Gates of Vienna News Feed 6/25/2010

Gates of Vienna News Feed 6/25/2010House Democrats — alarmed by a recent Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed Americans’ free speech rights under the First Amendment — have passed a bill that will restrict campaign activities by various groups, but exempts — surprise! — labor unions from its provisions.

In other news, Australia’s new prime minister, Julia Gillard, reassures President Obama that she will continue her predecessor’s policy and support US military operations in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Pakistan has decided to monitor Google and Yahoo so that it can clamp down on any “blasphemy”.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to AP, Caroline Glick, Fjordman, heroyalwhyness, Nilk, Takuan Seiyo, TV, Zenster, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

[This post is a stub — nothing further here!]

The EU, Turkey, and the Islamization of Europe

EU Skull-Dragon

The article below by the Austrian scholar Harald Fiegl was posted on May 15 at EuropeNews. Many thanks to JLH for translating it from the original German.

The EU, Turkey, and the Islamization of Europe
by Dr. Harald Fiegl

A drastic change for the worse. What do Islam and full EU membership for Turkey mean for the European model of life?

The EU regards itself as a community of values, a region of security, freedom, prosperity and law and as a unique peace project. The Christian-Western value base is not considered a “settled norm,” but the moral sensibility and cultural inheritance are a condensation of Christianity and Enlightenment. As such, it is in stark contrast to Islamic and oriental-patriarchal lifestyles with their group identity.

Seen from the outside, despite its economic difficulties, the EU is still an economic partner and an immigration destination. It is also in demand as a source for financing developmental aid projects. A place where human rights receive more recognition than in other parts of the world. It is not, however, a political power, a “global player.” Furthermore, it lacks a common domestic and foreign security policy, and so a common demeanor.

The new European foreign service (EAD) with its 8,000 (?) employees and 130 delegations will only be capable of a united front when the common external and security policy (GASP) materializes.

Economic significance with political weakness makes the EU an object of desire for other political powers. At the head of the line stands the Islamization of Europe in combination with Turkey’s intent to dominate Europe — specifically the EU. This country is preparing the way for itself. There is no “give-and-take” exchange. Turkey wants a Turkish Europe!

The EU is in the same position as Byzantium before its conquest by the Turks. Then as now, an opponent fighting with all means at its disposal was facing a disunited, absolutely self destructive entity.* The

Islamization of the entire world is being pursued by Muslims with determination at all levels. As an Islamic country, Turkey strengthens this tendency by adding its own expansive nationalism.

How Can These Claims Be Perceived?

  • By the structure of the EU
  • By the structure of Turkey and the worldwide spread of Islam
  • By the claims of hegemony in the community of nations

The Structure of the EU

At every opportunity, there is talk of commonalities and the unification, indeed re-unification of Europe and with that, the absolutely imperative expansion of the EU to a minimum of 40 members. In fact, however, these commonalities are absent and so is the prerequisite for a successful expansion. In the absence of common successes, it appears that the EU is seeking its salvation in expansion, even if the expansion finds little agreement in the European population. that is brought on by the expansion. Add to that the fact that the will of the majority of the European population has no voice in the decisions of the EU organs of governance. Is the EU just a cornucopia for skilled lobbyists and a high level employment agency?

This is especially true of the decision to accept Turkey as a full member.

In other words, the oft-mentioned “European Spirit” is moribund. But only something like it can create a self-conscious Europe which will play a decisive role in the world.

  • After the fall of the Iron Curtain, the EU did not make lasting use of the possibilities for new and independent connections with Russia, and thus supported the return of the Russian mindset to its own geopolitical claims. Russia sees expansion of the EU as part of the US encirclement policy, of which Ukraine and Georgia are especially blatant examples.
  • The independent policy of French president Sarkozy is a vivid example of national interests. Sarkozy is thinking French and not European, when he speaks of the Mediterranean Union and when he promotes French military alliances or treaties over nuclear cooperation with countries of the Mediterranean region.
  • The new members from Eastern Europe see their foreign policy support in the USA and align their foreign policy with US wishes.
  • Great Britain sails in the wake of the USA.

Expansion — together with globalization — has brought heightened pressure on the majority of the European population to produce, often combined with lower income to the point of financial starvation. Jobs are lost, foreign capital is decisive in European industry (China, Libya and other Arabic countries). For a large part of the European population, the EU now offers a very modest living standard.

The “Lisbon Goal” is a true declaration of bankruptcy. The EU was supposed to be the most innovative and economically significant area of the world. Now that the impossibility of this plan is obvious, the goal is being postponed by 10 years and summarily re-named Strategy 2020.

Though the EU still comes up trumps through comparatively significant economic successes in international tests of strength, disillusion has set in this area too, through accumulation of debt across the entire EU, especially in the PIGS — Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain. Dramatically rising unemployment — caused not least by outsourcing — intensifies this disenchantment.

The Special Case of Turkey

  • Between US-NATO wishes and a split of interests in member states, Turkey was granted membership in the Council of Europe in 1999 in a confidential paper which was not available to the public. In December 2004, 407 representatives in the EU parliament voted for negotiations with no further delay. Only 262 voted against. On October 3, 2005, negotiations began with the goal of full membership. (This counterintuitive position has been held to this day with no regard for public opinion. The granting of asylum to Turkish citizens is not seen as a contradictory indicator.)
  • Despite a lack of progress in meeting entry requirements, Turkey continues to receive signals of a foreseeable time for entry.
  • In the beginning of 2010, the Turk, Mevlüt Cavusoglu was elected chair of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of European.
  • Istanbul was chosen as the cultural capital of Europe for 2010. The festival city, Salzburg, has a sponsor from Turkey.
  • Critical remarks in progress reports continue to have no consequences (e.g., Cyprus, religious freedom).

In its judgment of Turkey, the EU for instance, disregards the fact:
– – – – – – – –

  • That Turkey has great deficits in human rights and therefore does not fulfill the basic requirements for acceptance. (In contrast to these criteria, Turkey was granted “sufficient” fulfillment of basic requirements.)
  • That special role of the army and religious authority, which is anchored in the constitution of the (national-religious) unity government is EU adverse and so Turkey is not and cannot become a democracy in the Western sense.
  • That the public life of Turkey is determined by Islam, in other words, by ideological basics which are the exact opposite of the Western model of life.
  • That a full membership for Turkey means an entry with fulfilling the requirements and, in consideration of the size and otherness of this land, plainly means the final abandonment of the feeling of togetherness and the end of the work of European integration.
  • That the entry of Turkey brings with it an enormous financial burden for the EU and, aided by this financing, all the Turkish EU contradictions, including military ambitions, are bolstered.
  • That the EU, in the absence of any foreign policy of its own, would stumble in the wake of Turkish interests into Turkey’s conflicts with its neighbors.

The foreign policy of the EU is a reflection of national interests and accordingly not in a position to counteract US hegemonic moves. It must eventually come to the realization that, despite all criticism of the USA. it is the only “player” in the Western world.

European Navel-Gazing Is No World Policy

Although EU deficits become ever more visible, and negative polls and warning voices of important personalities are not lacking, all EU governmental organs are celebrating the accomplishments of the work of integration with events and brochures.

The message of all these “events” is clothed in catchphrases and tranquilizer words. Take for example the following vocabulary of deception and clouding of the mind:

  • Abrahamic religions: the patriarch Abraham connects all monotheistic religions. (Why are the obvious differences in the way the religions are lived and practiced not addressed? A common ancestral father does not help us live together. Common rules of play will do that.)
  • Islam is a peace-loving religion; you must distinguish between Islam and Islamism; there is no unified Islam; the head scarf is an ordinary article of clothing; there are prejudices against Islam, even Islamophobia.
  • Turkey is a functioning democracy; Turkey is a secular state; Erdogan and his party are “moderately Islamist.” This is per se a contradiction in terms.
  • Negotiations open to results; in a plebiscite the people will have the last word. (President Fischer rightly noted that a plebiscite requires a law which can only be determined after completion of negotiations and ratification by parliament. Thus, the promise of a plebiscite proves to be a placebo, since no political force to speak of can nor will come through for such an illogical procedure ex post facto.)
  • During the last Austrian presidency, there was even the slogan: “The EU ought to be fun”!

Like the sorcerer’s apprentice, the EU is moving rapidly toward its self-immolation. Criticism is declared to be prejudice and the concept of prejudice is deformed to be an advantage.

It does not escape the notice of the critically thinking citizen that all these statements from the media, the authorities and from the EU describe a fairy tale world, from which there will someday be a rude awakening.

The Islamization of Our Lives

The Islamization of Europe (and the whole world) is not only the result of Muslim immigration since WW II, but has been a declared goal of Islam since the time of Mohammed. Right from the beginning, war in Islam has been a part of spreading the faith, and is therefore “just.”

The Crusades were all concerned with the re-taking of Palestine and other Christian areas from the Muslims and were in no way imperialistic projects. They were reactions to Muslim attacks. Without the Crusades, Europe would have been subjugated by Islam centuries ago.

  • The de-hellenization of Asia Minor began with the appearance of the Turks (Seljuks) in the Byzantine Empire (1071). The dream of Ottoman (Turkish) world empire led to the conquest of Constantinople and the Balkans came to a close over about three centuries with the sieges of Vienna in 1529 and 1683 and the succeeding “Turkish wars.”
  • This dream of a Turkish world empire has become reality again at this time through acceptance into the EU — without fulfilling a single condition.
  • The technological and consequent military superiority of Christian countries beginning in the 16th century ultimately led a counterweight to the Muslim military
  • Finally, the Islamic world fell behind and was even occupied by Christian countries. This enabled the Christian countries to function as protective powers for Christian minorities living in Muslim countries.
  • Weakened by two world wars, Europe lost its leadership role in the world. Today, non-European countries determine what happens.
  • Consequently, European values and culture exist merely as one variant in a worldwide offering. European culture and values are already judged negatively in many places. There is no longer any question of being a role model.

A particular milestone in this development is the first oil crisis of the 1970s. Europe’s dependence on oil led to the Europe-Arabic Dialogue (Eurabia). This is an exchange of oil for good will toward Arabic-Islamic interests and/or values. That gave rise to “the Islam prohibition.”

The fact is that Muslim countries treat Western countries with unaccustomed disrespect, of which the conflict of Switzerland with Libya is a clear example. The indifference of Somali authorities to the piracy of mercantile shipping and the attitude of Iran in the question of nuclear armament are two further examples.

Completely unperturbed by Western criticism, Iran supports Hizbullah with modern weapons. Without any objection, the West learns of the Islamization of Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina and other regions by means of Saudi Arabian funds.

The January 2010 EU parliament resolution concerning incidents against Christians in Egypt and Malaysia as well as the proposed resolution of the Austrian parliament in July, 2008 on the worldwide discrimination, repression and persecution of Christians underline the precarious situation of Christians (non-Muslims) in Muslim countries. There were no repercussions. We are contemporary witnesses to the greatest persecution of Christians of all times. Persecution of Christians is not some reminiscence from the age of Rome.

The Islam Prohibition can be traced at the international as well as the national level. It consists of a ban on putting critical questions to Islam. In the dialogue, each and every discussion is ended by the discussion-stopping arguments “general suspicion” and “racism.” The order of the day is twisting the facts by Muslim authorities and compliant Western “helpers.”

An especially striking example is the portrayal of Islam as the “religion of peace,” even though Islam was conceived as an immutably battle-ready ideology. (Indeed, it should be noted that peace in Islamic terms means the state of the world after its total Islamization. To that extent, the designation “religion of peace” is no contradiction even if Islam — legitimately by its own standards — employs violence. The non-Muslim has the choice of conversion, emigration, or death.)

The UN human rights declaration is commemorated every year on Human Rights Day, the 10th of December. Thus, the allegedly universal validity of this socio-political accomplishment is recalled. Not commemorated is the fact that, for Muslims, the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam applies — sharia, Islamic law.

The “Western” idea is that human rights coincide with the concept of individual freedom. That includes religious freedom, understood as the freedom of the individual to choose his religious perspective, or to reject it.

The Islamic idea is that religious freedom is the unrestricted right of Islam to expand as a collective (umma) and displace all other religions and lifestyles. Islam is an alliance of religion and politics!

In this sense, the following points should be seen as closely connected and as steps to the Islamization of Europe (the world).

  • Since the 1970s — approximately contemporary with the first oil crisis — some Islamic states have been attempting to submit human rights to moral relativism by referencing cultural and religious traditions.
  • In 1990, Pakistan proposed a ban on defamation of Islam to the UN Human rights Council. The proposal was expanded to “religions” and also accepted as well by the UN General Assembly.
  • As a consequence, the “Viennese World Conference on Human Rights in 1963” struck a compromise. Since that time, “various historic, cultural and religious conditions are recognized.”
  • In the human rights year 1998, at the proposal of Iran, the UN General Assembly declared 2001 the “UN year of dialogue between civilizations” and thereby introduced the process of recognizing multiplicity as enrichment in a globalized world (creative diversity). Austria was host of one of the meetings in 2001.
  • On December 10, 2007, the speaker of the Organization of the Islamic Conference declared in the UN human rights council that the Cairo Human Rights Declaration of 1990 supplements the UN human rights declaration of 1948 since it is concerned with the cultural and religious features of Muslim countries. (Thereby, Islamic law was de facto recognized, even though it contradicts Western ideas of rights.)
  • The speaker of the OIC declared simultaneously that discussions of sharia in the framework of the UN human rights council are an insult to Islam and therefore impermissible.
  • Following up on this suggestion, the UN human rights council decided in June, 2008, that religious discussions could be led only by academics.

Therefore, recognition of special features, respect and tolerance is the basis for relations between civilizations. That is the opposite of integration.

  • The EU agency for basic rights tracks racism and xenophobia. Combating Islamophobia is a primary concern. Christophobia is not mentioned, although the repression and persecution of Christians have grown to the point where they are impossible to miss.
  • In 2005, Europeans made Islamophobia equal to anti-Semitism and thus made it a crime.
  • In the Council of Europe resolution 1605 of April 15, 2008, a distinction is made between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism, whereby discussion of Islam and its ideology of war becomes taboo.
  • The president of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe, the Turk Mevlut Cavusoglu, said in his inaugural address in January 2010 that intercultural and inter-religious dialogue must be strengthened. All kinds of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and all other kinds of similar phobias which lead to discrimination and intolerance must be stamped out. Of hostility to Christians, which we experience daily, there was not a word.

This stress on Islamophobia is especially questionable since there is no legal definition and the following standards presumably invoke the Islam Prohibition:

The Council of Europe’s Framework Resolution 2008/913/JI of November 28, 2008 on legally enforced combating of particular forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia provides, in article 1 that the following intentional acts be made punishable by law (official crime)

“public incitement to violence or hate against a person or group of persons or member of that group defined according to race, skin color, religion, ancestry, national or ethnic origin”

As a direct result of the Islam Prohibition, we can explain why, at the demand of the Muslims, or in eager anticipation of obeying them, the majority society is considerate of alien lifestyles and ideas and thus fully accepts segregation. (The practice of sharia in British jurisprudence can be seen as abandonment of self, a submission to Islam):

  • No pork or alcohol
  • Gender separation in school and in public. Knowledge of psychoanalysis, e.g., of Sigmund Freud is not considered.
  • Women may only appear in public in the company of their husbands or only with a head covering.
  • Crosses removed from schools and hotel rooms.
  • Refusal to salute the flag in the army and extensive special treatment of Muslim recruits.
  • Consideration for the effects of the month of fasting.
  • Consideration for the Islamic prohibition against interest (Islamic banking). Banking may not charge interest nor deal in businesses that are repugnant to Islam (alcohol, pork, gambling, etc.) All these are signs of a progressive Islamization of all aspects of life. In truth, a systematic and unconditional discrimination against all things not Muslim!

Almost exclusively, the non-Muslim’s answer to this threatening situation is dialogue. Since Vatican II, even the Vatican believes in dialogue.

In countless interrreligious/intercultural dialogues, Christianity and the West are equated and this prevents the interpretive power of our laws from being placed beyond all doubt. Anyone who feels connected to neither Christianity nor Islam (syncretists, agnostics, atheists) justifiably asks: “Who is representing me in all the interreligious dialogues and why is my philosophy of life and the separation of religion and state of less value than religious belief, especially Islamic?”

This applies, for instance, to the president. He describes himself as an agnostic. Also never heard from are those who are in contact with Muslims in the course of their everyday lives and must experience the difficulties of integration, in the police, emergency services, hospitals and schools.

In many places, Islamic ideas are fully accommodated, from Muslim work clothes in the municipality of Vienna to the complete prohibition on discussing Muslim moral concepts. Neither the ORF, the theater nor the churches ask critical questions. They are content with “playful” encounters like hiking or soccer.

The exchange of thoughts is without intellectual depth and corresponds to a wine-tasting or the exchange of recipes. Some representatives of the church even see Islam as an ally against secularization.

With respect to the proclamation “demand and encouragement,” the measures taken by the administration to further integration are content with the encouragement. By this means, the parallel society is anchored still more firmly. Even the requirement to learn German is weakened by a multitude of foreign language translations and translation services. So learning German is actually no longer necessary in many places in Austria.

The result of this attitude is the Muslim parallel society which is not integrated nor willing to integrate and frequently has no respect for the indigenous population. There is hatred for the West. The law of the state has no effect in the parallel society. The police have no reach. Justice is determined by local — mostly Muslim — patterns.

Consider too, that a society is acting “positively” in terms of racism, when it does not insist upon its own standards from immigrants and closes one eye instead of helping.

What Does All This Mean for Coexistence With the Muslims?

Can western lifestyle (secular individualism with free will, voluntary religious practice and individual identity) even persist against Islamic and oriental-patriarchal lifestyles (group identity and nationalism)?

The basic elements of this Western lifestyle are being seriously challenged by Islam, even though these elements are the result of a long, at times painful, hard fought process of consciousness raising and are regarded by Western civilization as an achievement. These are, above all

  • Separation of religion and state
  • Religious freedom, freedom of expression even to its extreme
  • Religion and sexuality are private affairs
  • Art is allowed anything
  • Gender equality

Islam was recognized as a religion in Austria with the Islam Law of 1912. The requirement for recognition was “compatibility with the laws of the state.” Despite all warnings, this has not been checked for a long time. Persecution of Christians in non-Western countries, of secular immigrants, and Islamic writings (fatwas) inimical to the West could not bring an end to this turning of a blind eye.

The government is required to make clear its interpretive authority vs. Islam and to do away with Islam’s deviations from the laws on religious freedom. Put simply, the authorities must actualize the “explanatory remarks” and the “report of the special commission” concerning the law of 1912. This task has been waiting for nearly 100 years!

It is unacceptable that Islamic values have not been dealt with in the ordinary course of parliamentary discussions but has been demanded “from outside.”

The authorities must also clarify whether the concept “infidel,” by which Islam designates all non-Muslims as second-class people, is, in the sense of the above-mentioned framework resolution “public incitement to violence or hate against a group or member of a group of persons defined as a religion according to the criteria.”

The Structure of Turkey

Turkey is a regional power with a targeted domestic and foreign policy, by means of which it confronts a split EU foreign policy with great pertinacity. It pursues its own interest exclusively, often blatantly in contradiction to EU interests. Completely in tune with this foreign policy opportunism is the direction of its foreign policy with regard to the EU/Europe, but also the Islamic and central Asian area.

There is also no shortage of military interventions to effect its foreign policy goals. There have been ca. 3,000 Turkish soldiers stationed on Cyprus since 1974, although the grounds for intervention (overthrow of the Greek military regime) have been gone for years. Turkey also intervenes everywhere where it wants to assert its interests, not militarily, but with substantial political and economic pressure.

That includes diplomatic actions in the USA and the EU in regard to the Armenian genocide and the Kurdish separatist movement PKK. Still fresh in memory is the Turkish intervention against the installation of the Danish president as NATO general secretary. Freedom is not important to Turkey; Muslim sensibilities are. Nonetheless, it was rewarded for this extortion by a strengthening of US good will.

Turkey’s anti-Western positions are, of themselves, no surprise. In the OIC, Turkey appoints the general secretary and therefore functions as the important spokesman in the controversy between Islam and the West. That was true in the clash over the Mohammed cartoons and applies presently to the OIC’s efforts to subordinate the UN human rights declaration to sharia. By this means, criticism of the Islamic perception of human rights is to be stopped. Turkey has long since visibly returned to the Islamic camp. There is no question of a bridge between cultures. Atatürk and his secular orientation are nothing any more than lip service,

Turkey has a constitution adverse to the EU: political life and religious practice are under the purview of the military, even though the Islamic regime is working to reduce this influence. Religious practice and religious adherence are not a private matter as they are in the Western world.

The religious authority, Diyanet, regulates religious life for Sunni Islam, the majority faith. Other sects are disadvantaged. The once flourishing Christian community has shrunk to numerical insignificance. Even 20 million (Islamic?) Alewites are hampered in their religious practice by the Sunni majority.

Diyanet names the imams and sends them into countries with Turkish or Turkish-descended populations, for example, Germany and Austria. In both countries, Diyanet maintains branch offices like a colonial administration, to encourage the religious and national connections to Turkey — but not integration. From this grows a state within a state with the purpose of land acquisition. In Austria, this branch is called ATIB = Ayrupa-Türk Islam Birligi = Turkish Islamic Union for Cultural Cooperation (literally, European-Turkish Islamic Unification with no reference to cultural cooperation).

The Turkish laicité was decreed from above. It did not grow from the bottom up as in the West. The comparison with France is misleading. The Turkish state is not religion-neutral like France. On the contrary, it advantages Sunni Islam and discriminates against all other religions and beliefs.

The founder of the Turkish republic, Kemal Atatürk, introduced separation of religion ad state ca. 80 years ago. The military was established as the guardian of this lay establishment, which led to the more recent past and then to the ban on parties.

Despite all efforts at control, “Kemalism,” with its attempt to implant laicism in the population, has failed. To this day, there are two antagonistic groups in the population: the rural, religious people, including those who migrated to the cities and the secularly oriented city dwellers, whose numbers are dwindling.

Practically speaking, Turkey is in a culture war. Head-covering remains an ideologically highly explosive question. The ban on action for the ruling party the president and many other politicians because of misinterpretation of laicism found no majority with the constitutional judges.

Misunderstanding the facts, the EU took the side of an Islamic state and applauded the process. One resource for this cultural conflict is the influx of capital from Muslim sources. Anyone who practices Islam can count on financial support. This applies not only to residence, work, school and groceries, but also to entrepreneurs in finance and contracting.

The “moderate Islamist” government is taking Turkey step-by-step to an Islamic theocracy and in managing this is completing the necessary ideological re-orientation.

The Turkish constitution foresees not only the special role of the military and religious authorities but also the ethnic-religious centralized state. Accordingly, Turkey’s constitution recognizes no ethnic minorities, including, for instance, 12 million Kurds.

A striking nationalism is quickening in Turkey and protected by criminal laws (no insulting of Turkey, no criticism of official positions on Armenians, Cyprus). Testifying to this nationalism are the ubiquitous Atatürk posters and statues together with the country-wide motto, seen everywhere: “Everyone who is a Turk is fortunate.” This nationalism plus Islam explains the unwillingness and incapacity of Turks to integrate in Europe (Turkish organizations declared during the “Islam conference” of former interior minister Schäuble that they did not adhere to German values).

A horrifying demonstration of this religio-nationalistic attitude is the murder of three fellow employees in a bible print shop in Malatya in 2007. The perpetrators justified themselves with their battle against enemies of the faith and of the Turkish nation. SPD EU representative, Turkish-born Vural Öger, poured oil on the fire by placing the blame on the EU because of its push for reform in Turkish law.

An accommodation of the Turkish constitution to the EU would mean relinquishing these two pillars and thus the end of Atatürk’s Turkey. On the other hand, it is obvious that a similar process in the “negotiations,” would lead the EU to accept a military dictatorship or a theocracy into its ranks. In either case, it will become a plaything of Turkish politics. Reconciliation policy, which aims at an improvement in relations with neighbors, is contained within tight boundaries. The Armenian-Turkish thaw was followed quickly by a cold front.

Unperturbed by all these contradictions, Turkey steps forth with absolutely incomprehensible declarations and demands and talks about an entry date of 2013-15 in the following ways:

  • We have fulfilled all entry requirements and have a right to full membership.
  • The EU has no right to reject Turkey. Turkey reproaches the EU in the coarsest terms as being a Christian club, but is not above participating significantly in the OIC, an organization of exclusively Muslim countries. There is no Christian equivalent of the OIC.
  • As far as the Turkish president is concerned, the Balkans extends into Turkey, when it is a question of integrating the Balkans. He interprets the continuing visa requirement for Bosnia as an example of the disadvantaging of a Muslim country, compared to Serbia, for which the requirement was lifted recently.

    Even in the European council, The (proposal of a) European flag with the cross — modeled on the pan-European movement — failed because of Turkey’s resistance.

  • Turkey accuses the EU of discrimination and complains about admonitions. In truth, it is getting special treatment like no member country has gotten until now. Even Croatia was treated more harshly. Turkey is oblivious and, like an invading army, ignores the sensitivities of the population of the EU.

Turkey is blazing its trail into the EU. It extorts agreement and shows no willingness to fulfill the entry requirements. It is following its usual extortionist negotiating tactics: flatter, be insulted, threaten. It wants a Turkish Europe, as expressed clearly in February, 2008 by the Turkish president, when he appeared in Cologne. Serbia was invited to apply on the basis of a Brussels decision. Turkey made its application at the time against the recommendation of the EU.

As a result of this unfair and tenacious negotiating tactic, Turkey is well represented in the committees and PR apparatus of the EU and is shaping its “own entry requirements.” Together with Spain, it is setting the tone in the UN initiative, “Alliance of Civilizations.” A tactically feeble EU confronts this Turkish determination, backed by the hegemonic interests of the USA. This explains why

  • All warning voices — no matter how high-ranking or competent — echo unheard.
  • The organs of the EU do not recognize that a full membership for Turkey does not bring a single advantage for most of the European population. Rather, exclusively substantial disadvantages.
  • The official organs of the EU consider their own population their greatest enemy and avoid polls and plebiscites.

All “pro” arguments are distortions of fact as, for example,

  • Turkey is the realization of the union of Islam and democracy and is a bridge to the Islamic world.

    Based on its constitution, it is not a democracy in the Western sense of the word. It is a daily showplace of conflict between Islam and secularity. The Islamic world sees Turkey either as a lever and a part of its Islamization program or, because of its military pact with Israel, as an enemy.

  • The geopolitical position of Turkey and its military power would enhance the role of the EU in the Western world.

    Quite the contrary: since the EU has no intervention policy of its own, Turkey would use the EU for its own purposes. In any case, the EU would be drawn into Turkey’s conflicts with its neighbors and destabilized along with it.

  • With the NABUCO gas pipeline, Turkey has a key role in providing for Europe’s energy needs.

    Actually, it is not clear what gas will be fed into it.

  • The EU promised entry and Turkey has been waiting 40 years.

    There is no democratically legitimized promise. During this time, Turkey has developed in a direction away from Europe. Indeed, in the 1970s, it expressly turned its back on the EU and/or Europe.

  • Without entry, the reforms in Turkey will collapse.

    For European council charter member Turkey, the reforms are an obligation overdue for 10 years and were supposed to demonstrate Turkish self-interest. The EU has no obligation to grant a reward.

  • The EU needs Turkey’s economic potential for further development.

    Entry is not based on economic special interests, especially if market potential can only be appreciated by means of financing by the investor and considerable risk and corruption exist. Turkey is one of the IMF’s biggest debtors, a developing country with typical characteristics, like greater participation in agriculture (about 30%), high unemployment (also among youth) and illegal employment, low per capita income, child labor, insufficient patent protection and unreliable law enforcement. On the basis of the existing customs union, there is already close economic linkage between the EU and Turkey. A full entry offers no additional economic possibilities.

EU — pardon me? What is that? The EU does not exist! A sacrifice of the intellect?

Hegemonic Claims Within the Community of Nations

Who determines the direction of things?

With no claim to thoroughness, and conscious of the remarks above, let the following picture apply: whoever separates from European navel-gazing and sees the world from outside, recognizes that, besides several countries active in world politics, Islam and international capital flow combined with providing energy and raw material are the hand on the tiller.

The USA as leading world power is presumably at the head. Its foreign policy is energy. China is noticeable by its securing of raw materials in Africa and elsewhere. In this race of world powers for oil and raw materials it is often unnoticed that the Islamic world is pursuing not only economic, but ideological interests — namely the Islamization of the world.

How much this Islamization has been strengthened is seen in the positive signals President Obama is sending the Muslim world. In his speech at Cairo University, he extended his hand to the Muslim world. Even the unconditional support of Israel is no longer his policy.

An international net of capital streams beyond the control of national governments, and also international organizations spans the entire world and makes its own decisions. Wall Street plays a prominent role. The motto: the financial position must remain attractive and that determines all other policies! That also applies to President Obama’s financial package.

The question arises: what the individual must and can do in this situation, especially those who feel a loyalty to European values.

The burden of our history compels us not only to reflect on what is past and vow “Never again,” but also to vigilance about the spirit of the times, the “mainstream.” In art, in many media, in the churches, in scholarship and in many political parties it is in style to turn a blind eye to the subjects Islam and Turkey. Restricted freedom of expression and fear of speaking out are dominant.

Making middle class society and Christianity — especially the Catholic Church — objects of contempt, the attack on the family, the demand for “gender mainstreaming” and equal standing for homosexual relationships are no substitute. Individual boundaries need to be set. Our civilization must not be the “show and tell” of a directionless good time society.

As in the past, so also today, looking at the truth and speaking out publicly is necessary. Especially because the past burdens our life to the present day. Whoever wants to learn the truth, will learn it. Excuses after the fact will mean nothing. Even if many people say; “My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with facts.”

Perhaps this time, with sufficient perseverance and courage, it will be possible to create a counterweight to the spirit of the times and to explain that 2 plus 2 equals 4 and not something else.

Or mankind may follow the path of greed, betrayal and indifference to apocalyptic conditions. The worldwide economic difficulties should be a warning that it is high time for a reversal. The Rhine maidens are demanding the return of the Rhine gold.

Requests to speak, letters to the editor, commentaries in newspapers, speeches and the like can, in sufficient number, can cause change. Perhaps the above comments will be able to help with that. Whoever fights can win; whoever does not fight has already lost. If future generations are to have any respect for us, we must intervene for truth and against looking the other way — to the point of civil disobedience.

Out future will be decided not only by the achievements of the past, but by a conscious intervention of European society on behalf of it own values — especially family values and economic solidarity.

Isolation of the individual and increase of the precarious economic conditions could give impetus to a slogan like “Islam is the answer.” Unalloyed individualism will bring a swift dissolution to any society.

Famous names tell us:

  • Indifference is the mildest form of intolerance. (Karl Jaspers)
  • What you inherited from your ancestors — work to earn and possess it. (Goethe)
  • In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. (Orwell)
  • When tolerance becomes a one-way street, it leads to cultural suicide. (Lieutenant Colonel Allen West)
  • Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. (Ronald Reagan)
  • My greatest disappointment is the recognition that humanity does not learn from experience. (Doris Lessing)
  • Difficulties are not overcome by not talking about them. (Berthold Brecht)
  • Reason becomes nonsense, blessing becomes plague. (Goethe)
  • Truth is the most precious thing we have. Let us deal with it frugally. (Mark Twain)

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


*   Pascal Bruckner, 2008, “The Guilt Complex”: “All modern thinking can be reduced to the schematic denunciation of the West, with emphasis on hypocrisy, violence and heinousness.”

”The European bad conscience, based on imperialism, fascism and racism has gripped the continent, and is destroying its creativity, its feeling of self-worth, and is decimating its optimism.”

Gates of Vienna News Feed 6/24/2010

Gates of Vienna News Feed 6/24/2010George Soros is in the news again. “The Man Who Broke the Pound” held forth at Davos about the current speculative rush to gold, and offered the opinion that gold is the “ultimate bubble”. For many people, a warning by Mr. Soros to stay away from gold would be reason enough to buy it. The billionaire philanthropist also issued an effective an ultimatum to Angela Merkel, saying that Germany must revise its current fiscal policies or else abandon the euro.

In other news, archaeologists in South Jutland have discovered the remains of the royal palace of Harald Bluetooth, the tenth-century Danish king who is reputed to have converted Norway to Christianity.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to ACT! For America, Barry Rubin, CRM, Fjordman, Gaia, JD, JP, Lurker from Tulsa, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

[This post is a stub — nothing further here!]

The Moment of the Paradigm Shift

Our British correspondent JP sends some contemporaneous analysis of events in 1918, when the political structures which had governed Europe since the Congress of Vienna in 1815 seemed to dissolve spontaneously.

JP says, “With reference to viral propagation, and its disappearance — the fading of the viral wave — here is a useful quote by Lewis Namier about the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was destroyed by the logic of hitherto repressed ideas.”

The Enormous Void

The October days of 1918 in Austria will for ever remain remarkable for their mass psychology and as an example of how ideas, talked about yet unthinkable on one day, acquire life on the next, while other ideas, which had seemed solid fact, pass out of reality. Austria-Hungary disappeared when it vanished from the consciousness of those concerned. The War had broken the habits and the approach of defeat disbodied the ideas which made up its political and social structure. The language changed; for the first time men drew conclusions from old familiar facts; the pace at which they did so, quickened daily; it became catastrophical. Diplomatic notes, speeches in the Vienna and Budapest Parliaments, declarations and manifestoes published at Prague, Zagreb, Cracow, or Lvov, were no longer mere moves in a political game. The masses listened to the march of events, the leaders watched the movements of the inarticulate masses. Elemental forces seemed to work through men and to control them, uncontrolled by them. The solid political foundations of inherited everyday existence vanished, and in the enormous void ideas seemed to move, free from hindrance, obeying their own laws.


Vanished Supremacies. Essays on European History, 1812 – 1918. Lewis Namier, Hamish Hamilton Ltd, London, 1958 (reprinted 1970), pp. 139 – 140.

The quote appears in an essay entitled “The Downfall of the Habsburg Monarchy” originally published in A History of the Peace Conference of Paris, edited by Harold Temperley, Oxford University Press/Hodder & Stoughton, 1921.

[Post ends here]

Travel Guide for a Westerner

Our Austrian correspondent AMT tipped us to a German-language email that has gone viral on the internet:

This anonymous email has been making successful rounds in the German-language blogosphere for a couple of months now. It serves as a strong reminder of how Western tolerance of the intolerable will show Western culture and civilization its limits – and, perhaps, its end.

Many thanks to JLH for the translation:

Travel Guide for a Westerner

Want to really experience something? Have a real adventure? Then get ready for a journey you couldn’t imagine in your wildest dreams.

So: Travel illegally to Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, or Syria. Don’t worry about visas, international laws, immigration regulations or other silly rules.

As soon as you have arrived, demand that the local authorities provide you and your family with free medical care.

Insist that all employees of the health agencies speak your language of choice — German, Greek, Spanish, Hungarian, English, Polish — and that the clinics where you may be admitted prepare food for you just as you have it at home, in Germany, Greece, Spain, Hungary, USA, Poland.

Insist that all forms, questionnaires, and documents be translated into your language.

Reject any criticism of your attitude by stating emphatically: “That has to do with my culture and religion. You understand nothing about it.”

Categorically maintain your original identity. Hang the flag of your Western country in your window. (And don’t forget a bumper sticker for your car.)

Make sure that you speak only your own language at home and that your children do the same.

– – – – – – – –

Demand uncompromisingly that Western culture be taught at music schools.

Make an immediate and unconditional demand for a driver’s license, a residence permit and whatever other paperwork may occur to you.

Regard the possession of these documents as justification of your illegal presence in Pakistan, Iran, Turkey or Syria.

Let no one discriminate against you. Stand on your legal rights. Demand a child-care allowance.

Drive without insurance. Only the natives need that.

Organize protest marches against your host country and its residents. Support violence without exception against non-whites, non-Christians, and the government that allowed you to enter the country.

Insist that your wife (or wives, even if you have meanwhile acquired four of them) wear neither a veil nor a burka.


All this is possible in the West, because we are governed by different people… I almost said, politically correct idiots.

If you agree with all this, pass this text on.

If not, pack your bags, leave your homeland and find out whether you are welcome under the above-described conditions in Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan, Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt…

And please, tell me about your impressions.

Al Qaeda to go on Strike

Motoon #9

A British reader named Belfastboy sends this astonishing news story about unrest among would-be shahids in the UK:

Al Qaeda to go on strike

LONDON, 23 June — Muslim suicide bombers in Britain are set to begin a three-day strike next Monday in a dispute over the number of virgins they are entitled to in the afterlife. Emergency talks with Al Qaeda management have so far failed to produce an agreement.

The unrest began last Tuesday when Al Qaeda announced that the number of virgins a suicide bomber would receive after his death will be cut by 20% this July from 72 to just 60. The rationale for the cut was the increase in recent years of the number of suicide bombings and a subsequent shortage of virgins in the afterlife.

The suicide bombers’ union (the British Organization of Occupational Martyrs, or B.O.O.M.) responded with a statement that this action was unacceptable to its members, and immediately balloted for strike action. General Secretary Abdullah Amir told the press,

Our members are literally working themselves to death in the cause of Jihad. We don’t ask for much in return but to be treated like this is like a kick in the teeth.

Speaking from his shed in Tipton in the West Midlands, where he currently resides, Al Qaeda chief executive Osama bin Laden explained:

– – – – – – – –

We sympathize with our workers’ concerns but Al Qaeda is simply not in a position to meet their demands. They are refusing to accept the realities of modern-day Jihad in a competitive marketplace. Thanks to Western depravity, there is now a chronic shortage of virgins in the afterlife.

It’s a straight choice between reducing expenditures and laying people off. I don’t like cutting wages, but otherwise I’d hate to have to tell 3000 of my staff that they won’t be able to blow themselves up.

Spokespersons for the union in Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Essex, and Australia stated that they would be unaffected, as there are no virgins in these areas anyway.

Apparently the drop in the number of suicide bombings may be largely put down to the recent notoriety of the former White House correspondent, Helen Thomas. Now that Muslims know what a virgin looks like, they are not so keen on going to paradise.

Helen Thomas - 72 virgins

The Samson Option

This article by Alexander Maistrovoy appeared recently in The Canada Free Press.

[Gates of Vienna previously posted an essay by Mr. Maistrovoy almost a year ago]

“Samson Option”: choice in absence of choice?

Samson pulling down the Temple“When people speak about human rights, everyone has in mind his own ones”, German scientist and publicist, Wilhelm Schwebel, wrote. His words perfectly reflect the issue of “breaking” the Gaza blockade. These actions are as related to human rights as Josef Stalin’s “fight for peace”.

Not a single person has died of hunger in Gaza. They die in the other parts of the world, like Kirghizia, but nobody cares. The rights of Palestinians are above the rights of, say, the Uzbek people as well as Sudanese Christians, Iraqi Kurds, Boers in Southern Africa, “Ahmadyya” in Pakistan and the Baha’i in Iran. Palestinians are the high caste of mankind because (fortunately for them) they are up against Israel, and the international community has its own rights and interests in this conflict.

What are they? The interests of all the players are very clear except for those in the West:
– – – – – – – –

  • The goal of Iran is to strengthen its base on the Mediterranean Sea coast to escalate the confrontation with Israel and moderate Sunni Arab regimes, and at the same time to distract the world attention from its nuclear program.
  • The goal of Turkish Justice and Development Party led by Erdogan is to get points before the elections, make Turkey the leader of the Sunni world and to revive the national ambitions lost with the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
  • Russia is supporting Iran and Turkey in an attempt to restore the previous Soviet influence, push the U.S. out of the region, and recover its lost imperial greatness.

The aims of these powers are completely contrary to the aims of the other two leading players in the region: Israel and the moderate Arab regimes.

The goal of Israel is simple: to provide for its own safety by weakening HAMAS and depriving it of its life support: weaponry, rockets and building materials to fortify smuggling and transportation tunnels and defensive bunkers.

Arabs fear the Iranian Shiites. Nor do they want Turkey

The goal of the moderate Arab regimes coincides with that of Israel.

Arabs fear the Iranian Shiites. Nor do they want Turkey, which they dislike and fear also, to raise its role in the Middle East. Least of all they are interested in strengthening the Palestinian enclave where the Iranians and Turks will rule.

This is a major concern of the Mubarak regime. Egypt fears the popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood (of which Palestinian HAMAS is an offshoot).

Theoretically both Israel and the Arab regimes are allies of the West. So it would be right to assume that the West will protect them from regional predators, no?

Alas, common sense and political expediency do not work here, for two reasons: the first is the irreparable losses of spiritual and cultural values by the formerly great world civilization, and the second is banal political cowardice.

The radical left and liberal part of the Western elite has voluntarily deprived itself of its own heritage, values and ideals. It has refused its own right to exist, reconciling itself to a secondary role and even as it recognizes its own uselessness.

“Alliance of Civilizations” of Zapatero and Obama is nothing else but accepting voluntary the status of dhimmitude

The supposed “Alliance of Civilizations “ of Zapatero and Obama is nothing more than accepting voluntarily the status of dhimmitude, while inviting an alien strong, dominant, and aggressive civilization to take the place of their own bankrupt and degraded one.

Obama’s bows to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, a mosque in the place of the World Trade Center, kufiyä on Zapatero’s neck, and the Libyan terrorist who had blown up the plane over Lockerbie released “for health reasons” – all are displays of this outlook.

As Israel is the main irritant to Muslims, it loses its right to exist.

Zapatero recognizes the idea almost openly, Obama does it less obviously, but the essence does not change. His recent demands that Israel open its nuclear program for IAEA oversight and that it remove Gaza ‘s blockade are more eloquent than any other words he has spoken.

The other part of the Western political elite, the European right and social-democrats, don’t accept this attitude. However, they don’t have any outlook at all. Their only goal is to keep their power up to the next election and not to “rock the boat”. This ideology of surviving at all costs leads to the policy of appeasement:

  • Sarkozy (“Disproportionate application of force” by Israel);
  • Kouchner (“Recognize Palestinian state before the agreement between Israel and the PA is signed”);
  • Brown (“Labourites have a lot in common with Muslims”);
  • Miliband (“More respect” to Muslims);
  • Baroness Ashton (The blockade is “unacceptable and politically counterproductive”); and
  • Berlusconi kissing the hands of Muammar Kaddafi.

Note that none of these is anti-Semitic. Some of these spokesmen are even Jews; they have nothing against Israel, per se. They have even less concern for the simple fact that the Muslim “sea” is flooding their own house, washing away its foundations.

So of what use is it to speak about Israel, Mubarak and the Hashemite dynasty? Why speak at all, if it is more comfortable to be silent? Especially when Big Business, EU officials, “Greens” and anti-globalists, “Human Rights Watch” and their own cultural elite refuse to resist. So they meekly follow the “Alliance of Civilizations”.

The more timorous the policy of the West appears, the more aggressive Ahmadinejad and Erdogan become. The U.S. and Western Europe encourage these hysterical politicians, whose their wild behaviors may lead to uncontrollable consequences.

Fall of moderate Arab regimes in Egypt , Jordan and the Persian Gulf states, Israel will be backed into a corner

If the situation does not change (that is extremely improbable), we will witness a two-act drama.

The first act will be the fall of moderate Arab regimes in Egypt, Jordan and the Persian Gulf states. If it happens, the second act will follow.

Israel will be backed into a corner, surrounded by uncontrollable and mad regimes. It will face total Islamic hysteria. It will witness the circle of its enemies – Turkey, Syria, Iran and their puppets in Lebanon and Gaza – unite with “revolutionary” Muslim brothers in Egypt and Jordan.

Israel will see the silent indifference of the West at best, and shouts of triumph and jeering at worst. The next Holocaust will cease to be an abstraction and become a reality.

Israel will then have only two options: to die without a fight, or to be lost after having destroyed its enemies. In other words, the option of falling victim to genocide or the “Option of Samson”.

Zapatero and Obama believe that Israel will choose the first one. Considering the tragic and painful history of Jews, from Maccabeus and Jerusalem’s zealots to the Warsaw ghetto and the Six-Day War, I would not hurry to any conclusions.

And in this case there will be no outside observers…

Alexander Maistrovoy’s bio:

I was born in Moscow in 1960. In the 80s I began working in journalism and my work was published in various Moscow newspapers.

I immigrated to Israel in 1988 where I work for the Russian-language Israeli press. For about fifteen years I’ve been a political analyst and journalist at the newspaper Novosty Nedely (“News of the Week”).

I live in Jerusalem, write about politics, social life and religion. A number of English Internet editions and websites have published my work.

Mr. Maistrovoy can be reached at

Here is his archive from The Canada Free Press

In the Nick

Prison cells in most Western countries are disproportionately occupied by Muslims. This is especially true in Europe, where Muslim inmates are incarcerated at eight, ten, or twelve times the rate that would otherwise be expected, based on their numbers in the general population.

Western leaders and policy-makers are well aware of this fact. Because political correctness is the order of the day, Muslim over-representation in the penal system must first of all be explained away — their presence in prison is due to poverty, cultural differences, racism, and, above all, the pervasive discrimination by the native population against the hated “other”. What other explanation could there be?

The second problem is what to do about it. Early release, increased discretion for police or judicial authorities, the easing of standards for young Muslim offenders — all of these can be (and have been) used to try to lower the relative proportion of Muslim inmates and allow the authorities to pretend that Islamic criminals are not really that much of a problem.

Anne Owers, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons in the United Kingdom, has just released a report entitled “Muslim prisoners’ experiences: A thematic review”. The full report (pdf) is available, but I’ll focus here on the conclusions as outlined in the introduction.

A notable feature of this report is its preoccupation with how Muslim prisoners feel. This focus seems a bit odd — they are, after all, inmates of penal institutions. Their stay behind bars is intended both as a punishment and a temporary prevention of further lawbreaking during the period of their incarceration. The feelings of prisoners should be irrelevant — they’re inside, where they belong. Who cares how they feel?

Well, Her Majesty’s government cares very deeply about how Muslim prisoners feel; hence this report.

You’ll notice that Islamic ideology is not mentioned. Rather than jihad, “violent extremism” plays a prominent role, just as it does in the official analyses put out by the Obama administration and the FBI.

Not only that, but the Chief Inspector of Prisons is concerned that “prisons release into the community young men who are more likely to offend, or even embrace extremism” — in other words, if Muslims are radicalized in prison, it is the fault of those who put them there. Our harsh and unfair treatment of prisoners is what turns them into “violent extremists”.

“Muslim prisoners report more negatively on their prison experience”, so we need to concentrate on “meeting the religious needs of Muslims” to help ameliorate their “negative experiences and perceptions”. Our tasks include “identifying and preventing discrimination on grounds of religion” so that the “perceived disadvantage” of an Islamic background may be overcome.

The goal of the prison authorities is the “effective staff engagement with Muslims as individual prisoners with specific risks and needs, rather than as part of a separate and troubling group”.

In other words, the success of the British prison system is based on how well it serves its Muslim prisoners, as measured by how those prisoners feel.

It is not based on the recidivism rate, or the prevention of future crime, or the remorse felt by the violent criminals who have been justly punished.

It is not dependent on how many criminal scum are locked away where they can no longer prey on law-abiding British citizens.

It is based solely on the reaction of the prisoners themselves.

Presumably the prisoners will display the greatest approval if their accommodations and privileges most closely resemble those of a five-star hotel. Or, even better, if they are never put in prison at all, but are allowed to continue their lavish taxpayer-funded lifestyles in state-subsidized housing while they engage in their customary criminal activities to their hearts’ content.

What better way to elicit a positive report on their prison experience than never to subject them to any prison experience whatsoever?

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

Below is the full text of the introduction to Ms. Owers’ report, with relevant phrases bolded:

There are around 10,300 Muslims in prisons in England and Wales: a number that has been growing steadily over recent years. There has been considerable public focus on them as potential extremists and on prisons as the place where they may become radicalised, often through conversion — even though fewer than 1% are in prison because of terrorist-related offences.

This report looks at the actual experience and perceptions of Muslim prisoners — using prisoner surveys and inspection reports over a three-year period, and supplementing this with in-depth interviews with a representative sample of 164 Muslim men in eight prisons and interviews with the Muslim chaplains there.

Muslims in prison are far from being a homogenous group. Some are birth Muslims, and others have converted. In prisoner surveys, 40% were Asian, 32% black, 11% white and 10% of mixed heritage. One of their main grievances was, however, that staff tended to think of them as a group, rather than as individuals, and too often through the lens of extremism and terrorism — whether that was to prevent, or to detect, those issues. It was also evident that events and perceptions outside prison, in the public and the media, directly affected relationships inside prisons.

The headline finding, from surveys and interviews, is that Muslim prisoners report more negatively on their prison experience, and particularly their safety and their relationship with staff, than other prisoners — this is even more pronounced than the discrepancy between the reported experiences of black and minority ethnic prisoners compared to white prisoners. The differential perception has slightly lessened over the last three years, but is still pronounced. On the positive side, Muslims were more likely than non-Muslims to report that their faith needs were met in prisons, reflecting the strengthening of the role of Muslim chaplains. Beneath those headlines, however, are some more complex findings.

– – – – – – – –

Differential perceptions were widest in high security dispersal prisons, where the focus on security and extremism is sharpest. Three-quarters of Muslims had felt unsafe in these prisons, and this perception was strongly linked to mistrust of staff. In young offender institutions (YOIs), the differentials were less marked, and it was in one YOI that we found the only example of a tailored programme to assist staff understanding and promote prisoner engagement.

Race and ethnicity were important factors in Muslim prisoners’ negative experiences and perceptions. As in the prison population generally, white Muslims felt most positive, and black and mixed heritage Muslims least. Some of those interviewed focused on race as the determining factor in their treatment. However, within each of the four ethnic groups, religion added a further clear layer of perceived disadvantage: Muslims in each ethnic group reported significantly less positively than non-Muslims. This was less true for Asians than for other ethnic groups — and interviewees suggested that the others were not seen as ‘proper’ Muslims and treated with particular suspicion. Black and mixed heritage Muslims in general felt more alienated from staff.

Interviews showed that faith played a central role in Muslim prisoners’ lives, much more so than establishments often recognised. In spite of much greater attention to and awareness of religious needs, Muslims and chaplains reported limited understanding of the importance of religious books, prayer time and even halal food. Many Muslim prisoners also stressed the positive and rehabilitative role that Islam played in their lives, and the calm that religious observance could induce in a stressed prison environment. This was in marked contrast to the suspicion that religious observance, and particularly conversion or reversion, tended to produce among staff. Converts did, however, have mixed motives, which could include perceived dietary benefits, or protection within a group. Muslim chaplains recognised the need to provide particular support and teaching to a group that could be more easily misled, but lacked the time to do so. They also sometimes lacked the trust of alienated prisoners: a perverse consequence of chaplains’ greater integration into prison life.

A pervasive theme was the lack of support and training available to staff, outside briefings that related to violent extremism and radicalisation. Generic diversity training did not address the need. As a consequence, staff could either back off from confronting challenging behaviour, or challenge inappropriately. It was also noticeable in the survey that fewer Muslim prisoners than non-Muslims knew where to get help with resettlement issues.

This report shows that, though prisons have come a considerable distance in meeting the religious needs of Muslims, they are not yet effectively managing a complex and multi-dimensional population. There are two separate, and sometimes conflicting, approaches. The first, through the diversity lens, focuses on ensuring appropriate religious observance and identifying and preventing discrimination on grounds of religion. The second, through the lens of security, focuses solely on Muslims as potential or actual extremists. At present, the latter approach appears to be better resourced, better understood and more prevalent.

It would be naïve to deny that there are, within the prison population, Muslims who hold radical extremist views, or who may be attracted to them for a variety of reasons. But that does not argue for a blanket security-led approach to Muslim prisoners in general. It is essential that the National Offender Management Service develops a strategy, with support and training, for effective staff engagement with Muslims as individual prisoners with specific risks and needs, rather than as part of a separate and troubling group. Without that, there is a real risk of a self-fulfilling prophecy: that the prison experience will create or entrench alienation and disaffection, so that prisons release into the community young men who are more likely to offend, or even embrace extremism.

Anne Owers June 2010

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

I recommend reading the entire report (pdf). It’s 116 pages long, and contains the raw statistical data derived from surveys of Muslims in the British penal system.

However, the conclusions as outlined in the above introduction are the best the government can do. Muslims are being incarcerated at a record rate and radicalized in the prison system, and the only thing the authorities can think of is to be sensitive to their feelings and cater to their religious whims.

God help us all.

Hat tip: Heh. I can’t remember who sent this; it might have been JP. If I’m wrong, let me know.

Gates of Vienna News Feed 6/23/2010

Gates of Vienna News Feed 6/23/2010Kevin Rudd, the Labor prime minister of Australia, has been forced out and will be replaced by Julia Gillard. Laborites hope the ousting of the unpopular “Krudd” will save the party from electoral defeat at the next elections.

In other news, General McChrystal has been relieved of his command in Afghanistan, thanks to his inexplicable decision to make disparaging remarks about members of the Obama administration to a Rolling Stone interviewer. Meanwhile, five women have resigned from Al Jazeera to protest the Islamic news service’s hijab dress code.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to Anne-Kit, C. Cantoni, DL, Fjordman, Henrik, heroyalwhyness, Insubria, JD, M. Simon, Paul Green, Sheikh Yermami, TB, Vlad Tepes, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

[This post is a stub — nothing further here!]

Honoring Uncle Joe

Uncle Joe Stalin

Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, who was christened as Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili in his native Georgia, is better known to history as Josef Stalin. He was a Bolshevik revolutionary, and later the brutal dictator of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from the late 1920s until his death in 1953. During that time he was directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions of people, most of them his own countrymen. And for four years of that period he was an esteemed ally of the United States and Great Britain in the fight against Nazi Germany.

Stalin bust at the D-Day memorialI bring all of this up because of an article in last night’s news feed and a subsequent discussion in the comments about the controversy over the bust of Stalin that was recently erected at the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford, Virginia. The issue is of local as well as national significance for me, since the memorial is just down the road from us. On June 6, 1944, the “boys from Bedford” experienced the greatest casualty rate of any American outfit, which is why Bedford was chosen for the site of the D-Day memorial.

Given the long and bitter course of the Cold War, and the hundreds of thousands of Americans killed in Korea and Vietnam, it’s understandable that many Americans object to presence of Stalin on the sacred ground of the Bedford memorial. It’s galling for the millions of surviving victims of Communism to see Stalin honored alongside the British, American, Canadian, and other allied heroes of World War Two.

On Monday The Washington Times reported:

Opponents of the recently installed bust of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin at the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford, Va., are not backing down and have started a worldwide petition.

The petition, which was started last week, calls on the officers and board of directors at the National D-Day Memorial Foundation to remove the bust. It had received 616 confirmed signatures as of Monday afternoon, with confirmation pending on more than 200 other signatures.

The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, with assistance from the Joint Baltic American National Committee, intends to marshal public opinion against the board’s decision, said Karl Altau, the committee’s managing director. Mr. Altau said that while no goal has been specified, 10,000 signatures would be “terrific.”


Mr. Altau said he has seen a strong response, especially from the countries hardest hit by Stalin’s dictatorship, such as Hungary, Poland and such former Soviet republics as Estonia, Latvia and Georgia…

Yesterday the same paper followed up with the memorial foundation’s response:
– – – – – – – –

Robin Reed, slated to become the next president of the National D-Day Memorial Foundation on Monday, is standing by his predecessor’s decision to install a bust of dictator Josef Stalin at the memorial in Bedford, Va.

“At this point in time I certainly am not going to re-evaluate that,” he said in an interview Tuesday with The Washington Times.

While Mr. Reed said he can “appreciate the concern” of locals who have voiced their opposition to the bust, he said the bust can serve as a teaching tool to make visitors recognize the importance of Stalin as one of the leaders in World War II.

To those who argue that Stalin’s force weren’t present on the beaches of Normandy in 1944 and had nothing to do with the D-Day invasion, Mr. Reed said Stalin still deserves credit as someone who contributed to the success of the war.

I’ll go off the reservation here and agree with Mr. Reed. Stalin deserves to be included as an equal partner with Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt. Like it or not, he was a member of the trio of wartime leaders.

Stalin Roosevelt ChurchillNot only did Stalin occupy a co-equal position within the Allied leadership, but he was honored and acclaimed as a friend by the West during the war. Western propaganda turned him into “Uncle Joe”, a big affable Russian guy, beloved by own his people and a friend to the Western Allies. We were led to believe that Communist Russia was not that different from democratic America. The Soviets just carried around a lot of red flags and wore babushkas and furry hats; but otherwise they were more or less the same as us.

Dr. Seuss on Uncle JoeThere was no gulag. All those people convicted and shot during the show trials really were guilty. The Ukrainian famine didn’t happen — Walter Duranty told us it was a lie, and who could doubt Duranty? After all, he was a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist.

From 1942 to 1945 we committed an enormous amount of men and materiel to bolster Stalin’s position on the Eastern Front. Thousands of American and British sailors died making the Murmansk run around northern Norway to bring weapons and equipment to the Russians. Almost all of the trucks used by the Soviets in their fight against the Nazis were manufactured in the United States.

Not only that, the participation of the USSR was crucial for Allied victory. Hitler could never have been totally defeated without the destruction of much of his army on the Eastern Front by the Red Army.

All of this manufactured friendship made it difficult to fire up the Cold War in later years. Since we were democracies, we couldn’t turn our propaganda machine on a dime and do an about-face. The Soviets didn’t have the same problem — up until the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on August 23, 1939, Hitler was a counterrevolutionary demon. After that he was a friend of international Socialism, right up until June 22, 1941, when the Wehrmacht crossed the border into the Ukraine. Then he became a demon again, and stayed that way until April 1945, when the Red Army found his charred body in the garden of the Reichskanzlei in Berlin.

The pro-Soviet propaganda in the USA had a lasting effect. The image of Uncle Joe lingered in the back of American popular consciousness throughout the Cold War, giving us a sneaking affection for ordinary Russians, those good-humored vodka-drinking guys in their long coats and fur hats who secretly didn’t like Communism any better than we did — or so we had to believe. That meme was dusted off and relaunched in 1991 when “democracy” suddenly bloomed in Russia.

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

I believe in honesty in the reporting of history.

Of late it has become fashionable to airbrush Roosevelt’s cigarette holder and Churchill’s cigar out of the photos on display in museums and schoolbooks. This is a trivial instance of the renowned “memory hole”, the same oubliette to which Stalin consigned all the Old Bolsheviks. One by one they were edited out of the grainy photographs until no one was left standing in front of the carefully reconstructed background but Stalin himself.

Joe the GeorgianSo let the bust stand. Uncle Joe was there, and he was our ally. Recognizing him would be a welcome breath of historical accuracy in the thoroughly debased practice of 21st-century historiography.

And by all means include a prominent sign explaining to visitors what Stalin stood for. Let’s direct them to the Global Museum of Communism, which honors the more than one hundred million victims of Marxist totalitarianism.

But let’s tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It’s time to consign the airbrush to the ash heap of history.

It’s much too late to worry
That we never had a chance
And when Joe the Georgian gets here
We will dance, dance, dance
When Joe the Georgian gets here
We will dance

— Al Stewart, from “Joe the Georgian”

Fjordman: Cities and Accomplishment

Fjordman’s latest essay has been published at the Brussels Journal. Some excerpts are below:

In several essays at the Gates of Vienna blog and elsewhere I have dealt with the subject of genetic intelligence measured in IQ, inspired by Michael H. Hart’s groundbreaking and very politically incorrect biohistory book Understanding Human History. Many people consider this topic to be “racist” and therefore taboo, but I will write about anything that I deem to be practically and scientifically relevant. On the other hand, there are quite a few things that IQ does not fully explain. We will look at a few of them here, related to geography, population density and level of urbanization. The single most important thing that IQ does not explain is why the scientific Revolution took place among Europeans, not among northeast Asians who have at least as high average IQ as whites. I will leave that issue for a separate essay.

The general level of education rose steadily in the Western world throughout the modern era. In Belgium and the Netherlands, the number of university students rose 3.5 times faster than the population from 1850-1900 and 8.6 times faster from 1900-1950. In France, the university population rose 48 times faster than the increase in population from 1900 to 1950. Urbanization has been one of the most pronounced hallmarks of industrial civilization, from the nineteenth until the early twenty-first century. There was a powerful trend of urbanization of the world’s population throughout the twentieth century which exceeded the rapid increase in the total global population. As of 2010 it has been projected that the majority of the world’s population, for the first time in the history of mankind, live in urban areas. At the same time, the number of university students has gone up sharply, both in absolute and in relative terms.

– – – – – – – –

After 1950 the percentage of Western youths taking higher education continued to rise, especially from the 1960s, 70s and 80s onward when women joined in greater numbers, to the point of numerically dominating many university campuses. In short, the global number of urban, literate people with higher education has never been higher than after 1950, yet Charles Murray claims that the rate of great human accomplishment stagnated or declined during this same period. This means either that Murray is wrong in this regard or that the most recent increase in towns and higher education hasn’t paid off as well as the previous ones did.

Perhaps we had reached a point at the mid-twentieth century where most of the people with very high IQs in the West already took higher education, whereas those who joined later slightly lowered the average IQ of those with a university degree. Critics claim that too many people spend years of their lives at higher education, even those who do not strictly speaking need it. Society needs truck drivers, yet truck drivers do not normally need a master’s degree in English literature to be competent at their job. Another problem is the proliferation of Marxist groups in campuses. Many Western university students these days will come out with a warped and twisted view of the world and of their own civilization, which is not productive.

Also, while some major cities such as Berlin, Shanghai, Seoul or Tokyo have reached a high level of technological and economic sophistication, they are all predominately populated by high-IQ groups. By contrast, Mexico City is one of the largest cities on the planet, yet this fact hasn’t made Mexico a leading force in science or innovation. Nineteenth century London had poor and dirty quarters at the same time as it was arguably the most dynamic and innovative place in the world, but it is possible to argue that the growth of megacities in poorer countries in recent years has given rise to a new type of dysfunctional urban areas with massive slums.

Read the rest at the Brussels Journal.

Gates of Vienna News Feed 6/22/2010

Gates of Vienna News Feed 6/22/2010There was trouble with Christians again at this year’s annual Dearborn Arab International Festival in Michigan. Four evangelical Christians — some of them converted Muslims — were arrested for the disturbing the peace after they talked to Muslim festival-goers about their faith.

In other news, General Stanley McChrystal, the leading U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is in big trouble with the Obama administration for remarks he made in an interview with Rolling Stone. The article has not yet appeared, so no one knows precisely what Gen. McChrystal was smoking the day he decided to make disparaging remarks about various Obama people to a hip magazine reporter. But whatever it was, I wouldn’t mind copping a doobie or two of it — it must be dynamite stuff.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to Barry Rubin, C. Cantoni, Caroline Glick, Insubria, JD, JP, Kitman, Lurker from Tulsa, TB, Zenster, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

[This post is a stub — nothing further here!]

A Tyranny of Opinion

Counterjihad Zurich 2010

At the Counterjihad Zurich meeting earlier this month, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff led a workshop about the suppression of free speech and the control of public opinion in Europe. The essay below is adapted from her opening remarks, which were based on her personal experience as a member of the Wiener Akademikerbund.

The Founding of a Tyranny of Opinion
and the Case of the Wiener Akademikerbund

by Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

Tyranny is introduced into modern European countries at three levels:

1.   Through a system interweaving of all areas of life with the political sector


a.   Banks are no longer private enterprises; former politicians conduct business on their behalf. Agencies of the European Union are heavily involved in fiscal and financial decision-making. The EU dictates the rhythm of transactions.
b.   Key industries are not part of the private sector, except according to stock corporation law. After 1989, neo-Socialism led to an economy that works for the sole benefit of politicians and the existing political structure.
c.   The interposition of quasi-governmental organs at all levels. Various mediating agencies — pressure groups, government agencies, lobby groups, and various NGOs, for example — act between the social and economic subsystems. All of them are financially aided by the EU, the chambers of commerce, and national and international establishments supported and financed by EU and the ministries.

2.   Through the universality of personal dependency of the individual

– – – – – – – –

a.   People become an intrinsic part of networks; see #1. Only within such networks can one make a living. This circumstance is taken advantage of with the help of blackmail.

For example, a member of the Wiener Akademikerbund (WAB), a father of six, works in the Austrian National Bank, putting pressure on him to resign from WAB board. If he doesn’t, he will lose his job.

The same thing is happening in the media and the schools — those who are considered multipliers among opinion makers and members of are in the educational establishment. They perform both active and passive roles: they are forced to accept opinions which aren’t theirs, and they are asked to promote and propagate the spurious ideas and interpretations derived from politically correct multiculturalism.

b.   The financial crisis. The deteriorating economic situation is strangling the financial circumstances of all player, leaving no room for maneuver. People are no longer “citizens”.

The result? a proletarianization of citizens, as a consequence of socialist politics.

3.   Through the formal or informal control of active behavior by the state


a.   The judiciary rules against attitudes, beliefs, political ideology, and personal convictions. Examples include hate speech laws, Verbotsgesetz (The Verbotsgesetz 1947 [Prohibition Act 1947] abbreviated VerbotsG, is an Austrian constitutional law, which banned the Nazi Party and provided the legal framework for the process of denazification in Austria, as well as aiming to suppress any potential revival of Nazism. The law was amended in 1992 to prohibit denying or grossly minimizing the Holocaust or other Nazi war crimes.), and laws that prohibit discrimination against any minority
b.   The tyranny of the politically correct. We are no longer allowed to use certain words. A multicultural version of Newspeak has arisen, and a change in the language has created a different state of awareness in the general public. The process of forming of neologisms as required by Multiculturalism is known as “word-smithing”, and whoever controls language controls politics.

The last few decades have seen a transition from the brutal Communist dictatorships of the 20th century to the universal — seemingly “soft” — control of the state of awareness of the general public. It is as if we stepped from George Orwell’s 1984 with its mere physical threats (i.e. jail, torture, or death) to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, under which we will experience forced reprogramming of our minds. We are unknowingly subjected to an adjustment of our understanding and our judgment of what is good and what is bad, leading to the political universalization of the Stockholm Syndrome.

c.   The accusation of being a “fascist” and the politics of guilt. Disagreeable political positions are systematically branded as and connected with fantasies of fascism. For example, the European Commission for Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) of the Council of Europe combats racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and intolerance, including Islamophobia.

This leads to a step-by-step expansion of taboo zones in both politics and society. From Islamophobia we move on to homophobia, to family politics, to security policy. Criticizing current family politics, i.e. that the family must include of a mother and a father, and not a mother and mother, is discriminatory — and thus fascist — according to the elite’s definition. As a result, politics is reduced to codes and symbolism.

The public is taught mental reservations which filter the political decision-making process. For instance, if WAB were not a “cesspool” (that is, a source of unacceptable opinions), the filtering process would have been successful. However, through its position paper, WAB suddenly entered public discourse and is thus dangerous to the opinion tyrants. Hence, a “cesspool”.

The question is no longer whether a political measure is made in the interests of the of the people. Instead, there is a shift of what is allowed to be said. Acceptable speech is restricted to that which is all but religiously accepted.

For example, a question was directed at the Vienna police chief: “Is there a breakdown of criminal activity with regard to youth with a migration background?” Answer: “I am appalled at this across-the-board condemnation of foreigners!” All the questioner wanted was a statistical breakdown!

The chief’s assertion: “We need those migrants. There are immense economic advantages to immigration.”

Studies, evidence, facts, and clear thinking are considered irrelevant. Only multicultural ideology matters. The tyranny of opinion is complete.