad en Eurabia adds his observations:
“It was obviously not possible to enter the Heumarkt. I tried one of the narrow streets of the old city; there was a line of antifas with black clothing and sun glasses. They have even dared to place one of those plastic red-white stripes in front of them. I told one of them that I wanted to cross, they say no way. One of them spoke Spanish, and I ask her whether she was any authority, she confirmed it ‘we are the authority’. A line of anti-riot police agents was only two meters behind them. I can not find a better image of the creeping Eurabian fascism: The police not only do not confront them, they cover their backs. Alternatively, we may think that the antifa-lefty militants are just the stormtroopers (Sturmabteilung?) of the formal police.”
A number of those demonstrating for “democracy” and against “extremism” were Communists. I guess a hundred million dead victims of Communism in a few generations isn’t a sign of extremism. Some also carried anti-Israeli slogans and merchandise using the icon of Marxist mass murderer and torturer Che Guevara. It is well-known that hardline Marxist organizations are still strong and influential in Germany, as in many other countries.
Many of those present noticed the militant-looking black outfits of some of the extreme Leftist demonstrators, which seemed to match closely with their attitudes. Since the term “Fascist” appears to be reserved for anti-Islamists and “racist” critics of mass immigration in general and Muslim immigration in particular, it is challenging to find a proper term for the militant antifa crowd. “Red Nazis” could be useful, but perhaps “blackshirts” or “blackhoods” are the most appropriate terms, alluding to the black clothing and uniforms they often wear.
According to AMDG, “I think that we should repeat this rally every year. We need to show the Europeans that the Nazis and the fascists are the lefties. We can only make it by insisting. We need to join also the counterdemo with banners showing verses of the Koran.”
The decision to silence the demonstration against Islamization was supported by local authorities as well as national and probably supranational ones. Thomas Steg, spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, stated that Berlin favored “inter-cultural dialogue.” The German Interior Ministry, too, criticized the rally, stating that “Such a gathering of populists and extremists harms the co-existence that the city and Muslim citizens have striven for.”
Cologne Mayor Fritz Schramma, from the same “conservative” Christian Democratic Party (CDU) as Chancellor Angela Merkel, said on public radio that “We don’t want their conference and along with a great majority of Cologne people we’ll be obstructing them.”
In my view, Cologne Mayor Fritz Schramma is a dhimmi collaborator. His actions betray his city, his country and his civilization. This was a shameful act of cowardice and appeasement of the Nazis of our time. The true heirs of the Nazis and the Communists, both in totalitarian mentality and in methods, were the blackshirt left-wingers who were present this day, not those who demonstrated against the Islamization of their continent. Schramma should resign immediately. It is nothing less than an international disgrace that after Germany has been freed from the Nazis and the Communists, the authorities in a major city in the largest country in Europe kneel to totalitarian thugs and allow them to rule the streets.
These blackshirts were deliberately allowed by the authorities to harass those who are critical of the official pro-Islamic policies. This confirms my long-held suspicion that the extreme Leftist thugs who assault immigration-critics in certain countries are a prolonged arm of the state. The “anti-Fascists” AFA in Sweden, for instance, openly brag about regular physical attacks against people they don’t like. They have been doing this for years. The media and the authorities know about it and do nothing. They like it, plain and simple.
As annoying as these Antifa groups can be, from what information I and others have been able to gather, they are not powerful enough to cause major problems unless they are allowed to do so by the authorities. They are strong in Sweden but exist in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and elsewhere. I know of at least one very violent attack by left-wing extremists on the peaceful Danish counter-Jihad organization SIAD in 2007 which could have been fatal, so they certainly have the potential to become violent. They have disrupted some of the legal activities of Filip Dewinter and others from the Vlaams Belang party in Belgium.
One of the foreign visitors in Cologne, the Flemish politician Filip Dewinter, criticized Cologne Mayor Schramma and compared him to Freddy Thielemans, the Socialist Mayor of Brussels, Belgium, who in 2007 and 2008 banned demonstrations commemorating the 2001 9/11 terror victims in the USA because he didn’t want to upset the local Muslims. “Brussels and Cologne have mayors who kneel and submit to Islamization,” Dewinter said.
The Iranians put pressure on the EU several times and summoned the French ambassador — France held the rotating presidency of the EU — to express deep concern over the EU’s lenient behavior toward anti-Islamic sentiments in Europe and suggested that European authorities prohibited the conference. Notice how they pressured the EU, not Germany. It is difficult to assess how much of an impact pressure from the Islamic Republic of Iran and other Muslim countries had in this case, but it’s quite likely that it contributed to the outcome. The implications of this are unmistakable and far-reaching: Muslim countries now feel, with some justification, that they can dictate what Europeans say or do in their own countries.
The LGF-crowd thinks that Europeans must prove that we are 100% “ideologically pure” before we should be granted the right to fight for our continued existence. Imagine if a house is on fire. The fire brigade has just arrived to put out the fire, but the neighbor won’t allow them to use the local water because he fears it may be impure. He will only accept that they use holy water — distilled holy water — and only if it has been blessed by a lesbian priest who supports voting rights for illegal immigrants. Since the firefighters don’t have this available, the house burns down, but the neighbor takes comforting in knowing that at least the remaining ash is ideologically pure. This is Little Green Football’s attitude to the threat faced by the Western world. In fact, their attitude is to say that the water is more dangerous than the fire itself, and to beat the firefighters with their umbrellas while screaming “Fascist bastards!”
The thinking seems to be that if you scratch any random European there is usually a Nazi lurking underneath, just waiting to get out. There are only two possible versions of Europeans: the surrender-monkeys and the Nazis. If we are not the former, then it follows by logic that we have to be the latter. This attitude betrays an all-pervasive hatred that demonizes absolutely anything Europeans do to protect their dignity and heritage. It closely mirrors Multiculturalism, which is an anti-Western, but especially anti-European, hate ideology.
As blogger Baron Bodissey says:
“European neo-Nazis are truly a fringe group. They are repugnant and/or a joke to the average European. They exist, but they are marginal, and will remain marginal…In order for a supra-national totalitarian state to function, all national identities and aspirations must be demonized and eradicated. Whenever a surge of national feeling appears, it must be beaten down with shouts of ‘Racist! Xenophobe! Fascist! NEO-NAZI!!’ This is not to say that various people with previous neo-Nazi associations or inclinations aren’t involved in some European right-wing movements. They are, but they can only be electorally successful if they jettison their erstwhile allies and ideologies and embrace positions that resonate with a larger percentage of the population. A Nazi revival is a fantasy. Those who believe in it are chasing a phantom. It’s a Leftist fairy tale spun out of pure gossamer to frighten people away from conservative parties that support the right to a national identity. Those who echo the ‘Nazi!’ alarm are — wittingly or otherwise — aiding the cause of the Eurabian Marxists. Real Nazis almost invariably end up aligning with radical Islam.”
In October 2008, John Rosenthal published an essay revealing that “When protesters in Cologne last month managed, with the blessing of the city government, to prevent the holding of an ‘Anti-Islamification Congress,’ the cancellation of the event was widely hailed in the German and international media as a victory against “right-wing extremists” or, more simply put, ‘Nazis.’… A new report from the domestic intelligence service of the German city-state of Hamburg shows, however, that actual neo-Nazi groups in Germany — i.e., groups that themselves embrace this description — in fact likewise opposed the ‘Anti-Islamification Congress’ and are notably hostile to its sponsor, the ‘citizens’ movement Pro-Cologne [Pro-Köln].” For Nazis, Islam is regarded as a “global ally” in the fight against Jewish hegemony.
Nazism was essentially a new religion of Jihadism, which had much more in common with Islam than with Christianity. According to his architect Albert Speer, Adolf Hitler was fond of saying things such as: “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”
The admiration was mutual. In 2005, Hitler’s autobiography Mein Kampf was among the top bestsellers in Turkey, second only to a book about a Turkish national hero detonating a nuclear bomb in Washington D.C. Dehumanizing Jews as apes (Koran 2:65/7:166), or apes and pigs (Koran 5:60) has been common throughout Islamic history, more than 1300 years before the establishment of the state of Israel. Muhammad himself referred to the Medinan Jews of the Banu Qurayza as “apes” before orchestrating the slaughter of all of their men.
When the late 23 year-old Parisian Jew Ilan Halimi was being tortured to death in February 2006, his Muslim torturers, as journalist Nidra Poller wrote in the Wall Street Journal “…phoned the family on several occasions and made them listen to the recitation of verses from the Koran, while Ilan’s tortured screams could be heard in the background.” Halimi’s murderers did not invoke any non-Islamic sources of anti-Jewish hate, only the Koran. Islamic texts, the Koran and the hadith, are the causes of Islamic hatred of infidels, not “oppression.”
As this information demonstrates, those who disagreed with the anti-Islamization demonstration in Cologne were the Communists, the Nazis and the Muslims, among others. I cannot speak for anybody else, but if I ever find myself to be on the same side as three of the most evil ideologies in human history at the same time, I would stop and consider the possibility that my position could be horribly wrong in this case, and most likely is.
Neo-Nazis exist, but they are marginal for the simple reason that people don’t like them. They are universally shunned, as they should be. No major newspaper or TV station would ever hire a neo-Nazi, yet Marxists of all stripes work in Western media. In fact, the Marxists dominate the media, and they openly ally themselves with Muslims and champion Multiculturalism and mass immigration. The Islamic-Marxist alliance is powerful, constitutes a grave threat to our freedom and continued existence and must be smashed. The neo-Nazis are a fringe group. They should be watched, but they are far down the list of enemies today. Those who focus more on the latter group than on the alliance of Marxists and Muslims simply don’t understand what’s going on or deliberately want to sabotage the anti-Jihad fight.
The Second World War was over more than 60 years ago. People should stop fighting the last war over again while we are on the defensive in the ongoing world war today. Germans and Austrians have every right to fight for their country, just like everybody else.
Part 4 will appear tomorrow (October 30, 2008).
But then I was invaded by the Ranting Alien once again, and here we are.
Of interest in tonight’s news items: mandatory internet censorship in Australia, fingerprinting of parents who pick up their children at school in the UK, the British Defence Secretary backs the creation of an EU army, and Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo are united in their opposition to the UN.
I met Bart Debie (at left in the photo, with Luk Van Nieuwenhuysen) this time last year in Antwerp and Brussels. He was one of numerous friendly and helpful members of Vlaams Belang who accompanied the attendees of the