|
Here is the first of a multi-part series from the great European essayist Fjordman, in which he tests whether he can find any evidence of whether the thesis Bat Ye'or put forward in her book "Eurabia" is accurate.
I decided to write this essay after a comment from a journalist, not a Leftist by my country's standards, who dismissed Eurabia as merely a conspiracy theory, one on a par with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I do not disagree with the fact that conspiracy theories exist, nor that they can be dangerous. After all, the Protocols and the Dolchstosslegende, or "stab in the back myth" - the idea that Germany didn't lose WW1 but was betrayed by Socialists, intellectuals and Jews - helped pave the way for Adolf Hitler and the Nazis before WW2.However, what puzzles me is that it is a widely-held belief of many (not just in the Islamic world but in Europe and even in the United States) that the terror attacks that brought down the Twin Towers in New York City on September 11th 2001 were really a controlled demolition staged by the American government and then blamed on Muslims. I have seen this thesis talked about many times in Western media. While it is frequently (though not always) dismissed and mocked, it is least mentioned.
In contrast, Eurabia – which asserts that the Islamicization of Europe didn't happen merely by accident but with the active participation of European political leaders - is hardly ever referred to at all, despite the fact that it is easier to document. Does the notion of Eurabia hit too close to home? Perhaps it doesn't fit with the anti-American disposition of many journalists? Curiously enough, even those left-leaning journalists who are otherwise critical of the European Union because of its free market elements never write about Eurabia.
Because of this, I am going to test whether the Eurabia thesis is correct, or at least plausible. I have called this project The Eurabia Code, alluding to author Dan Brown's massive bestseller The Da Vinci Code. Brown's fictional account "documents" a conspiracy by the Church to cover up the truth about Jesus. I'm not sure my work will become equally popular, but I'm pretty sure it's closer to reality.
The next time Mr. Brown wants to write about massive conspiracies in Europe, he would be well-advised to set his eyes at Brussels rather than Rome. It would be a whole lot more interesting. What follows is a brief outline of the thesis put forward by writer Bat Ye'or in her book "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis." My information is based on her book (which should be read in full). In addition I have drawn from some of her articles and interviews. I republish the information with her blessing, but this summary is completely my own.
In an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Bat Ye'or explained how French President Charles de Gaulle, disappointed by the loss of the French colonies in Africa and the Middle East as well as with France's waning influence in the international arena, decided in the 1960's to create a strategic alliance with the Arab and Muslim world to compete with the dominance of the United States and the Soviet Union.
"This is a matter of a total transformation of Europe, which is the result of an intentional policy," said Bat Ye'or. "We are now heading towards a total change in Europe, which will be more and more Islamicized and will become a political satellite of the Arab and Muslim world. The European leaders have decided on an alliance with the Arab world, through which they have committed to accept the Arab and Muslim approach toward the United States and Israel. This is not only with respect to foreign policy, but also on issues engaging European society from within, such as immigration, the integration of the immigrants and the idea that Islam is part of Europe."
"Europe is under a constant threat of terror. Terror is a way of applying pressure on the European countries to surrender constantly to the Arab representatives' demands. They demand, for example, that Europe always speak out for the Palestinians and against Israel."
Thus, the Eurabian project became an enlarged vision of the anti-American Gaullist policy dependent upon the formation of a Euro-Arab entity hostile to American influence. It facilitated European ambitions to maintain important spheres of influence in the former European colonies, while opening huge markets for European products in the Arab world, especially in oil-producing countries, in order to secure supplies of petroleum and natural gas to Europe. In addition, it would make the Mediterranean a Euro-Arab inland sea by favoring Muslim immigration and promoting Multiculturalism with a strong Islamic presence in Europe.
The use of the term "Eurabia" was first introduced in the mid-1970s, as the title of a journal edited by the President of the Association for Franco-Arab Solidarity, Lucien Bitterlein, and published collaboratively by the Groupe d'Etudes sur le Moyen-Orient (Geneva), France-Pays Arabes (Paris), and the Middle East International (London). Their articles called for common Euro-Arab positions at every level. These concrete proposals were not the musings of isolated theorists; instead they put forth concrete policy decisions conceived in conjunction with, and actualized by, European state leaders and European Parliamentarians.
During a November 27, 1967 press conference, Charles de Gaulle stated openly that French cooperation with the Arab world had become "the fundamental basis of our foreign policy." By January 1969, the Second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples, held in Cairo, in its resolution 15, decided "…to form special parliamentary groups, where they did not exist, and to use the parliamentary platform support of the Arab people and the Palestinian resistance." Five years later in Paris, July 1974, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation was created, under the Euro-Arab Dialogue rubric.
Bat Ye'or has highlighted this shared Euro-Arab political agenda. The first step was the construction of a common foreign policy. France was the driving force in this unification, which had already been envisaged by General de Gaulle's inner circle and Arab politicians. The Arab states demanded from Europe access to Western science and technology, European political independence from the United States, European pressure on the United States to align with their Arab policy and demonization of Israel as a threat to world peace, as well as measures favorable to Arab immigration and dissemination of Islamic culture in Europe. This cooperation would also included recognition of the Palestinians as a distinct people and the PLO and its leader Arafat as their representative. Up to 1973 they had been known only as Arab refugees, even by other Arabs. The concept of a Palestinian "nation" simply did not exist.
During the 1973 oil crisis, the Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries announced that, due to the ongoing Yom Kippur War between Israel and its Arab neighbors Egypt and Syria, OPEC would no longer ship petroleum to Western nations that supported Israel. The sudden increase in oil prices was had lasting effects. Not only did it create a strong influx of petrodollars to countries such as Saudi Arabia, which permitted the Saudis to fund a worldwide Islamic resurgence, but it also had an impact in the West, especially in Europe.
However, Arab leaders had to sell their oil. Their people are very dependent on European economic and technological aid. The Americans made this point during the oil embargo in 1973. According to Bat Ye'or, although the oil factor certainly helped cement the Euro-Arab Dialogue, it was primarily a pretext to cover up a policy that emerged in France before that crisis occurred. The policy, conceived in the 1960s, had strong antecedents in the French 19th-century dream of governing an Arab empire.
This political agenda has been reinforced by the deliberate cultural transformation of Europe. Euro-Arab Dialogue Symposia conducted in Venice (1977) and Hamburg (1983) included recommendations that have been successfully implemented. These recommendations were accompanied by a deliberate, privileged influx of Arab and other Muslim immigrants into Europe in enormous numbers.
The recommendations included:
1. Coordination of the efforts made by the Arab countries to spread the Arabic language and culture in Europe,
2. Creation of joint Euro-Arab Cultural Centers in European capitals,
3. The necessity of supplying European institutions and universities with Arab teachers specialized in teaching Arabic to Europeans, and
4. The necessity of cooperation between European and Arab specialists in order to present a positive picture of Arab-Islamic civilization and contemporary Arab issues to the educated public in Europe.
These agreements could not be set forth in written documents and treaties due to their politically sensitive and fundamentally undemocratic nature. The European leaders thus carefully chose to call their ideas "dialogue." All meetings, committees and working groups included representatives from European Community nations and the European Council along with members from Arab countries and the Arab League. Proceedings and decisions took place in closed sessions. No official minutes were recorded.The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) is a political, economic and cultural institution designed to ensure perfect cohesion between Europeans and Arabs. Its structure was set up at conferences in Copenhagen (15 December 1973), and Paris (31 July 1974). The principal agent of this policy is the European Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, founded in 1974. The other principal organs of The Dialogue are the MEDEA Institute and the European Institute of Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation, created in 1995 with the backing of the European Commission.
In an interview with Jamie Glazov of Frontpage Magazine, Bat Ye'or explained how "in domestic policy, the EAD established a close cooperation between the Arab and European media television, radio, journalists, publishing houses, academia, cultural centers, school textbooks, student and youth associations, tourism. Church interfaith dialogues were determinant in the development of this policy. Eurabia is therefore this strong Euro-Arab network of associations -- a comprehensive symbiosis with cooperation and partnership on policy, economy, demography and culture."
Eurabia's driving force, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, was created in Paris in 1974. It now has over six hundred members - from all major European political parties - active in their own national parliaments, as well as in the European parliament. France continues to be the key protagonist of this association.
A wide-ranging policy was sketched out. It entailed a symbiosis of Europe with the Muslim Arab countries that would endow Europe – and especially France, the project's prime mover – with a weight and a prestige to rival that of the United States. This policy was undertaken quite discreetly, and well outside of official treaties, using the innocent-sounding name of the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The organization functioned under the auspices of European government ministers, working in close association with their Arab counterparts, and with the representatives of the European Commission and the Arab League. The goal was the creation of a pan-Mediterranean entity, permitting the free circulation both of men and of goods.
On the cultural front there began a complete re-writing of history, which was first undertaken during the 1970s in European universities. This process was ratified by the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in September 1991, at its meeting devoted to "The Contribution of the Islamic Civilisation to European culture." It was reaffirmed by French President Jacques Chirac in his address of April 8, 1996 in Cairo, and reinforced by Romano Prodi, president of the powerful European Commission, the EU's "government," and later Italian Prime Minister, through the creation of a Foundation on the Dialogue of Cultures and Civilizations. This foundation was to control everything said, written and taught about Islam in Europe.
Over the past three decades, the EEC and the EU's political and cultural organizations have invented a fantasy Islamic civilization and history. The historical record of violations of basic human rights for all non-Muslims and women under sharia (Islamic Law) is either ignored or dismissed. In this worldview the only dangers come from the United States and Israel. The creators of Eurabia have conducted a successful propaganda campaign against these two countries in the European media. This fabrication was made easier by pre-existing currents of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism in parts of Europe, although both sentiments have been greatly inflated by Eurabians and their collaborators.
On January 31, 2001, with the recrudescence of Palestinian terrorist jihad, European Foreign Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten declared to the European Parliament that Europe's foreign policy should give special attention to its southern flank (the Arab countries, in EU jargon), adding that he was delighted by the general agreement to give greater visibility to the Mediterranean Partnership.
Bat Ye'or thinks that "Our politicians are perfectly informed of Islamic history and current policies by their embassies, agents and specialists. There is no innocence there, but tremendous inflexibility in corruption, cynicism and the perversion of values."
In the preface to her book, she states that "This book describes Europe's evolution from a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important post-Enlightenment secular elements, into a post– Judeo-Christian civilization that is subservient to the ideology of jihad and the Islamic powers."
The new European civilization in the making can correctly be termed a ''civilization of dhimmitude.'' The word dhimmitude comes from the Islamic legal designation ''dhimmi.'' It refers to the subjugated, non-Muslim individuals who accept restrictive and humiliating subordination to Islamic power in order to avoid enslavement or death. The entire Muslim world as we know it today is a product of this 1,300 year-old jihad dynamic, whereby once thriving non-Muslim majority civilizations have been reduced to a state of dysfunction and dhimmitude. The dhimmis are inferior beings who endure humiliation and aggression in silence. This arrangement allows Muslims to enjoy an impunity that increases both their hatred and their feeling of superiority, under the protection of the law.
Eurabia is a novel new entity. It possesses political, economic, religious, cultural, and media components, which are imposed on Europe by powerful governmental lobbies. While Europeans live within Eurabia's constraints, outside of a somewhat confused awareness, few are really conscious of them on a daily basis.
This Eurabian policy, expressed in obscure wording, is conducted at the highest political levels and coordinated over the whole of the European Union. It spreads an anti-American and anti-Semitic Euro-Arab sub-culture into the fiber of every social, media and cultural sector. Dissidents are silenced or boycotted. Sometimes they are fired from their jobs, victims of a totalitarian "correctness" imposed mainly by the academic, media and political sectors.
According to Ye'or, France and the rest of Western Europe can no longer change their policy: "It is a project that was conceived, planned and pursued consistently through immigration policy, propaganda, church support, economic associations and aid, cultural, media and academic collaboration. Generations grew up within this political framework; they were educated and conditioned to support it and go along with it."
Are Bat Ye'or's claims correct, or even possible?
Bernard Lewis has pointed out that, by common consent among historians, "the modern history of the Middle East begins in the year 1798, when the French Revolution arrived in Egypt in the form of a small expeditionary force led by a young general called Napoleon Bonaparte--who conquered and then ruled it for a while with appalling ease."
In an unsuccessful effort to gain the support of the Egyptian populace, Napoleon issued proclamations praising Islam. "People of Egypt," he proclaimed upon his entry to Alexandria in 1798, "You will be told that I have come to destroy your religion; do not believe it! Reply that I have come to restore your rights, to punish the usurpers, and that more than the Mamluks, I respect God, his Prophet, and the Qur'an."
According to an eyewitness, Napoleon ended his proclamation with the phrase, "God is great and Muhammad is his prophet." To Muslim ears, this sounded like the shahada - the declaration of belief in the oneness of Allah and in Prophet Muhammad as his last messenger. Recitation of the shahadah, the first of the five pillars of Islam, is considered to mark one's conversion to Islam. Muslims could thus conclude that Napoleon had converted to Islam. In fact, one of his generals, Jacques Ménou, did convert to Islam.
The French were later defeated and forced to leave Egypt by the English admiral Lord Nelson. Although the French expedition to Egypt lasted only three years, it demonstrated that the West was now so superior to the Islamic world that Westerners could enter the Arab heartland, then still a part of the Ottoman Empire, at will. Only another Western power could force them to leave. The shock of this realization triggered the first attempts to reform Islam in the 19th century.
A positive result of Western conquest was the influx of French scientists into Egypt and the foundation of modern Egyptology. Most importantly, it led to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, which was later used by French philologist Jean-François Champollion to decipher the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. However, the encounter also left a lasting impact in Europe, and above all in France.
The French invasion of Algeria in 1830 marked another chapter in this tale. Later, the French ruled Tunisia and Morocco. Finally, after the First World War, the French gained mandates over the former Turkish territories of the Ottoman Empire that make up what is now Syria and Lebanon. After the Second World War, French troops gradually left Arab lands, culminating with war and Algerian independence in 1962. However, their long relationship with Arabs resulted in France's belief that she had a special relationship with and an understanding of Arabs and Muslims. Along with French leadership in continental Europe, this would now provide the basis of a new foreign policy. President de Gaulle pushed for a France and a Europe independent of the two superpowers. In a speech, he stated that "Yes, it is Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, it is Europe, it is the whole of Europe, that will decide the destiny of the world." In 1966, he withdrew France from the common NATO military command, but remained within the organization.
Following the Six Days War in 1967, de Gaulle's condemnation of the Israelis for their occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip marked a significant change in French foreign policy. Previously, France - as well as the rest of Western Europe - had been strongly pro-Israel, even going to war together with Israel as late as 1956 against Nasser's Egypt. From 1967 on, however, France embarked on a decidedly pro-Arab course.
It has been said that English foreign policy has remained the same since the 16th century. Its goal was to prevent any country, whether Spain, France, or later Germany, from dominating continental Europe to the extent that it represents a threat to England. On the other hand, one could argue that French foreign policy has also remained the same for several centuries; its goal is to champion French leadership over Europe and the Mediterranean region in order to contain Anglo-Saxon (and later Anglo-American) dominance. This picture was complicated by the unification of Germany in the late 19th century, but its outlines remain to this day.
Napoleon is the great hero of French PM de Villepin. Several prominent French leaders stated quite openly in 2005 that the proposed EU Constitution was basically an enlarged France. Justice Minister Dominique Perben said: "We have finally obtained this 'Europe à la française' that we have awaited for so long. This constitutional treaty is an enlarged France. It is a Europe written in French." From its inception, European integration has been a French-led enterprise. The fact that the French political elite have never renounced the maintenance of their leadership over Europe was amply demonstrated during the Iraq war.
President Chirac famously said in 2003 after Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic backed the US position "They missed a good opportunity to shut up," adding "These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position."
Jean Monnet, French economist never elected to public office, is regarded by many as the architect of European integration. Monnet was a well-connected pragmatist who worked behind the scenes towards the gradual creation of European unity.
Richard North, publisher of the blog EU Referendum and co-author (with Christopher Booker) of The Great Deception: Can The European Union Survive, relates that for years - at least from the 1920s - Jean Monnet had dreamed of building a "United States of Europe." Although what Monnet really had in mind was the creation of a European entity with all the attributes of a state, an "anodyne phrasing was deliberately chosen with a view to making it difficult to dilute by converting it into just another intergovernmental body. It was also couched in this fashion so that it would not scare off national governments by emphasising that its purpose was to override their sovereignty."
In their analysis of the EU's history, the authors claim that the EU was not born out of WW2, as many people seem to think. It had been planned at least a generation before that.
The Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, widely presented as the beginning of the efforts towards a European Union and commemorated in "Europe Day," contains phrases which state that it is "a first step in the federation of Europe", and that "this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation." However, as critics of the EU have noted, these political objectives are usually omitted when the Declaration is referred to, and most people are unaware of their existence.
A federation is, of course, a State and "yet for decades now the champions of EC/EU integration have been swearing blind that they have no knowledge of any such plans. The EEC/EC/EU has steadily acquired ever more features of a supranational Federation: flag, anthem, Parliament, Supreme Court, currency, laws."
The EU founders "were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it." Booker and North call the European Union "a slow-motion coup d'état: the most spectacular coup d'état in history," designed to gradually and carefully sideline the democratic process and subdue the older nation states of Europe without saying so publicly.
The irony is that France is now held hostage by the very forces she herself set in motion. The Jihad riots by Muslim immigrants in France in 2005 demonstrated that Eurabia is no longer a matter of French foreign policy, it is now French domestic policy. France will burn unless she continues to appease Arabs and agree to their agenda.
The growth of the Islamic population is explosive. According to some, one out of three babies born in France is a Muslim. Hundreds of Muslim ghettos already de facto follow sharia, not French law. Some believe France will quietly become a Muslim country, while others are predicting a civil war in the near future.
Maybe there is some poetic justice in the fact that the country that initiated and has led the formation of Eurabia will now be destroyed by its own Frankenstein monster. However, gloating over France's dilemma won't help. The impending downfall of France is bad news for the rest of the West. What will happen to French financial resources? Above all, who will inherit hundreds of nuclear warheads? Will these weapons fall into the hands of Jihadist Muslims, too?
Posted by Robert at September 30, 2006 1:06 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
france doesnt make a good figure here...
after all, who ever met a french person cannot deny their terrible arrogance and sense of superiority, that's why they got along so great with muslims.
Posted by: FedUp at September 30, 2006 2:01 PMIt does not surprise that Eurabia started with the French Revolution. With the French Revolution came the anti-clerical abandonment of Christianity. Christianity was replaced with secular dogma of relativism.
This was fine while Islam was asleep-- but now that it has been reawakened--relativism blinds the West to evil.
Without a return to Christian "dogma" the West will be crushed by its acceptance of everything and condemnation of nothing.
Posted by: genevieve at September 30, 2006 3:11 PMI do not entirely agree with the text. Fjordman obviously thinks the people behind the "Eurabian" project (if it even exists) are totally evil and satanic. I think they are not. I think they are a dangerous mix of corrupt, immature and politically correct. They let them getting paid by various lobby groups, oil companies and freemasons (no, I do not refer to the conspiracy-freemasons). They are immature and do NOT see the consequences of their actions nor do they can comprehend that they are not loved by the European masses.
Last time they looked completely ridicules, a standard member of the European Parliament (MEP) said was surprised why a proposal to outlaw chocolate cigarettes failed (to combat smoking). You should have seen it. She didn’t had a f*cking clue. That kind of immatureness rules Europe.
What they are capable of is moral blackmail. Goldwin’s Law rules supreme. Leftist Christian-Democrats are considered the closest modern allies of the Nazi’s and of course no moment is safe to refer to the Zentrum (1933’s German Catholics) alliance with the NSDAP.
All of this has of course has it affect on the European population. The meaning of “fascist” is downgraded to something “awful”. What makes this dangerous is the fact that the real fascists can easily roam about, without real intellectual resistance.
And of course the Muslims. They are the modern Jews if you ask the average MEP. This is of course the most stupid comparison one can make. The Jews were totally defenseless against the Nazi’s. The same cannot be said of Muslims. Combine that with the sick political correct obsession with not insulting minorities and you get today’s mix of not combating extremist religious groups.
"This book describes Europe's evolution from a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important post-Enlightenment secular elements, into a post– Judeo-Christian civilization that is subservient to the ideology of jihad and the Islamic powers."
I think that the article is very informative; however, the complete obliteration of the Greko- Roman civilizations, which are the basic identity of Europe, makes me think that forces other than islam are at work here.
Posted by: arjun.sevak at September 30, 2006 3:26 PM"Without a return to Christian "dogma" the West will be crushed by its acceptance of everything and condemnation of nothing"
Well said, Genevieve.
I think that the article is very informative; however, the complete obliteration of the Greko- Roman civilizations, which are the basic identity of Europe, makes me think that forces other than islam are at work here.
-------
I agree. But if the biblical prophecy of the conspiracy of kings and rules against God is to be true, God's destruction will be laid upon them.
"Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. While they [the kings and rulers] are saying peace and security, then destruction will come upon them suddenly like birth pangs upon a woman with child and they shall not escape."
- First Thessalonians 5 verse 1.
Of course this is yet to be proven true. Only time will tell.
Posted by: DrWolffenstein at September 30, 2006 3:40 PMI know this going a bit off-topic but..
[
after all, who ever met a french person cannot deny their terrible arrogance and sense of superiority, that's why they got along so great with muslims.
]
Posted by: FedUp
...What FedUp writes here is a crock. I bet he hasn't ever met a French person. I have met more than a few and most are very kind and warm and hospitable people who won't hesitate to invite a stranger in for dinner.
THAT genorisity is being taken advantage of by the mufties now. AND the French are being cajoled and pressured by theri own liberal Fifth Column comprised of Chirac and many others in government there. The rest of the enablers are in media and the universities - not unlike all our other Western Countries.
Sadly, both Britain and France seem to have sunken deepest into the Abyss of Dhimmitude so far among us..
You may want to check out this link re. some VERY ALARMING jihadist activity right here in NYC at Queens College:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31571
KNOW THE ENEMY!!! It is NOT too late for France nor for Britain nor for the USA.
WE MUST GET OUR "leaders" to fight. Or throw them out of office. Start new political organizations if the ones we have in place now keep failing our peoples.
VIVE LA RESISTANCE!!!!
What all this shows is that, Europe, in order to become bigger and more powerful, had to join, not only with each other, but had to join with the enemy of their enemey, namely the arabs.
This is what is called a Faustian deal. And we all know what happens to those that make such a deal.
It is like a short european man putting on elevator shoes to be as tall as his American adversary, of which he is jealous and in contempt. But the shoes are made in a muslim country, are of poor quality and don't fit. They are ruining his feet and his posture. But vanity does not allow him to remove them. He would rather be a cripple than lose some height.
Posted by: August22 at September 30, 2006 4:42 PMThis piece probably comes as little surprise to a lot of people who have viewed the way France has behaved ever since the 1940's. If anything, this article shows why the EU needs to be dismantled so that the nations of Europe can be free to try different ways to deal with the Islamaniacs. Having France lead the EU with its "special understanding of Islam" will lead to a total disaster for Europe. Shame on Europe's politicians for forging this monstrosity- a lot of ordinary people there are not in favor of the EU and who can blame them (who would want the annual rotating Ramadamn riots in their country?). I can see why this idea of a united Europe came about after WW1 but it's safe to say that a non-united Europe will probably not bring about a WW3. France today has nearly accomplished what Napoleon failed to do but by riding atop the Islamic tiger France and the rest of Europe is bound to be inside that tiger's belly.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at September 30, 2006 5:22 PMThe French have been leading the push towards Arab countries for so long it is going to be difficult for them and for Europe to change direction.
France did side with Islam earlier than what is said in your post. In the 16 and 17 centuries they actively helped the Ottoman Empire against Spain and Austria. Examples of this: Kheir-ad-Din Barbarossa harboured his fleet in Marseilles. And the French did not go to help Vienna against the Ottomans in 1683, but launched a military campaign of conquest in German lands. The French have always wanted to lead Europe or to prevent the leader of the day to achieve its goals.
The last example was during the Iraqi crisis.
Well, they now have to live with the practical consequences of this at home. And the pity is that the problem is not only a French one, but a European one.
In Spain we now have Zapatero, whose active promotion at home and abroad of Muslim interests is clearly giving strength to the Eurabia project.
It seems to me, however, that the more assertive the Muslims become, the more likely a reaction is going to be provoked from the European populations. We should try to build the right way to channel this reaction when the time comes, so as to make sure it is -or tries to be- constructive and efficient in restablishing the right shape of Europe, as one of the pillars of the West.
Dr. Wolffenstein, to your quotation of Paul's letters to the Thessalonians, I can only say a heart-felt "Amen".
As for Graeco-Roman civilization, Christianity saved what was best in it. The reason we preserve Plato is that Socrates' challenges to the religion of the Athenians and gropings towards a species of monotheism appealed greatly to the church fathers, Greeks who followed a similar pilgrimage to Socrates', only when the fulness of time had brought forth the Messiah.
And it is certain that Europe will cease to be worth anything once it becomes Muslim.
Posted by: Kepha at September 30, 2006 6:43 PM"...What FedUp writes here is a crock. I bet he hasn't ever met a French person. "
don't dare assuming things about me. Being in italy I had MANY chances to meet french people.
They are snobbish and arrogant. First hand experience. We share a border with them and had several intercourses through centuries.
Frances' anti-americanism (and consequent anti-semitism) is a reality
France's grandeur is the main trait of their personality.
I rest my case.
Posted by: FedUp at September 30, 2006 6:48 PMYou may want to check out this link re. some VERY ALARMING jihadist activity right here in NYC at Queens College:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31571
Posted by: germaninamerica
Wonderful link. Once again in the name of diversity we have wonderful people spouting their wonderful ideas right in the very city that was victimized by such ideas just 5 years ago. When will such a place be Islamaniac free? After they explode a nuclear device and everything's gone?
Given the goofballs running France and given the fact they haven't received an Islamic "gift" like 9/11 (yet) I can just imagine what goes on in THEIR colleges.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at September 30, 2006 6:58 PMto germaninamerica:
I was living in NYC during the 9/11 period. I had been a member of the WWWAC (worldwide web artists consortium) listserv. After 9/11, I'd begun studying & hard, all-things Islam & posting questions...not long after I got late night threatening phone calls. I presume from some local (Queens, NYC) muslim.
Is it time for internment camps? Perhaps. Or, do we wait for some WMD attack?
Posted by: daughter of patriots at September 30, 2006 7:21 PMMore proof that muslim immigration needs to stop.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/09/arab-culture-may-be-from-another-solar.html
http://rantsand.blogspot.com/2006/09/observations-on-arabs.html
Posted by: Borg at September 30, 2006 8:46 PMWhat a load of bollocks.
Eurabia exists in pockets of major towns and cities across the land yes, but let’s not think for a moment that we are made to be Dhimmi in our land.
I have yet to find a doom merchant who can explain why 2.7% of the population makes for defeat. Especially considering the majority of that 2.7% are not jihad merchants.
This is all crap and the proof is the fact that every terrorist atrocity in Britain wakes up the people more. We won’t stand another fifty years of this, we will vote in a government that gets the job done eventually.
That’s the power of a democracy; it gets the people needed to do the job by the power of the people.
And you can shove religion up your arse too. Religion makes for bad judgement because it colours every decision. Shit we are fighting a religion and people think more religion is the answer!
I have no God like the Muslims have, but I have the brains to understand that decency and respect should be shown to others, no moment of enlightenment was needed for me to realise this, it came from a good upbringing given to me by good parents.
Britain won’t fall because it’s Godless! That’s utter BS. Britain may fall if the Muslim minority becomes a majority. And that as sod all to do with God.
And August 22nd, I don’t need heels to be as tall as you.
Almost twenty five percent of the book "Eurabia" is devoted to references to source material, including 9 appendixes. Bat Ye'Or - a conspiracy theorist? Pffft.
It is most comforting to be familiar with the extensive work of Bat Ye'Or and Fjordman and I am in their debt and forever greatful that they willingly share their extensive knowledge for our benefit.
Below are links to a video series posted at Harry's Place via YouTube titled
"No Excuses for Terror". It fits the topic somewhat . . .
Part 1 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbznv15JQ5M&eurl=
Part 2 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd30pyNZMMc&mode=related&search=
Part 3 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZGv0I4FSLg&mode=related&search=
Part 4 0f 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K10x-2TeiFk&mode=related&search=
I have yet to find a doom merchant who can explain why 2.7% of the population makes for defeat.
Tell me, what percentage of the passengers were terrorists? What happened to the plane?
When you have influence over the government and the media and the universities, a small minority can direct the nation. Remember what I said in another thread: radicals serve as a force multiplier.
Posted by: August22 at September 30, 2006 9:03 PMReligion is not the bad guy. It is one specific religion that is the problem here. So, if another religion can combat it, all the better. Indeed, I would love to see a crusade to the middle east started again. I, if given the chance, would partake. The destruction of islam is paramount to all other concerns on the planet, for islam is the only threat to world peace and freedom remaining on earth. And it is becoming more bellicose with each passing day.
Posted by: August22 at September 30, 2006 9:08 PMI was stationed in Ger. in the late 60's early 70's. I remember the "deals" the french set up with the arabs. France was losing it as a world power. They didn't like the way things were going since defeat in Vietnam.
I remember the deals were, that the France with their "special" agreements were going to be the power because "They knew the Arabs and the arabs had the oil." France didn't have any oil but they did have the "bomb" and were always going to have oil because of their agreements with the arabs.
They ran our military out of France into Germany. The French still had garrisons of military in Germany in the '70's. I bought tires and cheese there.
The French let the nose of the camel under the tent. Big mistake.
God willing, of course.
Posted by: credit man at September 30, 2006 10:07 PMWhen de Gaulle decided to cave in and give "algeria for the algerians," he abandoned the French settlers to the muslims and by doing so he became the sworn enemy of the OAS, the organization of military servicemen who felt that he had betrayed the French people for political expediency. They were right. They sought to kill De Gaulle from that point on. I wish they had.
As a young man I saw Frederick Forsyth's suspense novel, The Day of the Jackal, brought to film and I was rooting for the Englishman, played so well by Edward Fox, to succeed. Somehow, for some reason, I sympathized with his mission. I didn't know why then. Now I do.
Posted by: August22 at September 30, 2006 10:51 PMSelf righteous, glorialist, triumphalist Christians.
Self righteous, glorialist, triumphalist Muslims.
I see nothing desirable with either set, neither are appealing, both are stultifying and oppressive of the human spirit.
That which amelioriate a religion that was once every bit as oppressive, stultifying and exclusivist as Islam, was loss of secular power and competition (the englightment and reformation), were it not for those, there would be no difference, remember the inquisition claimed it's last victim in 1826, and Calvinists (and many a papist) would, if they could, stone and murder heretics, gays, feminists, pro choicers etc..The only reason they don't is for the same reason that muslims don't (in the west) and that is because we are a society of the laws of men, not someone's god. But it wasn't too long ago that Europe was indeed a society where the laws of god reigned by the force of the state (King), kind of like Iran.
I'll take my chances with a secular society thank you..there are no winners in the battle for god, and if it is a battle for god then the west loses because Islam is more fanatic and loves death.
A choice between suffering under the aegis of Christian self righteous fanaticism as a basis of law, or Shari'a is not a choice...and a pox on those westerners who turn, or try to turn, a battle to preserve a culture into a battle between gods...
I'll take Christianity. At least I can keep my religion, my booze, my dog, my woman, my clothes, my razors, my movies, my art, my diet, my music... the list is 3 pages long. Not to mention, my head. I get to keep my head. I lose all of that under islam. So will you.
There is no moral equivalency between Christianity and islam. They are diametric opposites.
Posted by: August22 at October 1, 2006 12:19 AM
I vaguely remember that de Gaulle, when asked if he was in favour of unrestricted Arab immigration into France, replied that they couldn't allow that, as then they would have to change the name of his home town from Colombey-les-deux-eglises to Colombey-les-deux-mosques.
Posted by: wallyUK at October 1, 2006 1:42 AMSorry, germaninamerica, but I agree with FedUp about Frenchmen in general. I lived in Belgium many years and worked in a multi-national corporation and all the French workers were hopelessly arrogant and shamelessly anti-American. Also, the "rude French waiter" is not a myth, I could tell you many stories. I'm glad your experiences were good, but I believe they were an anomaly.
Posted by: Xero G at October 1, 2006 1:52 AMGenevieve, may 'God's Rottweiler' (PBUH) give you many blessings...
Posted by: SCV at October 1, 2006 2:42 AMJust in case you were wondering, everything is fine down here in Australia.
Thanks
Mirabeau, the French revolutionary who voted affirmatively to kill the king, had it right when just before he was guillotined himself caught up in the "peste" he looked up at the heckling mobs in favor of his execution and stated contemptuously to his fellow French: "Chacque pays a le gouvernement qu’il merite!" (Every country has the government they deserve)! I think Mark Twain (who detested the French) defined the French as a nation of prostitutes.
We only see the tip of the iceberg when we find out after Sadaam that Chirac associates got billions from Sadaam discovered only afterwards in the oil for food program. Did this affect the French vote on the matter of war with Iraq? How much do French leaders take from Iran to affect their U.N. vote? Do other French politicians frequent bordellos? Perhaps they, like Jihadi, admire the Jihadi post life view.
I think some people are just pushing for another kind of religious fundamentalism by saying that Europe should become (more) Christian. It's probably just a reaction againts the Islamization of Europe, but replacing one kind of fundamentalism with another is a bad idea (you can see how it's working out in some parts of the US). I'm sure we can destroy excessive moral and cultural relativism without religion.
Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at October 1, 2006 8:15 AMThe traditional Imperial British approach to the middle east was to protect its interests in there by having westernised reformist government in power e.g. Iraq and Iran. The Israel question, if I remember rightly, was one that was discussed in the halls of Westminster in the 19th Century, and it involved carving out a scrap of land within the British Empire (Kenya, I think was a candidate). At the time, it was a problem that was seen to be solvable by the British on their own, but if memory serves me right, there were also questions of French sensitivities having to be addressed (because the French just always have to be considered).
In my view of world history, France has caused most of the bad trouble (the consequences of which the Anglosphrere has to then deal with). If such a thing occurs as Eurabia, then it is because France's incessive craving for World Importance has been exploited.
I see the EU as a combination of two things. A grasp for power by old communists and Liberal Elitists who fundamentally disagree with Government by the People (and this includes certain Britons who are selling their countrymen down the river i.e. the dismantling of Common Law). And as a vehicle by the French to insure their continued world influence (the French way is protectionism, and the best way to avoid competition is to make sure there isn't any). We have big enough problems without anyone trying to blame Muslims or Arabs. Let's not confuse the issue.
The people who would be governed by the people know that the first and foremost enemy is the silent enemy: the European Soviet. British soldiers are fighting the jihadists - the obvious enemy - in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in a different battle. They are distinct enemies, and contrary to appearences, they are both being resisted from this island.
Posted by: FREE LEE at October 1, 2006 10:06 AM"The only reason they don't is for the same reason that muslims don't (in the west) and that is because we are a society of the laws of men, not someone's god. "
nariz, you are boring and predictable, your knowledge of history and religion are lower than zero.
It's the liberal upbringing of christianity and othre relgions (except islam) that allowed the LAWS of men to be created.
100% of muslim countries are slumps
90% of non muslim countries have the chance to blossom
There's no need of other explanation.
I don't know if your leftist silly mind can understand this but there is a clear connection between protestant ethic and capitalism ( = progress).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism
http://humanities.cqu.edu.au/history/52148/modules/westC.html
Remember that one rule of monks was "pray and work" while for islam is "pray and rape/loot/murder"
Posted by: FedUp at October 1, 2006 10:38 AMI'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, and I'm also wary of taking things out of context and looking at only one data point.
Throughout the 20th century, the Great Powers--America, Europe, Russia--each tried to nurture a sphere of influence in the Muslim world from time to time. Bat Ye'or has focused solely on how Europe did this. But one could come up with an equally good "conspiracy theory" about America, starting with the ancient and sordid deal President Franklin Roosevelt made with the King of Saudi Arabia, continuing down to the support by America of jihadists against the USSR. Or a "conspiracy theory" about the Soviet support of Palestinian terrorists and Egypt after Britain withdrew.
I believe that Europe's special problem is that of the three Great Powers, Europe attempted to enter into deals with the Muslim world from a position of strategic weakness. You don't make allies (in the Muslim world or anywhere else) as a substitute for your own power to get things done on your own if necessary. If push came to shove, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were perfectly capable of standing up for their respective vital interests without their Muslim allies. Europe is not.
And Europe's own internal weaknesses have resulted in them getting the short end of the stick in the deals they made with the Muslim world. Despite the wishful thinking of European elites, military power, an assertive foreign policy and a vibrant, fast-growing economy still matter--that's what the world still respects. It's certainly what the Muslim world respects. The U.S. was able to negotiate with Muslim nations without abandoning its support of Israel, because the U.S. had the sheer power and will to make such a deal stick. Europe does not.
If Europe was more powerful on its own, it could have made equally favorable deals with the Muslim world too, which wouldn't lead to a "Eurabia" situation in which the Muslim world is gradually leading Europe instead of the reverse. For example, France could continue to pursue dealings with Iran, but insist that if Iran steps too far out of line on nuclear issues or other issues, France would slap them down hard. Europe has evidently failed to do this, which is why this partnership has been turned on its head, with Europe dancing to the Muslim world's tunes.
Posted by: Steven L. at October 1, 2006 11:47 AMFjorman:
When you state that: "This Eurabian policy, expressed in obscure wording, is conducted at the highest political levels and coordinated over the whole of the European Union. It spreads an anti-American and anti-Semitic Euro-Arab sub-culture into the fiber of every social, media and cultural sector. Dissidents are silenced or boycotted..."
you are so right. Anyone visiting Europe will not fail to be shocked by the ridiculous and alarming levels of anti-Americanism and anti-Israel ranting.
They forget their natural allies and run to the arms of the Muslim dragon.
Mert needs a fisking, so here goes...
"Eurabia exists in pockets of major towns and cities across the land yes, but let’s not think for a moment that we are made to be Dhimmi in our land."
## If you're not Dhimmi in your own land, how is it that a Muslim can scream at children holding a Christmas concert, then get an appointment to be a school inspector?
"I have yet to find a doom merchant who can explain why 2.7% of the population makes for defeat. Especially considering the majority of that 2.7% are not jihad merchants."
## Three words: Demography is Destiny. If over 1/3 of all children are muslim, then the population will, in time, be 1/3 muslim. Or are you claiming the French will discovery immortality?
"This is all crap and the proof is the fact that every terrorist atrocity in Britain wakes up the people more. We won’t stand another fifty years of this, we will vote in a government that gets the job done eventually.
That’s the power of a democracy; it gets the people needed to do the job by the power of the people."
## That's precisely Bat Ye'or's point: your democracy is being stolen from you by a combined Euro-Arab elite who's contempt for YOU is only exceeded by their contempt for Democracy.
"And you can shove religion up your arse too. Religion makes for bad judgement because it colours every decision. Shit we are fighting a religion and people think more religion is the answer!
I have no God like the Muslims have, but I have the brains to understand that decency and respect should be shown to others, no moment of enlightenment was needed for me to realise this, it came from a good upbringing given to me by good parents."
## America's Founding Fathers, arguably the smartest cohort in human history, created a nation in the image of the Christian God. A god tolerant enough to allow other, Greco-Roman influences (and who's to say they aren't His doing, as well?). America has been living off the interest of this Christian tradition for over two centuries, and the problems we have are caused PRECISELY by not following God's law.
"Britain won’t fall because it’s Godless! That’s utter BS. Britain may fall if the Muslim minority becomes a majority. And that as sod all to do with God."
## If that's true, why are your best and brightest queueing up to leave? Unlike you, they can see the arabic graffiti on the wall. Those who abandon religion, particularly Christianity, do NOT ascend to a state of moral enlightenment; they're just conditioning themselves to believe anything. If this statement is false, then why is Hollywood not looked upon as the spiritual capitol of the world?
You're whistling past your culture's own grave.
until i see otherwise i assume europe will do what it has always done, every century, for the last 1000 years. it will let a problem fester until one day the bloodletting starts on a scale that is unimaginable. say what will, europeans are very good at killing vast multitudes of people in very short order. each other or invaders it doesn't matter, they are real good at it. could not happen now you say--oh really--think yugoslavia.
if the day arrives that muslims are considered the problem buy railroad stock.
Dhimmi 101
Just returned from my prospective in-laws and decided to share this with you.
They are Iraqi Jews, and came to Israel in the '50s. They often entertain me with tales about life in Iraq, what it was like for the Jewish community, always needing to bribe their way out of trouble, always needing to have the upper hand.
It is an in-depth look at what it means to be dhimmi.
Example: I learnt what happened during WWII when the Iraqi's heard the Nazi's were gaining the upper hand. The Arabs thought they would soon be coming to Iraq and went on a killing spree. The Jews had to go into hiding and pay the governor well to ensure they were protected.
If they were foolish enough to leave their homes it was another thing. Jews were pulled from busses and forced to kneel in the gutters to have their throats slit. A dhimmi's life is worthless. Sound familiar? Today it would be broadcast on Al Jazeera and be downloadable from the Net.
Nothing has changed.
At the same time thousands of Jewish girls were kidnapped and sold off as slave-wives. They were never heard from until after the Gulf war when sanctions began to bite. Their Arab husbands sent them back to the Jewish community to beg for food and medicine. Of course they have all since disappeared. Gone. Nameless.
Later, we spoke about Europe - the growing sharia enclaves, the rage against the cartoons and the Pope; the riots in Belgium and France; the cancellation of the opera in Germany; and how the Queen of England has let a Muslim member of her staff take over a room in the palace for Ramadan prayers.
My girlfriend's mother had this to say, "Europe is beaten. The Muslims have won. They just don't know it yet. Hah. What can they do? In America they (the Muslims) do not have it so easy. Americans are tough. They won't give in, but Europe... ohh... I am sorry for the world."
Posted by: Ra5cal at October 1, 2006 11:48 PMpatrick neid:
Sadly, I think you may be correct. I have thought the same for what Europe may do. All they need is a demagogue to rise as head of the EU and all hell will break loose and Muslims will be rounded up and sent to concentration camps. Of course there will be rioting and blood flowing on the streets too.
It doesn't even need a head of the EU. Someone will rise in France or one of the countries there and the EU will fall apart.
Selfishly speaking, I hope America won't get involved. We'll take care of our own backyard regarding this problem.
Posted by: atheling at October 2, 2006 4:37 AMI'm not overly sure where to begin with this, but the article and the majority of comments have their basis in pure fantasy. I really wonder if the author or the majority of commentators have ever been to Europe. The author appears to take a number of unconnected facts and weave them together to provide a narrative that bears little or no relation to reality. Cherry picking is basically what it involves.
I presently live in France and it does not bear any resemblance to what the article describes, in fact it really made me laugh. France has a population of Muslims that is between 2.7 and 5.6% of the overall population, depending on how you count it. The Muslims have limited representation within government and are nowhere near gaining even an influence on the country, in fact they are probably the most dispossesed minority here. So, tell me, how are they going to take over? Consider one issue, wine and food. If you honestly think that the French are going to give up wine and pork, then you are sadly deluded. It's difficult enough for the government to try and limit smoking, the banning of wine, the real French religion is never going to happen.
Some of you also refer to the French revolution as being a bad thing. I am assuming some of you are from the states, therefore can you explain how your revolution against the Brits would have worked out without the French, who provided inspiration as well as boats and men.
The EU isn't going to be dissolved and isn't going to be overrun with radical Muslims. There is no grand conspiracy between the Arab states and the EU, like all geopolitics, there is a relationship, just like between the US and various Arab states (who set up, and still runs, Saudi Aramco). I know all this will disappoint all the eliminationists who inhabit this site, but I fear that France will outlast the US, not that any of us will still be here to see it.
As for 'arrogant French waiters', jesus, get some new cliché’s.
#1: The crisis will come earlier than some think. The reason is that so much of the immigrant population is on welfare. Even today, they are straining the social service system. The point where the middle class becomes unable to pay enough taxes to keep it afloat will come somewhere within the next 5-10 years. You think France had riots last year? Wait for the day the welfare checks don't arrive on schedule.
#2: One has to wonder what the European elites get out of the deal. If they were not getting something of value from Eurabisation, they would be less enthusiastic about it. If they felt their own personal welfare threatened, you would see something happening. This suggests that they see themselves gaining something from the trend.
Two possibilities suggest themselves. The first is that the enemy of the ruling elite is a prosperous middle class, for the best of the middle class will aspire to enter the elite, and in the process supplant some of the weaker members of the elite. By tying down the middle class with high taxes to support a growing welfare state, it's hard to accumulate the capital needed to climb out of the middle class. And if the middle class needs to be kept in its place and paying its taxes, you need a supply of thug enforcers who enjoy violence and have no affinity for the (native) middle class.
The second possible benefit to the European elite is suggested by the lifestyles of the Arab elite relative to the common populace. I wonder how easy it would be to secure the loyalty of a European commissioner with the offer of a luxury apartment in Saudi Arabia, stocked with his own private harem, which he could visit whenever he wished? And where he could do whatever he wanted, secure in the knowledge that nobody in Europe would know (as long as he kept certain people happy)?
Posted by: PapaBear at October 2, 2006 8:39 AMWhoever suggests that this is a conspiracy theory should read Simon J. Nuttall´s book: European Political Co-Operation; Oxford University, 1992
Posted by: Guggi at October 2, 2006 11:02 AMSteve L.:
"If Europe was more powerful on its own, it could have made equally favorable deals with the Muslim world too, which wouldn't lead to a "Eurabia" situation in which the Muslim world is gradually leading Europe instead of the reverse."
Here's the problem I have understanding your analysis.
If Europe is so weak that it has got to align in a subserviant position with a greater world power, why align so deeply with the Muslim world, rather than the US? Why by and large alienate the US for the sake of the relationship with the Muslim world?
Your analysis makes a lot of sense, aside from this factor. I think there must be an additional problem beyond Europe's weakness. Weakness means it is going to have to be subserviant to some ally (or radically change), it doesn't explain why the power dominating Europe is the Muslim world rather than the US.
To put it somewhat crudely, I'd guess that the additional factor is that the global totalitarianism/top-down power ideology prominent in the Muslim world is closer to the global socialist/utopian ideology of the European political/intellectual class than is the free trade/ market cowboy ideology of the US.
Posted by: mrsmomomoto at October 2, 2006 1:39 PMYet Gerard Araud, the outgoing French Ambassador to Israel feels hurt and angry that Israelis dislike the French and can't imagine why other countries get let off the hook but not France.
Neither the Ambassador nor the interviewing journalist felt France's recent acrobatics re: Lebanon and UNIFIL deserved mention.
Posted by: deegee at October 3, 2006 3:46 AMPermit me to quote the following blog;
http://simulev.blogspot.com/
I have added two small pieces in swedish.
----------------------------
The EuroIslam project, by blogger 'simulev'
Dear Readers, I kid you not, Swedish government in mid 1990:ies sat up a government task force of auto self destruction of Swedish culture. However there seems to be a shortage of public documents today to study that closer. The name was the Euro Islam project. Today Helle Hamas Klein brags about them:
******
"Eliasson var med på Lena Hjelm-Walléns tid när Sverige initierade det så kallade euro-islamprojektet som betonar vikten av dialog.I Iran-frågan behövs mer av dialog, tycker Eliasson. En militär lösning ter sig fullständigt mardrömslik”, konstaterar han."
[Den här figuren vill man nu (oktober 06) samfällt över partigränserna ha som utrikesminister! "Han sägs ju
vara så kunnig!"]
******
in the main political editorial at Scandinavia’s largest daily, and that the newly appointed “we don’t hate Israel, we only advocate dialogue with hell-bent Jewkillers” foreign Minister Eliasson was part of setting it up.
International appraised author Bat Ye’or has written several books, where she is mentioning this. However, Ye’or does not read and understand native Swedish. I do. She should be happy that she can’t understand the words coming from the Swedish nation who plays Russian roulette with Swedish future.
[...]
******
http://www.riksdagen.se/Webbnav/index.aspx?nid=3322&dok_id=GT01UU8
På svenska finns en diger lunta (id= GT01UU8) om 190 A4-sidor att tillgå från Sveriges Risdag. Det är Utrikesutskottets betänkande 2005/06:UU8 med titeln: Vår relation till den muslimska världen i EU:s grannskapsområde . (Report of the Standing committee of foreign affairs 2005/06:UU8: Our relation to the muslim world in the EU neighbourhood). Redogörelsen är trist men välskiven; den är apologistisk helt i Espositos och Karen Armstrong anda. Intressanta är de avsnit som handlar om hur man i det fördolda via Euroislamprojektet och Barcelonaprocessen arbetar på att islamisera Europa! Förståsigpåare som det hänvisas till och som citeras är till exempel Nationalencyklopedien, Sigrid Kahle, Ann Sofie Roald, Jan Hjärpe, Mattias Gardell m.fl! Betänkandet har sannolikt tillkommit för att på ett lämpligt sätt indoktrinera svenska riksdagsledamöter - om de gitter läsa igenom luntan - men nog också för motivera ett vidlyftigt kringresande i Mellanösten, som utskottets företagit på skattebetalarnas bekostnad.
******
The workgroup and the committee behind this report/essay does not have any own historical expertise, and the production is gathered from second hand sources, first most texts from the National Enclopedia, Jan Hjärpe and Anne Sofie Roald
Read that summary part again. It is in fact what defines the rest of their essay. In short, the parliament work group now claims in the year 2006 they didn’t know anything about the religion of Islams teachings from the holy quaran. This is coming after WTC bombing, Madrid bombing, London bombing, torching of the Swedish Embassy in Syria, while Internet has been flooded with hate snuff videos coming from various Islamic groups, sawing off heads of screaming innocent civilians previous years.
Leader of the” bridge-building” committee (I have so far been able to identifie one voice in the committee that is Pro-Israel democracy, coming from the Peoples Party), is the social democrat, who was taken by surprise when the Swedish embassy went up in flames. Berndt Ekholm.
Who? Well according to parliament suggestions he proposes eagerly to hand out Swedish citizenship to “Stateless Palestinians”. He however seems to be against “bridge building” when it comes to civilian Israeli societies close to Arabic villages, which he fiercely protest under excuses of “illegal settlements”. He is a busy man, a member of the Swedish social democratic section of Brotherhood, the ones that defended the invitation of Jewkillers from Hamas while fishing for Muslim voters exposed at SVT, and chairman of the Swedish Institute Alexandria. Yes the same institute Bat Ye’or has exposed.
So they now had to get second hand opinions, this time mainly coming from Jan Hjärpe, infamous for being the previous public defender of nazihatred Radio Islam. Oh I just had to goggle on the other name as well, tada, she is a convert to Islam, married to a "Palestinian", living in dhimmi Malmö working as a teacher. Here 'Christians and Jews shall die' she apparently has warned about the “small fraction of radical Muslims”. Wonder if she did that also in the government work group? Oh, the task force hired one of the locally most well-known apologists for Islamic barbarity and Muslim atrocities, Jan Hjärpe. Ah, but now the observant reader might claim that that does not, no cannot, include all Muslims, and stating so might be “Islamophobic” in the Political Correct disease?
I’d better read again testimonial of how Muslims infiltrate top US power agency’s. Nope, no resembles what so ewer to what goes on in Sweden. Lets do a test. All Muslims that subsequently claim they are “moderate” should be forced to publicly state in front of recording media:
We as muslims condem ALL terrorism against innocent, especially unarmed civilian Jews as Israelis and Americans, people.
...any Muslim who refuses to state this simple test, but still resides in the taxpayers welfare of western sphere should be regarded as traitors to civilized human kind, and subsequently treated accordingly deported out from such countries with one way tickets to Saudi Arabia. Here is a small handful out of 1,3 billions good start of civilized Muslims.
According to the fellow onlooker Fjordman that asks himself if Sweden may in the future take the route of civil war? I beg to differ with him somewhat, it probably already has started, and the first victims are, as in most wars, the Swedish children. Since the Swedish youths now are at the frontline of this war, how would they react if they were allowed to vote? 9 Swedish daily’s did a opinion poll amongst the 9th graders. Media labeled it as “cold interest in politics”. A majority that had interest in politics, would vote for the Swedish democrats, that has criticism against current immigration politics. After thses findings, the female reporter interviewed center party’s youth section and leader today at some radio station i tuned in, the reporters voice crackled with horror bursted out “But this is truly serious” when the center youth leader answered and claimed that young people of today may be drawn to “radial politics” Well, that specific party has recently have been blessed with parliament aspiring youngster claiming to be a “Palesinian”, while admitting being born in Lebanon, whom just proudly at his blog proudly testified:
But there is many other things that I am proud over. I was the first that went public in national media and defended a meeting with Hamas politicians and the civil society in Sweden, with my party backing me.
A large number of those new generation of propagandist has Arab sounding names nowadays, since the latest infiltrations to high power positions has infested societies at large. They all seem to pretend that they really care about the “Palestinian children” and for instance such Swedish funding are to go to school books in a war zone, where children are teached to become walking bombs. Meanwhile, there has been constant complains and alarms that Swedish school books are outdated and falls apart in Swedish Schools, when politicians in charge gladly throws away Swedish taxpayers money to fund terrorist organizations activities abroad. This while Swedish children are terrorized, robbed at deadly knife point, mocked for their Swedish origins, and daily gang raped at Swedish soil in a rapidly increasing upward spiral of violence. This goes on -while the immigrants demands respect, and the Muslims demands changing the Swedish laws -to fully adopt the women oppressing anti democratic theocracy of sharia laws. It was not like this once upon a time, i.e only 20 years ago before the, by politicians calculated immigrant wave, ask any remaining Swede.
The war has already started at alien suburbs, in the Swedish schools, that are destroyed and burned to the grounds, the few remaining Swedish girls are labeled as “whores” (what grown up would accept that at work every day?) and the ones in charge puts a blind eye to it before the upcoming national elections hoping that their imported Muslim voting cattle will grant them impunity .
Remember the name, the Swedish Euro Islam project, founded mid 1990. We will soon see the results in the screaming news headlines again of the multicultural exchange.
Simulev -Swedish anti-Israel bias!
http://simulev.blogspot.com/
posted by simulev at 3:00 AM
Monday, May 22, 2006
americaningermany stated:
"WHERE, oh WHERE is this in our MSM????
I have heard nothing, and expect to continue to hear nothing."
MSM? The main stream media is compromised in the EU and I wouldn' at all be surprised to the same of the US media as well.
Read Fjordman's Part II to this article. He outlines variations on a 12-point strategy to "establish an Islamic government on earth" – identified as "The Project".
A"harmonised education system" in the EU gives birth to a new generation sensitized to develop "intercultural competencies" which will train new generations in institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations, journalists, and Western "progressive" organizations that share similar goals.
If you haven't been a frequent reader of Fjordman's work in the past, you may have missed his illuminating reports.
Here are links to his archived works:
Fjordman's blog (now inactive)
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/
Fjordman files (updated articles, courtesy of Klein Verzet)
http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/2006/02/fjordman-files.html
Two of Fjordman's articles immediately are called to mind:
Immigrants are “waging war” against Swedes
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/03/war-against-swedes.html
Rape of Sweden
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/12/immigrant-rape-wave-in-sweden.html
fed up: in describing the French I think you meant to say "delusions of grandeur."
I agree.
Posted by: pythagoras at October 5, 2006 3:18 PMComments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)