Prosecutor: Geert Wilders Did Not Incite Hatred

Free Geert banner

As in the previous trial of Geert Wilders last year, the state prosecution office (Openbaar Ministerie, or OM) finds itself reluctant to recommend convicting the defendant on charges that obviously have no basis in law or justice. The prosecutors were compelled by the Amsterdam court to retry Mr. Wilders, but as of today they have decided he should be found not guilty of two of the charges against him — “incitement to hatred” and “insulting a group”.

No prosecutorial opinion on the remaining charge — “incitement to discrimination” — has been issued yet.

If I understand the Dutch justice system correctly, such statements by the prosecution do not bind the panel of judges in the case, who may ignore OM’s opinion and find the defendant guilty or not guilty as they see fit.

According to Dutch News:

Find Wilders Not Guilty of Inciting Hatred, Says Prosecution

The public prosecution department on Wednesday called for PVV leader Gert Wilders to be found not guilty of inciting hatred, as it tied up its case against the MP.

Prosecutors say Wilders’ remarks are critical of Islam which is not the same as inciting hatred against muslims themselves.

Earlier in the day the prosecutors said Wilders’ should be found not guilty of insulting a group because he has not stated any conclusions about muslims. Instead he has merely criticised their religion, the prosecutors said.


The decision to call on judges to find Wilders not guilty follows on from fact the department did not want to take the PVV leader to court in the first place.

However, it was forced to do so by the appeal court following protests from a number of ethnic minority groups.

The final charge against Wilders, incitement to discrimination, will be discussed later today.

Hat tip: C. Cantoni.

Keeping Those Uppity Women Down

Back at the beginning of the “Arab Spring”, when thousands of protesters filled Tahrir Square in Cairo, enthusiastic newspaper and TV reporters celebrated the power of “social media” to mobilize ordinary Egyptian citizens. Facebook, Twitter, and texting were the forces that would bring down the tyrant and usher in democracy, not just in Egypt but across the entire Arab world.

It’s important to remember, however, that social media, like any other extensions of human communication, are neutral tools. Anything that can arouse and motivate thousands or millions of people can be propagated more efficiently using Facebook and Twitter. Anti-fascists, Green activists, Nazis, Al Qaeda — any group can leverage the power of electronic media to be more effective.

The latest activists to harness the power of the new media are the misogynists of Saudi Arabia, who are mobilizing on Facebook to suppress the growing popular campaign mounted by Saudi women who demand the right to drive:

Saudi Arabia: Facebook Campaign, Let’s Beat Up Female Drivers

(ANSAmed) — Rome, May 25 — Thousands of Saudi men are “gearing up” to go to “beat up” all the women who will dare to breach the driving ban scheduled for June 17, when thousands, according to the intentions posted on social networks, will challenge the law to claim the right to move by car without a driver. The “Iqal campaign”, named after the rope Saudi men use to hold their headgear, is travelling on Facebook and has already achieved thousands of supporters.

The website of Algerian daily El Watan reported that some of the supporters are proposing the idea of gifting entire cases of “iqal” to the young to place them along the roads of Riyadh and other cities in the Kingdom to “beat up” the impertinent females caught driving. But many have already made preparations: shops have been taken by assault, according to some web surfers who report that iqal prices have risen since the start of the campaign.

The initiative is gaining broad resonance in the Saudi press, which generally speaking supports women and their desire to drive. Al Watan reported that on Okaz writer Abdo Khal deplores the enforceable ban on female drivers and said that he is not aware, as regards the campaign by “thugs”, whether it is better to “laugh or cry”, while on al-Watan an editorialist, Ahmed Sayed Atif, suggested pursuing female drivers “without a driving license”.

Meanwhile a group of intellectuals launched a petition to set free Manal al-Charif, one of the promoters of the ‘Women2drivecampaign’ campaign who was arrested on Saturday because she was filmed while driving and then posted the video on Youtube. Set free after a few hours, Manal, a 32-year-old IT expert, was again arrested on Sunday morning and charged with “inciting women” to drive.

In the video posted on Youtube, Manal claimed that “no Islamic law prevents women from driving”, and added that the ban is the fruit of the ultra-conservative regime. But the iqal campaign shows that it is not only the regime, but also a macho mentality rooted in society that women have to fight against to gain emancipation, a fight that now starts from the right to drive but which in truth chases after much more important achievements, such as the right to vote, to work independently or to choose a husband. A right which may be, compared to the “iqal campaign”, much more desirable to them.

Hat tip: Insubria.

Gates of Vienna News Feed 5/25/2011

Gates of Vienna News Feed 5/25/2011Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi revealed that Col. Muammar Qaddafi’s son was not really killed by a NATO attack on the Gheddafi family compound. He says that intelligence information indicates that Khadafi fils was not even in Libya at the time of the attack, and that the Colonel’s grandchildren were also unharmed.

Meanwhile, UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay, while on a visit to Australia, compared Australia’s policy towards asylum-seekers with the former apartheid regime in South Africa. In unrelated news, a masseur in Melbourne (Mohammed Coefficient: 100%) has been convicted of raping one of his female clients during a massage session. There’s no word on whether the victim may have been a racist or an Islamophobe.

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

Thanks to AC, C. Cantoni, Fjordman, Insubria, JD, KGS, Kitman, Nilk, 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.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

Clare Lopez on Iran, 9-11, and the Twelfth Imam

Below is an interview with Clare Lopez, a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy and an expert on Iran. In this video Ms. Lopez discusses recently released evidence of Iranian government complicity in the 9-11 attacks. She also talks about the “Twelfth Imam” ideology to which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad adheres, and the fact that the date June 5, 2011 is somehow significant in relation to the reappearance of the “occluded” imam. Another topic of discussion is the collusion between Iran and Hugo Chavez in the building of medium-range missile sites in Venezuela.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for YouTubing this interview:

Our Muslim Troubles: Lessons from Northern Ireland

Our Muslim Troubles

Part One: The Idiot Paradigm

Long-time readers are familiar with the writings of El Inglés. His lucid analyses of the self-destructive trajectory of the 21st-century West — particularly Britain — have been appearing in this space for almost four years.

His most controversial essay to date, “Surrender, Genocide… or What?”, was posted here a little over three years ago. Along with the LGF Wars several months prior to that, El Inglés’ masterwork was one of the major causes of our conversion to what I call “hard-eyed realism”.

Pajamas Media had an attack of the Screaming Nazi Heeber-Jeebers over the essay, and terminated our contract as a result. The shock helped purge us of any lingering fears about what might happen to us. There was nothing to be afraid of any longer — now we knew the worst that could befall us. We had been reviled and shunned, called “neo-Nazis”, “white supremacists”, and “bigots”, and were finally abandoned by our advertisers.

After that we had nothing left to lose. We were free.

And it’s been relatively clear sailing ever since.

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

El Inglés’ latest piece is another well-researched analytical paper. Like his previous efforts, it is certain to cause the same hand-fluttering alarm amongst those who decline to contemplate the ugly regions into which our current political mess is ineluctably moving us. This analysis is grimmer, more detailed, and pulls fewer punches than his earlier work. No one who is hoping for an easy way out should read what he has to say here.

For all the good it will do, I’ll provide the same caveat that I did back in April 2008: this paper is descriptive, and not normative. None of us wants to experience any of the possible outcomes that El Inglés is predicting. However, as his irrefutable logic demonstrates, we will have no alternative. Our only choices are between bad, worse, and apocalyptic, and the last option seems to be the hapless preference of British politicians from all three major parties.

The paper below examines the likely violent confrontation that lies ahead. El Inglés compares the coming Muslim Troubles in Britain with the Troubles in Northern Ireland, and highlights their similarities and differences. Some of the differences seem negative — for example, there will be no equivalent of the Good Friday Agreement to end the Muslim Troubles — but there are also surprising reasons for optimism, as you will soon discover.

For those readers who don’t want to contemplate any of these awful scenarios, and think ill of those who predict them: Just skip this series of essays. They contain no good news.

We offer a variety of other articles that are not so grim, and you will find numerous other Counterjihad sites that examine the scandals and shocking news about Islamization without ever taking a hard-eyed realistic look at what lies ahead.

For the rest of you: Take a deep breath. This is the shape of things to come.

This post is the first of five parts. This entire series will be made available as a single document in pdf format after the final part is published here.

Our Muslim Troubles: Lessons from Northern Ireland

by El Inglés

I. Foreword

I was born too late for anything other than the tail end of the Troubles to really enter my consciousness directly. As would have been true for many people of my age, I had no particular interest in politics when the Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998, and lived too far from any area likely to be attacked by the IRA for their increasingly infrequent and non-lethal acts of terrorism to make much of an impression on me. The Omagh bombing is the only Irish republican terrorist attack of note that I can remember being aware of at the time.

My total ignorance of Irish history and the Troubles was something that I became increasingly aware of over time. This awareness heightened fairly rapidly after I somehow commenced a second (and non-remunerative) career as an analyst of the possibility of violent conflict between Europeans and Muslims in Europe. Eventually I decided to address this intellectual deficit and embarked upon an open-ended and entirely self-directed research project into the Troubles. On doing so, I not only discovered much fascinating history, but also a massive treasure trove of insights into the type of conflict likely to erupt eventually between British patriots keen on keeping Britain British and seditious Muslims keen on turning it into something rather different.

However immodest it may sound, the utter lack of concern about or interest in the Troubles that prevailed over the first three-and-a-bit decades of my life has given me one key advantage in trying to draw lessons from them. British though I am, they are nonetheless history to me, in that they do not possess any particular emotional heft one way or the other, and therefore allowed me to approach them in what I hope has been a largely dispassionate manner.

I explain this not out of some sudden autobiographical urge, but out of a desire to have taken seriously by readers the following claim: nothing I say about the Troubles or any actor within them, state or non-state, should be taken as implying any value judgement thereupon. As suggested above, I view the Troubles selfishly, as a huge body of data existing to be mined for an advance understanding of what we British are likely to fairly shortly find ourselves involved in with our Muslim fifth column. Retrospective approval or condemnation of the various parties to the Troubles I will leave to others.

II. Preliminary Note Concerning Assumptions

Before we commence this discussion in earnest, we need to dispense with the preliminary matter of explaining our assumptions, or, more accurately, one key assumption that will underpin the entire essay: that the UK government will vacillate uselessly in the face of ongoing Muslim immigration and consequent Islamization until we are plunged into a crisis, and probably for some time afterwards too. Cynics will mutter in response that few assumptions have ever been as safely made, but there is a serious point to be made here. There are already a number of European countries (such as Denmark and the Netherlands) in which committed and unrelenting opposition to the horrors of Muslim immigration is voiced daily by ever-more-effective political parties. How effective these parties will be in staving off catastrophe is another question, but at least they constitute real electoral choices, real chances to avert the disaster of a collapse into outright ethno-sectarian violence. As the situation degenerates in their respective countries, their support will undoubtedly grow and allow them, eventually, to form governments to deal with the problems in a way which offers some possibility of a real solution.

In contrast, and for reasons that we shall explore, there is as yet a complete and utter vacuum in this regard in mainstream British politics, a vacuum which looks likely to exist for some time yet. There is no obvious momentum towards the creation of a credible political alternative to the paradigm that insists that the Muslim presence in the UK is not problematic in and of itself, and that it will suffice for us to persuade a tiny minority of confused Muslim extremists that secular democracy is the way forward for the human race.

It is entirely possible that even an eruption of violent conflict between Muslims and British will fail to dislodge mainstream politicians from their idiot paradigm, at least for a time. As such, we will assume that the hypothetical violent conflict we examine in this document takes place in the context of a British government (or successive governments) that is (or are) essentially flummoxed by the nature of the problem and the nature of the best response. In contrast with the exceptionally clear-sighted Geert Wilders of the Netherlands, who appears to have no illusions whatsoever as to what his country faces or why, we must assume that we will be led by people who have no comprehension of the fundamentals of the situation they are faced with. The current, Conservative-led government is certainly a step upwards from the previous Labour government in this regard. As yet, however, it shows no outward signs of understanding what this country now faces as a consequence of several decades of Muslim immigration.

Of course it is conceivable that a figure could emerge in the UK to lead a government determined to push back against Islamic colonization. But analyses of a) a European people resisting Islamization with a government elected for the purpose, and b) a European people resisting Islamization after having descended into crisis thanks to a useless, dithering government, are two entirely different things. Given that the latter scenario seems vastly more probable in the British case, this document deals with it exclusively. In other words, we assume that the actions of the state will be focused on somehow desperately trying to contain the violent conflict in question while doing nothing to seriously address the key factors underlying it. This scenario is not nearly so unrealistic as it might sound. As we will argue elsewhere, violent conflict is a certainty if we continue to tread the path we are on at present, and the desperate fumblings British governments in the late 1960s and early 1970s that helped create and then exacerbate the Troubles should serve as a warning to those who assume the competency of government.

We note again that, deeply imperfect though it is, the current Conservative-led government has already started to detach itself from the toxic legacy of Labour on immigration, multiculturalism, and related matters. This is heartening stuff, rendering as it does the assumption that the British government will blunder uncomprehendingly into new, Muslim Troubles in the next two decades less likely than it would otherwise be. However, the assumption that this is what will happen is still the underlying assumption of this essay for the following reasons: a) any consideration of the course of events over the next two decades deals with so many parameters that some must be held constant to prevent the combinatorial explosion of possibilities derailing the entire analysis, b) though the British ship of state may have slowly started to change course, it is still far too early to know how effectively it can do so, and c) it is clearer analytically and more bracing psychologically to plot out the worst-case scenario and later consider the possibility that things could work out better, than to chart a more optimistic scenario and later be faced with the reality of things working out far worse. The future we describe here is probably the worst possible future Britain can face with regards to its Muslim population. Those who wish Britain and the British a better one should ask themselves how to help deliver it.

III. Why Conflict is Inevitable: Contingent Conflict vs. Organic Conflict

We must first understand why violent conflict is inevitable between British and Muslims if the breakneck population growth of the Muslim population of the UK is allowed to continue.[1] That relations between Europeans and their respective Muslim populations are, in general, poor and deteriorating, is hardly a matter for dispute. But what is there in this that allows us to conclude that an Islam-induced breakdown of civil order and subsequent violent conflict are inevitable in the UK?

We make a distinction here between two different types of conflict: contingent conflict and organic conflict. A contingent conflict is a conflict that is entered into because, at key decision points or forks in the road leading to said conflict, decisions are made that lead in the direction of war rather than peace. An organic conflict is a conflict that, though it will certainly be triggered by specific events that could, in principle, not have happened, was inevitable all along in that an unstable situation existed which must, sooner or later, have disintegrated into violence through some triggering event whose nature was of less significance than its mere occurrence. Needless to say, there is no definitive, rigorous way of determining which conflicts are or were organic and which contingent in nature, but the conceptual framework provided by this dichotomy is of use in understanding the nature of the conflict that awaits us in Britain.

More specifically, we claim that the Troubles were a contingent conflict but that our Muslim Troubles will be an organic conflict. Understanding the difference between these two conflict types is pivotal to any understanding of what European countries face as a consequence of the insanity of Muslim immigration.

The Road to the Troubles

Though the Troubles grew out of the long and bitter history of British involvement in Ireland, for our purposes it will suffice to move straight into the 20th century, the partition of Ireland, and the creation of the Northern Irish state.

Since its creation in 1921 as a direct consequence of the Irish War of Independence, the province of Northern Ireland (henceforth abbreviated to NI) was an anomaly in the United Kingdom, to an extent not commonly appreciated by most British people even today. Politically, it had been engineered in such a fashion as to assure the overwhelming dominance of its Protestant, British-origin majority. This engineering consisted primarily of the following:

  • Restrictions on the franchise at local government level, which reduced the political influence of the Catholic minority
  • Gerrymandering at the local government level that resulted in majority-Protestant councils even in majority-Catholic areas
  • Privileged access to jobs and housing as a consequence of the previous two factors
  • A draconian Special Powers Act that allowed the NI government to take exceptional measures to maintain law and order in the province
  • A reserve military force, the B Specials, almost entirely Protestant, that was used in times of emergency to enforce public order vis-à-vis Catholic disorder

With the global political ferment of the 1960s, the Catholic population of NI began to mobilize politically to seek redress for these issues. The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA), founded in 1968, advocated entirely peaceful methods for doing so. At this time, the IRA (not yet split into the Officials and the Provisionals, something that would happen in late 1969), badly defeated in a wholly ineffective military campaign waged against the NI state from 1956-1962, had effectively ceased to exist as any sort of credible military force, and was a long way from the minds of most nationalists north or south of the border.

The British government of the day left matters largely to the NI Parliament at Stormont, the seat of Protestant political supremacy. Subsequent to the Partition of Ireland in 1921 and the passing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922, this seems to have been a pattern for all British governments, who wanted as little as possible to do with all matters Irish. The consequent lack of restraint imposed upon the Protestant political establishment in NI would turn out to be a major contributory factor to the collapse of ‘regular’ civil strife into civil conflict and guerrilla war.

We have claimed that the Troubles were a contingent conflict. What does this mean? It means that the road to the Troubles presented decision-makers in the British government with a number of key decision-making junctures, at which the possibility existed to defuse rather than escalate the conflict. This is not to suggest for a moment that the British government wanted the Troubles to occur. Rather, it highlights the extreme difficulty involved in making good decisions with respect to complex matters when the stakes are high.

More specifically, we identify the following events as being amongst the most important such junctures:

  • October 1968: A peaceful Catholic demonstration in Dungannon, which includes nationalist politicians, is responded to with extreme violence by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) and attracts global attention.
  • January 1969: A People’s Democracy march from Belfast to Derry is viciously attacked near Derry by Protestant mobs and left essentially unprotected by the RUC. Further violence follows when the RUC moves to break up a demonstration held to welcome it into Derry.
  • August 1969: A march in Derry by the Apprentice Boys is faced with Catholic counter-protestors who attempt to disrupt it. The RUC moves against the counter-protestors, leading to days of extremely violent rioting in and around the Catholic Bogside housing estate. Catholics in Belfast organize their own riots to draw RUC resources away from Derry, and extreme violence between Catholics on the one hand and Protestants and the RUC on the other results, resulting in fatalities and large numbers of house burnings. The British Army is deployed on the streets of NI as the violence proves to be beyond what the RUC can contain.
  • July 1970: British Army house searches aimed at locating a weapons cache on the Catholic stronghold of the Falls Road, Belfast, lead to large-scale rioting, gun battles, and a curfew as the army expands its search to the entire area. Several people are killed, and the event is considered a watershed moment in the deterioration of relations between NI Catholics and the British Army.
  • August 1971: British security forces intern hundreds of suspected IRA members in an attempt to cripple the resurgent Irish republicanism.[2] Widespread riots and gun battles result across NI, resulting in many dead. IRA recruitment surges as a consequence.
  • January 1972: A NICRA anti-internment civil rights march in Derry ends in thirteen unarmed Catholic civilians being shot dead by British paratroopers in one of the most notorious events of the Troubles. Again, recruits flock to the IRA and the point of no return has been crossed.

At each of these junctures, completely different decisions could have been made as to what to allow and what to forbid, what to do and what to leave undone. If the British government had intervened more assiduously in NI in 1968-1969 to placate Catholics and protect them from state and non-state Protestant violence, it is possible that the civil rights movement there would have achieved its aims before a resurgent IRA (mainly the PIRA, strictly speaking), stepping forward to defend Catholic areas from attack, succeeded in piggybacking its own unforgotten objective of a united Ireland onto what started out as a civil rights movement. It is instructive to bear in mind that, when British troops were originally deployed in NI in 1969, they were welcomed by the Catholic population as a non-partisan force that would protect them against loyalist attack. Relations continued to be reasonably good between Catholics and the army for some time, though the next crucial juncture of the Falls Road curfew and house searches hammered the final nails into the coffin of this period of relative cordiality.

Internment is widely considered to have been a disaster. Based on poor intelligence, some of which was so out of date that one veteran of the Easter Rising of 1916 was pulled in despite having been inactive for over 50 years, it left many key figures at large and brought in many people of no significance. In contrast with the IRA campaign during WWII, when then-Taoiseach de Valera interned IRA members due to his concerns that their actions in England would jeopardize Ireland’s neutrality, this time the Republic of Ireland refused to introduce internment south of the border, which crippled its effectiveness. Furthermore, it targeted only republicans at first, leaving loyalist paramilitaries at large. As such, it is hard not to conclude that its costs far outweighed its benefits, especially given that it was a march against internment that degenerated into the nightmare of Bloody Sunday.

From bad to worse to worse again, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Troubles could have been avoided by nudging events in different directions at key points in time, which makes them the very definition of a contingent conflict. Needless to say, this claim cannot be definitively established. We acknowledge the possibility that making extensive concessions to nationalists in 1969 might have enraged loyalists to such an extent that they simply launched into their full-bore sectarian killing campaign in that year rather than 1972, precipitating a similar conflict in a slightly different way. This caveat to one side, there does appear to be a strong degree of consensus that, had the British government of the day made key decisions differently in the late 1960s and early 1970s, nearly three decades of vicious sectarian conflict could have been avoided.[3]

We can liken trying to avoid a contingent conflict to trying to cross a busy road in the absence of a crossing place, a difficult task which can, in principle, be performed in such a manner as to leave one unscathed. Each of the six key events listed above was, in effect, a car which the British government somehow contrived to collide with as it attempted to traverse the busy road of NI in the late 1960s and early 1970s, ending up battered and bruised by the side of the road with no convenient route back home. The point here is not to argue that crossing that road was or should have been a trivially easy task, or that the British government should have done better. Those considerations are irrelevant here. Our point is that the task was almost certainly possible in principle, and that the Good Friday Agreement, signed in 1998, was the culmination of the tragically circuitous route that the province took to a state of relative peace and order.

The Problem with Muslims

Let us suppose that Muslims in the UK remain exactly as they are but that the British government discovers a magic wand that, waved once a day, ensured that all terrorist attacks planned by Muslims would fail, ignominiously and invisibly. Given that ‘violent extremism’ has now been so thoroughly defeated, can we rest easy and assume that all will now be well between British and Muslims in the UK?

The answer is no. There are four aggregate characteristics/behaviours of Muslims that make it inevitable that they will eventually force European peoples into violent conflict with them, that make them, in short, toxic to Western societies: their criminality (including terrorism), their parasitism, their sedition, and their subversion. All these characteristics manifest themselves with remarkable consistency, whether we look at Pakistanis in the UK, Turks in Germany, Algerians in France, or Moroccans in the Netherlands. And none of these characteristics is amenable to being materially affected in any way by anything the British, Germans, French, or Dutch may do. As such, the hostility that European peoples feel towards their rapidly-growing Muslim populations is not only an entirely reasonable response to the characteristics of these populations, but is remarkable only in that it has taken so long to become so prevalent.

Returning to the UK, we have likened the situation pre-Troubles to a road-crossing problem. The situation we face vis-à-vis our mushrooming Muslim population is akin to being on a conveyor belt that leads directly into a crusher. We can stay on the conveyor belt and be fed into the crusher, or we can get off the conveyor belt and avoid the crusher, but we cannot stay on the conveyor belt and avoid the crusher. We cannot negotiate our way past the crusher, for then it would not be a crusher. We have to get off the conveyor belt, and all other options are meaningless. In plain English, continuing to allow the colonization of the urban UK by a hostile, criminal, religiously-motivated horde — that displays nothing but contempt for us and our way of life even as it enjoys the huge subsidies it extracts from us — can only lead to violent conflict, a conflict which is emerging at a greater or lesser pace in all European countries similarly afflicted. There are no clever decisions to be made here, no political contortions that can lead us all, hand in hand, into the multicultural paradise supposedly awaiting us on the other side of the social disintegration now so evident throughout Europe. There is only a steady descent into tribal violence, exploding cities, and the destruction of democratic politics as we currently understand it.

The confusion between a contingent conflict and an organic conflict, between road-crossing problems and crusher-avoiding problems, can be seen in the way in which otherwise intelligent people scratch their heads as they try to determine what has gone ‘wrong’ in the Netherlands with respect to Muslims and Muslim integration into Dutch society. Things seemed ‘OK’ back in, say, the 1980s. What has gone ‘wrong,’ people ask, in the last decade or so to have propelled first Pim Fortuyn and now Geert Wilders to positions of influence?

Imagine a man who sits at a table in front of a large pile of salt. He wets his finger, dips it into the salt, and licks the salt off it. What effect does this have on him? Not a great deal, as the human body requires some amount of salt and has a certain tolerance even for elevated levels of it. But what happens if this man repeats the operation over and over again, taking another small portion of salt, and then another? We can say with certainty that if he continues to sit at the table eating salt, he will start to feel unwell, as salt in excess is poisonous to human beings. If he is so foolish as to continue eating salt past the point of starting to feel sickened by it, he will develop a desperate desire not to consume any more at all. If he ignores this desire and keeps eating, eventually he will die.

The Netherlands is directly analogous to a man eating salt at a table. For several decades now, the Dutch have sat at their table dipping their finger into their pile of salt and licking away, and they have gone well beyond the point of starting to feel queasy. If they continue to eat the salt of Muslim immigration, they will sicken and die. If they resolve not to eat it any more, they have at least a chance to return to health.[4] But they cannot be ‘clever’ about the way they eat it, taking care to properly ‘integrate’ it into their bodies. Eventually one must stop eating poison. To conclude that salt is not poisonous because the first small portion did not result in one’s death is to misunderstand the matter. The poison of Islam, in the form of Muslims themselves, has accumulated in the body politic of the Netherlands to such an extent that it is starting to kill it. That is the long and short of what is going ‘wrong’ in the country of Huygens and Vermeer.

Given that the entire approach of every single mainstream political party in every single European country afflicted by the cancer of Islam is predicated on the notion that we are confronted with a contingent conflict (and therefore a road-crossing problem) rather than an organic conflict (and therefore a crusher-avoiding problem), the distinction we make between the two is a crucial one. If we are right, then the actions of mainstream politicians throughout Europe with respect to Islam and Muslims have been not only useless, but actively harmful in that they have allowed the real problem to metastasise, largely unaddressed, in the background.[5]

Geert Wilders of the Netherlands, Filip Dewinter in Flanders, Pia Kjærsgaard in Denmark, Siv Jensen in Norway, Jimmie Åkesson in Sweden, Timo Soini in Finland, Heinz-Christian Strache in Austria, Thilo Sarrazin in Germany, Oskar Freysinger in Switzerland — all these people understand that their countries are on a conveyor belt leading directly into a crusher, and are pushing their way into the political mainstream past the bovine functionaries who have inhabited it for so long. But no one, no one at all in mainstream British politics, seems to have any real grasp of what we are facing. Alone amongst the countries of Western Europe, Britain jumps crazily back and forth on its conveyor belt, trying to avoid imaginary cars while the jaws of the crusher smash back and forth, closer with every second.

One of the advantages of this new understanding of the problem is that we have now devised a crucial yardstick for determining whether or not the government of any given country has both the understanding and the will to grapple with the problems imposed by Muslims. The single most important thing that any government can do to combat the evils of Islam and Islamization is to stop letting more Muslims in. Failing to do this will render all other efforts in this regard fundamentally meaningless, so any government not doing it is fundamentally useless with respect to Islam. This is not to suggest that any government doing it has solved the problem entirely, but it is obviously far easier, logistically and politically, to prevent additional Muslims coming into one’s country than to throw out all the Muslims who are already there. Halting Muslim immigration is therefore not only the key indispensable step, but the easiest, which is why we insist that anyone not taking it must, perforce, be useless.

It is too early to try to say what the current Conservative-led government will accomplish in its time in office. We observe with gratification that it appears to be making serious attempts to shunt our immigration policies onto a non-suicidal bearing, both generally and, implicitly, with respect to Muslim immigration as well. We note with tepid approval David Cameron’s rather feeble and qualified speech attacking multiculturalism à la Labour. And we witness with dismay, but not surprise, the continued unwillingness of anyone in mainstream British politics to make any criticisms of Islam qua Islam. What do these developments add up to? They add up to a decidedly mixed bag, painting we British, sadly, as the slow learners of Europe, at least insofar as we as a people are encapsulated in our political elites. In terms of our original assumption of a steady march towards our Muslim Troubles, it suggests that we have erred slightly on the pessimistic side (as we originally acknowledged we might), but are still faced with a slower, more gradual march to a broadly similar outcome.

We are tempted to argue that the British political establishment has misread, and to a significant extent still does misread, the situation with respect to Islam as a contingent conflict precisely because it has only fairly recently managed to help extricate our country from another contingent conflict, and is learning the wrong lessons from history. However, the utter failure of any other European country that has undergone significant Muslim immigration to avoid this error suggests that the cause of the problem is more deeply rooted still. Either way, we have now established that, absent extreme measures on the part of government to defuse this conflict in advance (measures we are assuming will not be implemented), conflict is inevitable. There is simply no way of peaceably reconciling the interests of European peoples and their rapidly growing Muslim populations, interactions between whom are almost always zero-sum games at best. This is the basis of our description of these emerging conflicts as organic rather than contingent.

Coming up:

Part Two: The Chocolate Cake Diet


1. This is not equivalent to saying that there will be no conflict if this growth is not allowed to continue.
2. The IRA had now split into the Provisional IRA (PIRA) and the Official IRA (OIRA). The OIRA announced a permanent ceasefire in 1972 and eventually became a marginal presence in republicanism. The PIRA (also known as the ‘Provos’) is what British people are thinking of when they speak of the IRA. We refer to it as the PIRA in this document in the interests of clarity.
3. Of course, they could also have been avoided if the IRA had refrained from behaving violently, but that is not germane to our analysis, and was hardly to be expected of an organization committed to physical force republicanism anyway. The emergence of the Troubles in the late 1960s presented what would become the PIRA with an unexpected opportunity to push for a united Ireland, and were presumably, in that sense at least, not seen by them as something to be avoided at all.
4. That the Muslim population of the Netherlands will continue to grow due to higher fertility rates even if Muslim immigration is prohibited is a complication that cannot be addressed here.
5. There will doubtless be those who do not accept our claim that we are heading into an organic conflict, but these people have some explaining to do. If the proper ‘integration’ of Muslims is a road-crossing exercise rather than a crusher-dodging exercise, why are all Western countries with large accumulations of Muslim immigrants failing to cross the road in question? Why is this particular road uncrossable?

Previous posts by El Inglés:

2007   Nov   28   The Danish Civil War
2008   Apr   24   Surrender, Genocide… or What?
    May   17   Sliding Into Irrelevance
    Jul   5   A Crystal Ball for Britain: Part 1
        6   A Crystal Ball for Britain: Part 2
        8   A Crystal Ball for Britain: Part 3
    Aug   25   Identity, Immigration, and Islam
    Oct   4   The Blackhoods of Antifa
        26   Racists ’R’ Us
    Nov   25   Surrender, Genocide… or What? — An Update
2009   Feb   16   Pick a Tribe, Any Tribe
    Apr   11   Pick A Tribe, Any Tribe — Part II
    May   18   To Push or to Squeeze?
    Nov   2   On the Failure of Law Enforcement — Part 1
    Dec   5   On the Failure of Law Enforcement — Part 2
        7   On the Failure of Law Enforcement — Part 3
2010   Mar   25   The Death of Democracy
        25   Some Fallacies On the Subject of Crime — Part 1
        28   Reflections on the Civil War in Britain
    Apr   1   A Consideration of the Criminal Investigation Process — Part One
        2   A Consideration of the Criminal Investigation Process — Part Two
        5   On Vigilantism — Part One
    Oct   29   Muslim Crime in the UK: Part 1
    Nov   1   Muslim Crime in the UK: Part 2
        4   Muslim Crime in the UK: Part 3
        2   Muslim Crime in the UK: Part 4
2011   Mar   10   Muslim Immigration into the UK: Part One
        11   Muslim Immigration into the UK: Part Two
        12   Muslim Immigration into the UK: Part Three
        13   Muslim Immigration into the UK: Part Four

Arab Drought: Oil for Water

Nicolai Sennels returns with a guest-essay about the looming water crisis in the Middle East, and a modest proposal for how it might be used to the West’s advantage.

Oil and water wells

Arab drought: An “Oil for water” policy is an option

by Nicolai Sennels

Soon our tankers may not travel empty on their way south, but be filled with water. Soon the West may be able to sell the Arabs water at the same price as we buy their oil.

Maplesoft Water Stress Index calculates “the ratio of domestic, industrial and agricultural water consumption, against renewable supplies of water from precipitation, rivers and groundwater.” The index pinpoints Middle Eastern and North African countries as the ten countries with the world’s greatest water stress:

1.   Bahrain
2.   Qatar
3.   Kuwait
4.   Saudi Arabia
5.   Libya
6.   Western Sahara
7.   Yemen
8.   Israel
9.   Djibouti
10.   Jordan

Overpopulation, a Western-inspired life style, growing industry, climate changes, and a generally dry climate have made lack of water a deadly serious problem in the Middle East and North Africa. Water is needed for industry, food production, and of course for drinking. The water crisis is thus likely to cause a hunger crisis and an economic crisis, and is likely to spark violent conflicts over water resources and land for grazing and farming, which may lead to large streams of refugees heading towards the West.

Hopefully the risk of thirst, hunger and conflicts in these parts of the world will help increase awareness of overpopulation in the affected areas — both among Muslim and Western politicians and organisations. Meanwhile, Western countries should examine the political and economical possibilities that the lack of water in the oil-rich Muslim countries brings forth.

Nicolai Sennels is a psychologist and the author of “Among Criminal Muslims: A Psychologist’s experiences with the Copenhagen Municipality”.

Previous posts by or about Nicolai Sennels:

2010   Jan   6   The Eternal Victim
    Feb   19   Youths, Crime, and Islam
    Apr   11   The Stigmatization Fallacy
    May   8   Islam Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry
    Jul   28   Nicolai Sennels: An Open Letter to David Cameron
    Aug   5   Rape by Proxy
        10   Islam and Inbreeding
    Dec   17   The Connection Between Muslim Inbreeding and Terrorism
2011   Jan   10   The Dhimmification of the Red Cross
        12   Was Muhammad a Gelotophobe?
        26   Food Crises are Caused by Overpopulation
    Feb   10   Send in the Midwives!
        23   Western Quran Schools Are “Terrorist Factories”
    Mar   22   Why Multiculture Will Always Fail
        26   What is Islamization?
    Apr   3   The Psychopath’s Argument: Free Speech Kills People
    May   3   Islam’s Nancy Boys: The Psychological Background

Ottawa Celebrates Iranian Culture

Late last night I received this note from an Iranian dissident group in Canada:

Attention: Please help.

The invitation below has been circulated by the regime of Iran and its consulate in Ottawa. We need to organize a large protest against it and write articles and letters to the National Arts Centre president and major newspapers.

Their special event is By RSVP…

Iran: Land of Glory

The text of the invitation:

Mr. Hamid Mohammadi, the Cultural Counsellor of the Embassy of Islamic
Republic of Iran to Canada, requests the pleasure of your company to attend
a special program entitled :
Iran, Land of Glory,
a Cultural Day at the National Arts Centre,
Panorama Room, Ottawa, Ontario
This event will take place on Saturday, June 4th, 2011
from 4:00pm to 5:00 p.m.
We look forward to seeing you.

RSVP : Please confirm your attendance by May 25th, 2011
Tel : 613 695-9186

Notice that the RSVP date is TODAY. Readers who are interested in attending this event to learn about Iranian culture are urged to act quickly…

Gates of Vienna News Feed 5/24/2011

Gates of Vienna News Feed 5/24/2011A final phase of the elections to the Dutch Senate was held yesterday, and the ruling coalition (VVD and CDA, supported by the PVV) did not gain an absolute majority, but fell one vote short. Consequently the coalition will look to gain the support of a single senator from a small party of devout Christians, the SGP. This is widely expected to push the coalition to support more conservative social positions as favored by the Christian party.

In other news, the ash cloud from the new volcanic eruption in Iceland is disrupting flights to Europe from Iceland, and also long-distance flights that pass close to Iceland. However, vulcanologists do not expect the ash to move high enough to be blown over Europe itself and ground air traffic there, as happened with last year’s volcanic eruption.

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

Thanks to AC, C. Cantoni, Caroline Glick, CSP, Fjordman, heroyalwhyness, Insubria, JD, LAW Wells, Mary Abdelmassih, Takuan Seiyo, 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.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

Why Libya?

Libya rebels

Back in mid-March NATO forces — at that time, led by the United States — began air strikes on Libyan targets to “protect the civilian population”. Two months later, what was supposed to be a brief intervention is still dragging on.

From the very beginning it was clear that the “responsibility to protect” was really just a cover story for a blatant attempt to oust Colonel Muammar Qaddafi from power. The longer the war dragged on, the more obvious it became that the real goal was to unseat the Man of Many Spellings. Hitting Kheddafi’s compound in Tripoli repeatedly is billed as attempt to take out his command center, rather than as an attempt to knock off the strongman, but no one is fooled by the charade.

Up until now NATO has failed to nail the Colonel, but it just keeps on trying. Here’s the latest from The New York Times:

NATO Bombs Libyan Capital in Heaviest Strikes Yet

Tripoli, Libya — In the heaviest attack yet on the capital since the start of the two-month-old NATO bombing campaign, alliance aircraft struck at least 15 targets in central Tripoli early Tuesday, with most of the airstrikes concentrated on an area around Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s command compound.

The strikes, within a 30-minute period around 1 a.m., caused thunderous explosions and fireballs that leapt high into the night sky, causing people in neighborhoods a mile or more away to cry out in alarm.

Just as one strike ended, the sound of jet engines from low-flying aircraft in the stormy skies above the capital signaled the imminence of another. Huge plumes of black smoke rose and converged over the darkened cityscape.

“We thought it was the day of judgment,” one enraged Libyan said.

As long as Qhedafi’s hide remains intact, there will be no definitive conclusion, so the air war must continue. After six weeks or so reporters began invoking the Q-word — “quagmire” — even though this was a war launched by President Obama and approved by the U.N., which postponed the quagmire, but only for a while.

According to the Associated Press:

Analysis: No End in Sight for NATO in Libya

BRUSSELS (AP) — The military campaign in Libya began with what seemed a narrowly defined mission: to enforce a no-fly zone and protect civilians from attack.

Two months later, the campaign has evolved into a ferocious pounding of the country’s capital, Tripoli, in what appears an all-out effort to oust Moammar Gadhafi. But that goal remains elusive, raising the prospect of a quagmire in the desert. And the political will of the countries involved is being sorely tested.

Even if the NATO partners want to extend the action to a ground war — which would seem utter madness, but you never can tell — they’ve got a niggling little problem, namely that the U.N. didn’t give them permission for a ground offensive:

Part of the challenge lies in the original U.N. resolution: It authorized the use of air power but forbade ground troops, even as it authorized “all necessary means” to protect civilians following Gadhafi’s brutal suppression of the popular uprising against his rule.

A lot of civilians have died in the air attacks “protecting” them, but who’s counting?

The French are obviously feeling the pinch, and are adamant that this thing must end soon:

“I can assure you that our will is to ensure that the mission in Libya does not last longer than a few months,” Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said during a question-and-answer session at the French parliament Tuesday.

He said the action “may take days, weeks in my opinion (but) certainly not months.”

NATO may require a new U.N. resolution authorizing the use of “all means necessary” if they intend to reach their goals within that time frame.

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

In contemplating the current war in North Africa, the obvious question is “Why Libya?” Of all the “Arab Spring” revolts, why pick on Col. Khadafi?

Syria, being an Iranian proxy, is out, even though Bashar al-Assad is at least as worthy a target as Ghadaffi. Yemen and Egypt have no significant amount of oil, so they can safely be ignored. The Gulf Emirates have both oil and uprisings, but they are our bulwark against Iranian ambitions, so that probably gives them a free pass.

That leaves Libya as a prime target.

France was the driving force behind the attempt to oust Gheddafi. The British have been enthusiastic junior partners — possibly motivated by a desire to keep a lid on further revelations from defectors about London’s complicity in the release of the Lockerbie bomber — but the French were the ones pushing most strongly for war. Mr. Obama rode into his new war on the coattails of the French.

What does France get out of it? The French are known to be cool calculators of their national interest, and not misty-eyed humanitarian idealists. So what was in it for France?

To get an idea what might have been at work, let’s look at the European power that was emphatically opposed to the Libyan adventure from the start: Italy.

The Italians had a number of reasons to be skittish about bearding Moamar Gadafi. The Colonel had warned the Italians in no uncertain terms that any interference with Libya would induce him to unleash a “Camp of the Saints” exodus of migrants — many of them non-Libyans — across the Mediterranean towards Italy. Thus the Italians refused involvement in the war when it began, but that made no difference to Col. Kadaffi — NATO started bombing him, Italy is a member of NATO, so the Colonel unleashed his hordes of refugees, exactly as promised.

The biggest reason for Italian opposition to the war, however, was probably commercial. The Italian state oil company ENI has long held the primary oil and natural gas concession in Libya. As soon as the rebellion got underway in earnest, ENI had to shut down its operations in Libya, and the flow of oil and gas to its terminals across the Med slowed to a trickle.

Could this have been what lured the French into the war? Did they see an opportunity to wrest the lucrative Libyan petroleum market from Italy? Since they were the primary supporters of a weak and inexperienced rebel alliance that they expected would eventually take power in Tripoli, they may have been counting on gaining contracts for French oil companies as part of their well-deserved reward.

This is all speculation on my part — I haven’t read anything that suggests this is what France was up to. However, take a look at the other major EU opponent of the Libyan adventure: Germany. Why has Germany been so adamantly opposed to the war in Libya from the very beginning? Do they see the French gaining a commercial advantage that would adversely affect German interests?

Then there’s Russia, which also expressed its stern disapproval of the war. The Russians are such sophisticated geopolitical chess players that it’s always hard to determine exactly what their moves signify. But one of their major long-term strategies is to exert control over Western Europe via a near-monopoly of natural gas through a pipeline that bypasses troublesome former Soviet satellites and runs supplies directly to Germany and points further west.

ENI is a sclerotic state-owned industry, and is reportedly out-of-date and inefficient in its production techniques. If the French wrested control of Libyan natural gas from Italy, and if they were able to exploit the supplies more effectively than the Italians, would that pose a competitive commercial threat to Russia?

This is also speculation. I have no idea whether there is any validity to these ideas.

But I can’t help but wonder: Why Libya? Why now?

Despite what the American press seems to think, this is not Obama’s war. It was obvious from the start that he was being dragged into it by the French, with the help of bleeding-heart journalists who focused relentlessly on the evils perpetrated on his own people by the Mad Bedouin Colonel.

And it’s not David Cameron’s war, either, no matter how whole-heartedly he has joined in. He has his reasons, but he is not the prime mover behind it.

This is a French operation. The French tail wagged the NATO dog.

So what’s really going on?

Homophobia vs. Islamophobia: Who Will Win?

Cultural Enrichment News

The Netherlands has long been in the forefront of tolerance and support for the rights of gay people. With its institution of homosexual marriage and widespread public disapproval of gay-hatred, the Dutch have led the way for the rest of Western culture.

In recent years the cultural enrichment of major Dutch cities has caused an upsurge of violence against gays by Muslim immigrants. This trend — which has become too large to ignore completely — highlights one of the major contradictions of politically correct Multiculturalism.

According to Multiculturalism, the culture of “brown people” is above criticism. Any negative observation about their behavior is evidence of “xenophobia”, and also “Islamophobia” if they are Muslims.

According to Political Correctness, any hostility towards gays is evidence of “homophobia”.

So what happens when Muslims attack gays? Which doctrine holds the trump card?

Well, we all know the answer to that one by now — tolerance of Islam trumps everything else. Gay rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, the rights of Jews or Hindus — all are cast aside when they come into conflict with the accommodation of Islam.

Because of the cognitive dissonance induced by this contradiction, the issue of Muslim gay-hatred is generally ignored in the media. Stories of Muslim violence against homosexuals are excluded, or disguised by omitting a full description of the perpetrators. The problem is swept under the rug as much as possible.

Sometimes, however, the incidents become to egregious or too numerous to avoid, and pop up in the press. One such story was published today by NIS News:

Harassed Gay Couple Taking Police to Court

Utrecht — A homosexual couple is demanding damages from the government because the police allegedly refused to take action against Moroccan youths who systematically threatened them.

The men suffered multiple harassments. For example, their car windows were broken, ‘homo’ was scratched on the car and a brick and fireworks were thrown at their window. The couple made a police report for all these matters, but the police never took any action, says their lawyer Yehudi Moszkowicz.

On a certain day, the couple were crashed into in their car. This was done deliberately by the group of Moroccans. The police came along and asked the Moroccans if this was true; they denied it. “On this, the police concluded that there was no evidence for a deliberate collision,” according to the lawyer.

Moszkowicz notes that the police were aware of the earlier reports by the gay couple against the Moroccans at the time of the collision. “Nonetheless, the officers concluded that they could find no witnesses who could tell them which of the two versions of the story was the right one.”

On Friday, an appeal court in Arnhem will hear the couple’s case. They are demanding that the judges order the police to arrest the suspects and that the Public Prosecutor’s Office (OM) prosecute them. In a civil case against the municipality, the police and the State, they are also demanding damages of 40,000 euros.

The gay couple moved out of the neighbourhood, Terwijde in Utrecht, due to the harassment They say they have suffered substantial damages, among other things because they had to sell their house at below its valuation.

For a complete listing of previous enrichment news, see The Cultural Enrichment Archives.

Hat tip: C. Cantoni.

The Party’s Over


2011 Spring Quarterly Fundraiser: The Wrap-Up

A few straggling balloons on the lawn, some shoes left behind, and cigarette butts stacked neatly in the buckets of sand around the place.

No one had too much to drink, or if they did y’all were the quietest drunks I ever didn’t hear. A few stragglers talked politics quietly in the corner while the band packed up its instruments and headed for their van.

Now all that remains is to finish my acknowledgements of your donations. To give you an idea how long you may have to wait for your note, the Baron just sent me the list from Day Three. Yeah, my “notes” do tend to go on a bit (blame it on the Irish blood I share with Obama). Back in the beginning of our fundraisers, I was determined to get each donation answered the same day it came in. That’s no longer possible so instead I focus on each donor instead. This arrangement is much better and the feedback has been good.

I don’t keep tabs on the amount totals; that — thank heavens — is the Baron’s job. Mine is simply to thank all of you, which I will do barring some catastrophe — say, the tornadoes in the Midwest heading here and removing my laptop as it takes the rest of the house away also. Those poor people!

Tomorrow is back to business as usual for Gates of Vienna. Tomorrow is also the day Netanyahu will speak to Congress. If you click that link, you’ll see one blogger’s interesting analysis regarding the timing of Obama’s speech the other day. Meanwhile, the President and his wife have arranged to be out of the country during Netanyahu’s visit with Congress. Hmmm…

Thanks to all of you who gave so generously to the cause. While the total amount has remained the same, on the whole individual donations are smaller. This reflects the larger economic picture, don’t you think? Fortunately for us and for Vlad, that works just fine!

By the way, when I took a break to do some gardening today I got to thinking about the thank you notes I’ve done and the ones still remaining. That led me to consider the last thank you note I received via snail mail. The note was detailed and quite touching. The writer, an old friend, had written an exemplary thank you for a very simple gift on her birthday. As I thought about my own response to her expression of gratitude, the idea of a book came to mind: “How to Write a Thank You Note” by Dymphna Gates is the working title. If I managed to get that together by next April or so, it would make a great gift for graduates, new brides, and people who like to observe the old customs.

Let me know what y’all think of the idea. Meanwhile, our donors can sit back and rest on their laurels… till next time!

Here are the locations of donors for the spring fundraiser up until now:


Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia

Near Abroad:


Far Abroad:

Australia, Belgium, British Virgin Islands, Croatia, Denmark, Faeroe Islands, Germany, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, and the UK.

My heavens, what world travelers we’ve become.

Gates of Vienna News Feed 5/23/2011

Gates of Vienna News Feed 5/23/2011The Taliban attacked a Pakistani army base yesterday in Karachi in a battle which lasted almost 24 hours. Eleven people were killed, and a number of others were taken hostage by the terrorist fighters, including Chinese military officers who were visiting the base. The attack destroyed two expensive surveillance aircraft which had been supplied to Pakistan by the United States.

In other news, former President Bill Clinton became the butt of jokes in the Balkans after he referred to his host country as “Macedonia” when he was giving a speech in Montenegro. The gaffe caused numerous humorous comments in the local media, including speculation that Mr. Clinton may have been confused because he was preoccupied by his latest amorous escapade.

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

Thanks to AC, C. Cantoni, Fjordman, Freedom Fighter, Gaia, heroyalwhyness, Insubria, JD, Kitman, Nick, Steen, 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.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

How Much Does Cultural Enrichment Cost?

Cultural Enrichment News

There has been much discussion in Europe over the last year or two about the costs of immigration. Advocates for immigration insist that migrants enrich European culture, but closer examination reveals that European culture actually enriches the immigrants.

When the average European taxpayer discovers the extent to which his pocket is being picked to support inassimilable and criminally-inclined Muslim immigrants, he tends to become irate, especially given the current recession he is forced to endure. So it’s no surprise that government agencies decline to provide any calculation of the costs of immigration — although the ostensible reason for their reluctance is that such studies would be “racist” and “discriminatory”.

The Dutch government refused Geert Wilders’ demand for an accounting, so his party commissioned its own study, and discovered — surprise! — that immigrants to the Netherlands cost the taxpayer an enormous amount of money, far more than they ever contribute to the Dutch state in taxes.

Other privately-sponsored studies have drawn similar conclusions. The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte has just written a book drawing together all the relevant data on the topic as it applies to Germany. Below is the first part of a two-part video report about Dr. Ulfkotte and his findings. Many thanks to the Counterjihad Collective for the transcription and time-stamping, to JLH for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling. The video is below the jump, followed by a complete transcript:

Part 2 is available here, in German. As soon as a transcript with time-stamps becomes available, Vlad and I will work on a translated and subtitled version of the second part.


00:04   Germany is talking: For weeks what has been making a stir is
00:09   “The costs of immigrants in Europe who are unwilling to integrate.”
00:14   How long can and will our society afford these measures?
00:20   It was not just the former head of the federal bank, Thilo Sarrazin
00:24   who set off the necessary debate.
00:29   German journalist, Udo Ulfkotte had been warning years ago
00:33   in his books, “Beware, Civil War” and “SOS Western World.”
00:40   In them the author clarifies the results of uncritical and uncontrolled Islamization.
00:47   They increasingly endanger our society.
00:50   Financial crash and mass unemployment, decline in values, increasing criminality,
00:56   rising taxes and tariffs, collapse of the health and educational systems
01:02   and much more and connected with it.
01:06   Now the author has raised the ante.
01:09   Simultaneously with Sarrazin’s provocative book title “Germany is doing away with itself”
01:14   Udo Ulfkotte is publishing in Kopp Publishers, in an almost 400 page long
01:19   book, new facts and explosive developments on the subject.
01:24   Press conference in Berlin in September, 2010.
01:28   The author asks himself journalists’ question.
01:32   The costs are a subject of discussion.
01:34   How expensive are our foreign compatriots?
01:36   How great is the burden for the German social system?
01:40   And what did immigrants unwilling to integrate cost us previously, in contrast to today?
01:47   If I say, up front, just as an example that immigrants in the
01:52   Federal Republic of Germany just up to 2007, have taken
01:56   more than a billion, with a B as in Berta, exclamation point (!)
02:01   more than a billion euros out of our social and welfare systems
02:07   more than they have paid in, then normally
02:13   a person makes a fist and says — I never heard that,
02:17   that can’t be true, must be a damn lie or rightist radical. No.
02:22   Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , June 24, 2010
02:27   from a study. The federal government, regardless of political color.
02:32   an administration has always said in the past:
02:35   Migration is generally speaking an enrichment. And I tried to follow up
02:41   with sources which are definitely not controversial. Is this claim
02:47   credible or not?
02:50   I was astonished in my first researches
02:54   how relaxed people were in a past generation, dealing with the subject of immigration
03:00   and the costs which are caused by it.
03:04   For example, the Spiegel — this isn’t a commercial —
03:09   for example, the Spiegel, on July 30, 1973
03:13   had a cover story with the headline
03:17   “The Turks are coming. every man for himself.”
03:21   In 1973 here in Berlin, there was a — sorry — a financial officer,
03:29   a precursor of Thilo Sarrazin, who estimated,
03:33   according to Spiegel in 1973, the infrastructure costs for every guest worker
03:40   and integration costs at that time, of 200,000 Marks.
03:46   So 37 years ago, that amounts to 100,000 euros.
03:51   Astonishingly, in the book you have lying before you,
03:56   when you allow for inflation. I come
04:01   to the same costs for a Turkish guest worker, for every
04:04   ethnic Turkish guest worker, I come to integration costs
04:09   of between 350,000 and 400,000 euros.
04:14   Is that an enrichment for us?
04:17   From the point of view of the political parties, that may be so.
04:20   You can certainly look at it differently.
04:24   I maintain, I am putting the idea on the table, that a great number
04:29   of the integration-resistant immigrants in the Federal Republic of Germany
04:35   have great potential and indeed on closer inspection potential for destruction.
04:42   Many immigrants in Germany are welfare destroyers,
04:46   contribute nothing to our development, rather — again a quotation,
04:51   Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 24, 2010 —
04:55   rather they take enormous sums from our social system without paying anything in.
05:01   Although all political parties have suggested to the citizenry
05:06   that these very persons should pay for our pensions
05:10   and are absolutely necessary for our future.
05:15   Finally, if you want to hear numbers, at the end
05:20   I say that every taxpayer in the Federal Republic of Germany
05:24   statistically pays about 1250 euros per year for integration
05:32   or for integration attempts by immigrants.
05:37   For the sake of political correctness, it is not desired
05:40   to speak of it, but I would like to speak about it, because we have to save.
05:46   That is uncontested, above and beyond all political-party boundaries, and I say:
05:52   let us spare our integration-resistant immigrants here in the Federal Republic of Germany.
05:59   Pithy words, clear numbers, hard facts.
06:03   The concept “integration-resistant immigrant” has become a new catchword.
06:08   Many foreigners have not felt comfortable in Germany since the beginning of this debate.
06:13   But who exactly is that?
06:19   We have seen the statistical costs for an immigrant
06:23   from anywhere in Europe between 40,000 and 50,000 Euros.
06:27   Whether it is the Netherlands NAIFA institute.
06:31   or Nicolas Sennels, who calculated that for the Danes.
06:35   You can go straight through Europe and you will find costs per immigrant,
06:41   seen statistically, of between 40,000 and 50,000 euros, which, at any rate, doesn’t mean much,
06:47   because immigrants — and here you can take the head of the
06:52   Munich Ifo Institute, Professor Hans Werner Sinn, who says:
06:56   “Immigration is in general, first of all, an enrichment
07:01   for the immigrant, but not for the society.”
07:04   Now these statistics that I just gave are distorted,
07:08   because naturally education-eager
07:11   Asians, Jews and immigrants from other countries are in the same in-flow.
07:15   Through words of the journalist Ulfkotte, it becomes clear once more:
07:19   foreigners are not all alike.
07:22   Ex-Federal Bank head, Thilo Sarrazin, created a scandal with his explanation that
07:27   the difference in cultures is in the genes.
07:31   Kopp author, Ulfkotte is more precise about which culture is better,
07:35   which is less good or which is even unsuited for coexistence
07:39   with the people in the Middle European West.
07:43   Among other things, it seems to lie in the diverse
07:45   aspirations and needs for culture and education.
07:48   And with that, we arrive once again at the differences in culture and religion.
07:56   The problems we have with the subject of immigration/integration —
08:00   we don’t have them with Asians, we don’t have them with our Jewish fellow citizens.
08:05   We have them primarily with a particular population group,
08:09   which comes overwhelmingly from the Islamic cultural sphere.
08:14   But why is that?
08:16   Is that because of a poor social situation, as some say?
08:19   if I can pour in as much money as possible, then in the end
08:23   more integration, more education will be the result?
08:26   No. Because there is sura 3, verse 110 in the Koran and a quotation
08:31   again from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung:
08:33   “Education is not a value in the Islamic cultural sphere.”
08:37   The reason for that is in sura 3, verse 110, according to which: I
08:41   both have nothing to learn from an infidel, nor can I allow him to tell me anything.
08:45   Sura 3, verse 110 is the reason that this general lack of respect — for example
08:50   for the police but also for teachers in the schools,
08:54   that is shown by Muslim immigrants — that is the reason it is expanding. No one is looking into that.
08:59   Nobody is scrutinizing sura 3, verse 110.
09:02   Education is not a value in Islam. That is why —
09:07   no matter how much money I have — when I look at the number of Nobel Prize winners
09:11   in the world, and the number of Muslims in the world,
09:14   I have 1.3 to 1.4 billion Muslims; by comparison
09:20   judging by Germany, I don’t know, 12, 14. 16 million
09:24   people of the Jewish faith in the world.
09:26   I have more than 200 Jewish Nobel Prizewinners,
09:29   because education has great value in the religion of Judaism.
09:34   But I have less than a handful of Muslim Nobel Prize winners.
09:38   and they get the Nobel Prize, for example,
09:40   like Yasser Arafat, the Nobel Peace Prize winner.
09:44   Udo Ulfkotte now singles out an aspect that seems almost unbelievable:
09:49   Germany as health and welfare insurer of foreign family members
09:54   who never lived in or paid into anything in this country,
09:59   who are at home thousands of kilometers from Germany
10:03   whose living is financed by German social funds.

For a complete listing of previous enrichment news, see The Cultural Enrichment Archives.

Hat tip: LN.

Camp of the Saints: Trucking Across Europe

Lampedusa refugees #12

Refugees from the “Arab Spring” are accumulating across southern Europe, mainly in Italy, but also in Malta and Greece. Most of them attempt to move onward from these locations to more favored destinations. France serves as the Promised Land for the Tunisians, many of whom already have relatives there, or claim to. Other migrants prefer to enrich the cultures of Germany, the Netherlands, Britain, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden — and expect to be enriched in return by some of the most generous welfare systems in the world.

The news story below from Dutch TV describes attempts by migrants to hide in the undercarriages of long-distance trucks hauling freight from Greek ports. By stowing away in this manner, they hope to travel all the way to the Netherlands and other northern European destinations.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for YouTubing this video: