The Prophet in Brussels

The following positive review of Bat Yeo’s book Europe and the Coming Caliphate was published, amazingly enough, in the mainstream Austrian daily Die Presse. Our Austrian correspondent AMT, who recommended the review for translation, includes the following note:

Die Presse is to be commended for publishing this review of the German translation of Bat Ye’or’s latest book. Of course, the commenters later heavily criticized Bat Ye’or’s theories without having read her book. Standard Operating Procedure. Case closed.

Many thanks to JLH for translating this article:

The Prophet in Brussels

Europe and the Coming Caliphate: Historian Bat Ye’or, living in Switzerland, fears a creeping Islamization of Europe. She considers that the concept of multiculturalism has failed.

January 10, 2014
by Michael Ley

The Cassandra calls about the demise of Europe have become unmistakable. A least since Thilo Sarrazin’s bestseller Germany Abolishes Itself, even well-meaning people have been stalked by doubts about the future of Europe and its societies. To the demographic ruination of the inhabitants of Old Europe which threatens present generations because fewer and fewer people will have to finance an increasingly superannuated society, are added the problems of impending poverty in old age and unimaginable government debt.

Added to that is a thoroughly failed integration of Muslim immigrants and a foreseeable shift in the composition of society, which can soon lead to the native majority finding itself a minority among minorities. The prestigious doyen of Islamic scholars, Bernard Lewis, paints the future in gloomy colors: “According to present trends, Europe will have Muslim majority populations at the latest by the end of the 21st century.” Since Islam is not a very peace-loving or tolerant religion, fear of Islamization stalks more and more citizens. Proselytizing the world by any means is granted especially to Muslims through divine revelation.

One of the warning voices concerning the Islamization of Europe is the Jewish historian writing under the pseudonym Bar Ye’or (daughter of the Nile), who was born in Egypt and has been living in Switzerland for many years. Her books on the history of Jews and Christians living under the domination of Islam, and about the degradation of non-Muslim communities and their members to people of lesser value are among the standard works on Islam. Her proofs that these societies have never had egalitarian coexistence naturally does not fit into the cliché of multicultural ideology.

Her most recent publication, Europe and the Coming Caliphate — now available in German — is the starting point for her argument that there can be no lasting peace between Muslims and people of other beliefs. “In the Islamic view, the whole world is an endowment, a territory that belongs to Allah. The Muslim community is pledged to bring it under the dominion of Islamic order as once revealed to the Prophet. Jihad is the battle to win back the granted land which is illegally occupied by infidels, and must be returned it to the Muslims.” With this background, she takes up European policy in regard to the Islamic countries of the Mediterranean or the Near East and Israel. An apparently insignificant mosque in Munich plays a central role in this development (see also “The Fourth Mosque: Nazis, CIA and Islamic Fundamentalism” by Ian Johnson).

While official West Germany since Konrad Adenauer has pursued a policy of reconciliation with Israel, the old-boy network between the Nazis and Islamic Nazi collaborators, which placed its own SS units in the Balkans and the Soviet Union during WWII, has been maintained. Munich became the center of gravity for the cooperation of Muslim SS members and Muslim Brothers with the CIA and the Nazis in the battle against Communism.

The political elite after 1945 was saturated with Nazis who had risen to high government offices. Two authors of the Nuremberg race laws are representative: Walter Hallstein became the first president of the European Commission (1958-1967) and Hans Globke rose to grey eminence in the federal Chancellor’s office (1953-1963). So official Germany stood with the USA and Israel, the unofficial one stayed true to anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. At the end of the 1950s, a central figure was Said Ramadan, the son-in-law of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna. With the support of Nazis, he developed the Munich mosque into the global center of gravity of Islamism.

1973 marked the turning point in European policy toward Islam. The European Commission recognized the PLO and its leader, Yassir Arafat, even though they rejected the existence of Israel. The terrorism of the PLO and Hamas are, to be sure, always deplored from the European side, but it “should be blamed on more deep-seated causes.”

1974 saw the founding of the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation (PAEAC), whose goal is a common Arab-European civilization. Another partner for the European Union is the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), to which 56 Islamic or majority Islamic countries belong. Behind the empty phrases of its inter-religious dialogue, the goals of this organization can be identified: the global strengthening of Islam and the Islamization of Europe. That is why the OIC particularly emphasize the battle against “Islamophobia,” and is joyfully supported by the EU and beefed up by a sustainable Muslim immigration to Europe.

The most important contribution of the EU to a common civilization has for decades now been the implementation of the multiculturalism of diversity, for the purpose of weakening or overwhelming the nation states. This concept guarantees Muslim immigrants preservation of their cultural and religious identity, while Europe is intended to go into extensive decline. A good many foundations of the EU — such as the Anna Lindh Foundation or the Alliance of Civilizations — propagate the goals of the Euro-Arabian utopia. Bat Ye’or meticulously demonstrates these developments in Islamization of Europe, which we cannot cover in detail here.

The author accuses the EU and many European politicians of blindness and almost boundless naiveté. They have misread the political intentions of Islam and its institutions, organizations and associations. The goal of the Muslim Brotherhood, of the Salafists and the Wahhabis is a European caliphate.

PS: The grand opening of the King Abdullah Center for inter-religious and intercultural dialogue in Vienna in 2012 was another glistening success in the Islamization of Europe brought about by Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood…thanks to the Austrian Christian and Social Democrats.

8 thoughts on “The Prophet in Brussels

  1. Absolutely chilling. And the knights and yeomen of Europe sleep on and on.

    The Italian navy does not repel the invaders but escorts them to the shores of Italy. The government of Sweden persecutes those who sound the alarm. The ruling party of the U.K. throws open its doors to alien parasites. The E.U. turns itself into a pretzel to deny European peoples a voice in their extinguishment. France grovels at the feet of its inferiors. A corrupt European press spreads a blanket of lies in every living room and every village. A great civilization rots in the space of two generations.

    • No quarrel with most of your points, Col. Bunny, except “The Italian Navy does not repel the invaders…” What are they supposed to do? In the late 1940s British troops were supposed to use force to prevent Jewish refugees’ landing in “Palestine”, but to their credit wouldn’t fire on them.

      Whether or not the North African migrants’ cause is as just or as poignant, and with the greatest sympathy for the inhabitants of Lampedusa who have to deal with some pretty barbaric incomers, I repeat- what are they supposed to do?

      • A good question with no easy or inexpensive solution. Howeverrr . . . the Australians have begun to turn away the boats heading to their shores. If the boats get as far as they do at the time of interception, they can also make a return journey if forced to do so, or, rather, if simply not permitted to proceed to enter national waters. Fuel and supplies can be supplied for a return journey and, if the boats are dangerously overloaded, the excess passengers can be offloaded and transported to the point of origin. An outstanding allocation of scare governmental resources.

        I don’t buy that the point(s) of origin aren’t known. Since what is going on is invasion and colonization, European nations should consider countries that facilitate departures as hostile countries.

        Furthermore, naval ships can be deployed close to points of departure and ships loaded with colonizers can be turned back at the outset rather than when in, say, Italian waters. If “international law” makes this difficult, then such “law” should be ignored. No law should be observed that requires a nation to commit suicide. As it is, our wooly-headed, pusillanimous elites will, when our cities go up in smoke and blood flows in the streets (I’ve always wanted to work that into my writing), exclaim, “At least we never violated our laws or acted in a non-humanitarian way.”

        Also, it should be borne in mind that this is a dynamic situation. Vigorous reaction to invasion will very soon become known to follow on invaders who will then realize the futility of further travel. Too, at some point, I think it appropriate, after softer measures are tried for a stated period, for harsher measures to be employed. Ultimately, national borders are created, established, and maintained by military force, and deadly force if it comes to that. Much can be done before that but ultimately it is most definitely an option. Better a little violence at the border than the large-scale violence of internal insurrection by hostile foreigners foolishly granted entry to the homelands.

        Note also that at land borders a variety of non-lethal measures are available — fire hoses, spraying with noxious, sticky liquids, electrified fences, and unscalable walls. YouTube has a video of a U.S. microwave weapon that can be turned on crowds and which caused intense, non-injurious discomfort. There is no further movement in the direction of the device.

        Europeans can acknowledge that they are under attack and respond accordingly, or they can decide to be inundated because they believed there is some civilizational imperative to be nice when a boat appears at the edge of territorial waters or a colonist sticks his hand out in Naples, Milan, Hamburg, Ostend, Marseilles, Abilene, Winnipeg, or Plymouth.

        The present strategy is one that is firmly based in a high-level decision that Westerners are helpless, helpless, I say, to insist on the inviolability of their borders. Alas, as Bat Ye’or argues, the problems of illegals invading Europe stem from policies far more sinister than policies based simple on cowardice and weakness. Thus, it is not that nothing can be done. It is that European governments are committed at the highest level to surrender and betrayal of their own people.

        • Thanks Toni: since becoming concerned with the counterjihad I’ve learned much of the history of Zionism and Israel, but there are gaps. In this case I’m likely recalling the film “Exodus”, in which the Brits do behave honourably.

  2. Since the article touched on the name Konrad Adenauer, his foundation is publishing, in English, a sales manual on why the Arab world should adopt Europe’s soft fascism, an economic system called “Social Market Economy”.

    This can be found by googling “Adenauer Jordan social market economy”

    The paper is called “Social Market Economy Explained in a Simple Way”:

    (Didn’t know that Europe’s economic system is officially not capitalist? See the text of the Treaty of Lisbon! Explained here:

  3. Interesting.

    Any groups contesting for the end of Western society should be put firmly in their place and sent back to the stoneage, or indeed their desert origins (same difference).

    Like all of the worlds problems they can all be related to fiscal matters.

Comments are closed.