|
A new essay by the prolific and profound European essayist Fjordman:
In my criticism of the European Union, I have been accused of being too positive towards the nation state. It is true that Western civilization isn't exclusively about nation states. The Renaissance took place in the city states of Italy while nation states were non-existent or weak. It is also true that there is a potentially destructive side to nationalism as opposed to defensive patriotism. However, our current democratic system is tied to nation states. The EU didn't cause all of Europe's problems, but it made some of them worse, and added a few new ones. If the EU collapsed tomorrow, we would still be in a lot of trouble, but at least we would have a fighting chance. I have heard a number of people say that "Europe is already lost." I do agree with them that if the political situation remains as it is today, then yes, Europe is lost to Islam, or at least significant parts of Western Europe, maybe not all of Eastern Europe. But I'm not so sure whether the political situation will, or has to, remain as it is today.Tens of millions of ordinary citizens are now rapidly waking up to the full scale of the Islamic threat. The problem is that many Western Europeans have a sense of hopelessness because they need to confront so many enemies at the same time. Let's call them Enemy 1, 2 and 3. Enemy 1 is Islam and Muslim immigration. Enemy 2 is the anti-Western bias of our media and academia.
Enemy number 2 is common to all Western nations, also the USA, Canada and Australia. Enemy 1 is also common to all Western nations, but more powerful in Europe because of sheer numbers and proximity to the heartland of the Islamic world.
Enemy 3 consists of Eurabians and EU federalists, who are unique to Europe and make the situation more critical here than it is in North America or Australia.
The feeling among many of those Europeans who now understand the threat is that we can face down and defeat one of these enemies, maybe two, but not all three at the same time. We need a major shake-up in the political situation, something that is visible to everybody, to demonstrate that change is possible. The downfall of the European Union could do the trick.
Muslims may actually have done us a favor. The massive infiltration of Leftist and anti-Western rhetoric that now permeates our media and academia predates Islam, but the failure to identify the threat posed by Muslim immigration has exposed it. Many ordinary citizens still remember that our so-called academic experts and media columnists hailed Multiculturalism and Muslim immigration, which are turning out to be the most massive mistakes in modern Western history. This will sooner or later trigger a backlash.
The bad news is that all our various enemies are closely tied together. The good news is also that all our various enemies are closely tied together, and may all go down if one of them falls.
We can start with the Muslims. Their greatest flaw is that they are insanely aggressive and can't handle criticism or mockery at all. A
smart move would be to deliberately provoke Muslims as much as humanly possible. The more they rage and rant and threaten, the more they will discredit the ones who said it was a good idea to let them into our countries and that everybody who said otherwise were "racists."
One possibility is to simply demonstrate that the welfare state is no longer able to provide "security" to non-Muslim citizens. Every time somebody gets death threats from Islamic Jihadists, or Muslims burn cars and tires in the streets, it displays the utter failure of the authorities to protect us, and thus the futility of paying high tax rates in order to prop up a system that is in reality already dead.The welfare state is now just a big pyramid scheme where Leftist parties take our money and give it to Muslim immigrants in return for
voter support. The welfare state in fact provides insecurity, since it is used to fund the Muslim colonization of the continent.I want European citizens to hear our politicians say that we need Muslim immigration to fund the welfare state, and then in the next second see "Multicultural youths" shouting Allahu akbar! and throwing Molotov cocktails at the fire brigades in Paris, Birmingham, Rotterdam or wherever. There you go: Your future pensions, ladies and gentlemen.
Bottom line is: Our political elites are either lying to us or lying to themselves, and in both cases they are unfit to run our affairs. Westerners "need" Muslim immigration just like we "need" a hole in the head, which is incidentally what we may end up with.
Our most serious underlying problems cannot be solved by immigration. Immigration may actually worsen the low indigenous birth rates, because it breaks down cultural confidence and thus the desire to have children if it feels like our countries don't have a future.
I've heard the term "Europhobe" being used of those who criticize the European Union. EU officials are busy rewriting our history books to insert Islam as a "natural part of European culture," despite the fact much of the history of Europe since Charles Martel in the 8th century has been about defending the continent against Islam. The real "Europhobes," those who hate or fear Europe, are those who run the EU, not those who are against it.
I find it personally insulting that unelected bureaucrats in Brussels should be allowed to define what constitutes Europe or European values. The EU is in reality the anti-European Union, since it is selling out the continent to our sworn enemies. It needs to go.
I've heard people say they are afraid that if the EU collapses, we might see a resurgence of aggressive nationalism. Frankly, I can't totally discount the possibility. But we can't think like that right now. This is now a matter of survival.
It's like saying that you won't have surgery that is needed to save your life because there's a possibility that you may get an infection later. In the choice between certain death now and possible problems at some point in the future, I take possible problems later.
A period of turbulence can be reversed. Islamization never can, or at least only with extreme difficulty. I want to prevent Islamization at literally ANY cost. And frankly, it's ridiculous to worry that the collapse of the EU might lead to fanaticism. The EU is facilitating fanaticism in the form of sharia and neo-barbarism in Europe right now.
The EU is bad for at least three reasons. First, because many of the EU elites are deliberately trying to create a common entity with the Arab world. Second, because the process of creating a pan-European federation has led to suppressing all traditional cultural, religious and national instincts that protected Europe from Islam before. And third, because the borderless nature of the EU makes both legal and illegal migration of Muslims more difficult to control from a practical point of view.
We could perhaps use NATO to control potential nationalist extremists. During the Cold War, Western European countries had a common enemy, which helped curtail national rivalries. Maybe we could do the same now, by creating a common front against Islamic aggression. But Americans should insist that Europeans ditch the welfare state to pay for decent militaries. The Americans have succeeded almost too well in pacifying parts of Europe after WW2, and may have killed Western Europe with kindness.
Unfortunately, most Europeans have never even heard of the term Eurabia. That's why I decided to write the Eurabia Code and post it online, to give my small contribution towards exposing this betrayal. I simply refuse to accept that the battle is already lost. Individuals matter. Willpower wins wars.
We are dealing with psychological warfare, first and foremost. Relatively few people have actually been killed so far. Muslims are adept at psychological warfare, let's give them credit for that. And right now the momentum is in their favor. That's why we need some symbolic event that signals that the tide is turning, and we need to create a positive vision of how this post-Eurabian Europe will look like. Hope is important, and Europe now suffers from a lack of hope. Yes, the current political paradigm of über-liberalism and the Multicultural welfare state is dead, it just hasn't been officially announced yet. But that doesn't have to mean that Europe is dead.
I'm tired of hearing about how something is inevitable. That's why we ended up in this mess in the first place, by listening to the mantra that Multiculturalism was inevitable, that mass immigration was inevitable, that Euro-integration was inevitable etc. It was all lies. Europe still has the means to win this, the question is whether she has the will.
We have grown weak, complacent and pathetic and will have to reassert own identity if we want to survive. Maybe is some strange way, Western Europe needs to go through her own period of colonization and de-colonization to move on and leave the colonial period behind. There are now probably more Algerians in France than there ever were Frenchmen in Algeria. Surely, if it could be called "national liberation" and "de-colonization" when the French were kicked out of Algeria, the same rules should apply if the French were to kick Algerians out of France? Or what about Pakistanis out of Britain?
Is that racist, you say? Well, Leftists always hail any struggle for self-determination for indigenous people against colonialist aggression. Then they wouldn't mind if Europeans were to exercise this right, too? Or do we detect a double standard saying that indigenous people have the right to self-preservation, unless the indigenous people happen to be white? That would be racist, wouldn't it?
Posted by Robert at October 26, 2006 3:04 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I've been saying screw the EU for years. EU is a joke, and not a funny one at that.
Posted by: EliasAlucard at October 26, 2006 3:25 PMKeep the EU, but only if Fjordman heads it. Then things would be done right! Why he isn't required reading at the EU is a crime.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 26, 2006 3:27 PMI second that.
Posted by: EliasAlucard at October 26, 2006 3:32 PM"suppressing all traditional cultural, religious and national instincts that protected Europe from Islam before..."
The European Union and its allies have destroyed the immune system of Europe; it is like an AIDS virus that leaves Western Europe open to Islamic infection.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at October 26, 2006 3:40 PMI don't think EU is the problem.
France is dhimmi but france is able to make the rest of eu dhimmi. Think about it. If some influential state with balls start beating down muslims the rest of eu will follow.
EU allows states to ape each other, we'd like just ape the best behaviours, not the worst.
Europe is like a very old fashioned village. Everybody is looking at what the other is doing to either criticize or copy except france who thinks it's perfect. If one or more influential state start deporting muslims or so something about it, the rest of the monkeys will follow.
I look forward to letting ukraine and belarus in EU, more christian countries and more former communist countries should guarantee us, a better immigration and more will to save their roots (and ours)
Posted by: StillFedUp at October 26, 2006 4:01 PMBang on, the EU has to go along with the UN.
The EU is a sellout and is everything that this article has stated. Its open border policy teamed with its willingness to bring Turkey into the fold is treasonous and suicidal.
This link is an excellent article tying very closely to what you have read above, however it states facts that show that action is needed right now!
http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20061023_134898_134898#continue
I truly worry about my family in Europe, particularly in Greece. We are right next to one of the worst countries on earth and are guaranteed to be mired in a quagmire sooner than later.
If Europeans don't stand up now, it truly will be over, and the EU needs to be the first casualty in this war if we are to have a chance.
Niv
Posted by: niv at October 26, 2006 4:10 PMFor reasons that I still can't figure out, I haven't been able to post on jihadwatch for months.
Anyhow I would like to comment on the article about Somalia waging jihad against Ethiopia.
Ethiopia is a Christian country that has stood its ground against the Muslim hordes for centuries now. She is constantly under attack in one way or other by her neighbors. She has had her fresh water supply intentionally cut off by the Sudanese gov't, and yet she's still there going it alone.
Can anyone here think of a better place for our resources that are in Iraq and Afghanistan to be placed. Why are we fighting and dying to preserve Islamic states where they were going to be one way or the other? These people in Iraq and Afghanistan know what they want, and it has nothing to do with our way of life.
Now why wouldn't we have these resources in place to protect a Christian country. Let's start one at a time defending those that should be defended, instead of those who should be attacked.
Once done here, kick those bastard Albanians out of Kosovo and give it back to its rightful owners the Serbs. If we are to partition any country in the Balkans it should be Bosnia, give the Serbs their own independent Serb Bosnia.
We as a society and culture of westerners have to stop our self loathing and defend those that are with us, not those against us.
Niv
Posted by: niv at October 26, 2006 4:23 PM"We as a society and culture of westerners have to stop our self loathing and defend those that are with us, not those against us."
Posted by: niv
-------
Not going to happen, too much political correctness in the world, and left wingers. Oh and not to forget those "secular humanists" too. They're probably the most annoying part in this.
Posted by: EliasAlucard at October 26, 2006 4:36 PMFjordman should also mention Council of Europe and European Convention of Human Rights and numerous UN declarations that limit the options to deal with muslim immigration. EU is only part of the problem.
Besides, the measures required vary by country. The situation concerning muslim immigration is worst in what the Americans call 'Old Europe' meaning the founding members of EU. From those it is possible to say that France and Netherlands have biggest acute problems with immigrant population.
It is not entirely unreasonable to predict that in the worst affected countries like the Netherlands, the most productive part of the population will emigrate leaving the ageing indigenous people to live together with young and growing muslim population.
If the most productive part of the population leaves the country, the welfare state will soon collapse which spells certain doom for the country in question. The same phenomenon has already taken place in immigrant ghettoes of Western Europe in a smaller scale. The indigenous population has fled from immigrant suburbs to greener pastures outside the cities.
Eastern European countries are not popular destinations for muslim immigration because they are relatively poor and the welfare state has not developed to the same level as in the 'Old Europe' (and hopefully never develops). Currently, there is large scale emigration taking place from countries like Poland to Western Europe, especially UK.
Posted by: Saatanan Islam at October 26, 2006 4:39 PMSounds a lot like Mark Steyn, who, happily, has a wider audience.
Posted by: pok at October 26, 2006 4:45 PMMark Steyn is just saying what most people are thinking--only too afraid to admit it in public.
Posted by: EliasAlucard at October 26, 2006 4:47 PMLook, it's not exactly skin color. The British empire has been pro-Muslim, pro-Arab since 1920 at least. In India they have been pro-Muslim against the Hindus. They favored Muslims over Copts in Egypt, Arabs over Jews, Musllims over Hindus in India, Turks over Greeks in Anatolia. These conflicts were not matters of skin color difference. The British Establishment favored Muslims because they were Muslims, not because of skin color which was a red herring brought in later. I advise you and everyone not to fall for the skin color red herring.
BTW, the Bolsheviks too favored Muslims over non-Muslims, as in Anatolia, Armenia, etc.
Posted by: Eliyahu at October 26, 2006 4:55 PMon bolsheviks, see:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/10/bolsheviks-for-jihad-genocide-stalins.html
eliyahu your right the british are pro muslim i got no idea why but the british would help muslims but i know noticed something when pakistan was created it was during the british empire also N Cyprus was occupied by the turks becuase the british handed it to them on a plate after there british empire there And also it was hte british who restricted the Assyrians from having there own state in Iraq the British even tried to stop jews from returning to isreal the british Empire was no good as all it did was create muslim states
Posted by: Greek Gurl at October 26, 2006 5:37 PMTwo problems with Fjordman's otherwise good essay:
1) The amorphous movement of Anti-"Globalism" while apparently nationalistic also tends to be anti-Western and anti-American, as well as conspiracist.
2) Fjordman writes: "Tens of millions of ordinary citizens are now rapidly waking up to the full scale of the Islamic threat." I'd like to see the evidence of this. The only major non-anecdotal evidence that can be adduced for this comes from polls; but many of those ordinary citizens who answer poll questions in apparently anti-Islamic fashion may in fact be thinking anti-tiny-minority-of-extremists-who-have-nothing-to-do-with-Islam-per-se.
Powerful stuff, Fjordman. It's ironic that the USA pushed for a European Common Market as an economic parallel to NATO, hoping that such an entity would keep the French and Germans from going at each other again--and hence necessitating a third American military intervention in Europe.
Greek Gurl, I regret to say that Northern Cyprus was not of Britain's making. Turkey had long vowed to intervene on behalf of the Turkish Cypriotes should Enosis take place between Cyprus and Greece. In the 1970's the Greek military government pressed Enosis, and Turkey cashed in on its promise. I regret to add that Washington, instead of playing the honest broker between Athens and Ankara, turned a blind eye after its proper noises went unheeded. As for Old Blighty, the Brits left in the 1950's after a fairly intensive Greek Cypriote guerrilla campaign.
BTW, in 1991, I heard an American diplomat quote a Turkish diplomat on the Soviet collapse: "Within a few years, America will appreciate empires."
But, as for other things, Washington's biggest fear at this stage of the game is that Islamicist radicalism may well provoke such a European backlash that the Mediterranean, Aegean, and Black Seas will become a military frontier--with the post-1991 Balkans and Caucasus crises being only the first act.
I do agree let us scrap the EU. If it actually worked for european interests it would be a good thing. But like all good ideas they almost never work when put to practice.
As for the British Eliyahu is right. I figure they always favoured muslims since there is no democracy in islamic culture. It is easier to bribe one man and make hime rich rather than trade with an intelligent group of people fairly.
It is sad that the european nations for the last 100 years have favoured muslims over non muslims. Maybe now that europe is weak everyone will realize they should stop seeing other europeans and jews as a threat and start sticking together.
The ironic thing is the people who play lip service to fighting racism and then want to implement policies that favour muslims are really the racists. They believe muslims can be favoured and not be a threat because they will be perpetually weaker. Now that the tide is turning and the european way of life is coming to an end maybe people will wake up.
Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at October 26, 2006 6:22 PMStillFedUp.
I posted this on the J/W thread about the riots, but it fits here nicely.
IMHO the only thing on the planet more cunningly deceitful than a muslim is a frenchman. If I came across a gang of “youths” attacking a frenchman I would sit, pop a top on a beer, eat a BBQ pork sandwich and wait patiently until they finished with him. After I finished my meal I would deal with the “youths”. The french have continuously fought us in the UNoften siding with muslims. They helped saddam attempt to build an nuclear reactor, violated the UN resolutions against iraq, violated the UN weapon embargo and supplied the current insurgents with advanced night vision gear, antitank and anti air missiles, screw the french. I would never risk a single American life to save or even help them again, EVER. They are directly responsible from some of our troops dying. They are also responsible for their current problems, they encouraged muslim immigration and continuously refused to crack a few heads to control them. Their inaction allowed the muslims to spread across Europe. The french will get no pity from me, I will dance on their graves. Is it clear what I think of the french? When only muslims are left in france it will be a better place and we can deal with the muslims at that time. Until then stop crying about a bunch of kids letting off some steam.
Before I get attacked with a “We are all in this together speech”, france has picked its side, I respect their choice but I am on the other side
Thc collapse of Europe? The "End of History And The Last Man"?
I'm still waiting for the 90's to make the 60's look like the 50's!
Posted by: hasan salami at October 26, 2006 6:51 PMAbsolutely "spot on"!
First to be confronted should be - "enemy 2" "the anti-Western bias of our media and academia" as it now functions as the main propaganda warfare operations promoting "liberalism" and pan-islamistism. To disable this enemy would facilitate collapse of the "psychological warfare" strategy being waged against all who are pro-Western-Civilization and anti-islamists.
Islamists may be good at the psychological strategy - but any of their successes are due in large part to the complicit, fully aware "Enemy 2" and without it - the islamists can be dealt with more eaisly.
Most likely the key has to do with non-stop direct inflow of massive money from the chief protagonists (i.e. saudis and similar).
Perhaps massive boycott of all media (and any and all related forms and functions) may help to disable "Enemy 2". In the USA - as many pro-Western-Civilization proponents should demand immediate end of any degree/form of government funding/subsidies for all academic programs, tax-exempt anti-West "political" organizations, and any organization- be it deemed
"religious" or otherwise -which call for any degree of any form of anti-Western preferential status/protections/modifications to existing legal codes (i.e. "sharia", and any and all forms of islamization to any degree).
"We have grown weak, complacent and pathetic and will have to reassert own identity if we want to survive. ..."
As well as cowardly - the people selected to temporarily hold positions of authority -who are mistakingly termed "leaders" - are representative of our majority character. The vast majority of "leaders" in the West now more and more exhibit this characteristic of cowardice. Take for example their now-typical responses to violent islamist actions (e.g. France, Spain, England, USA...). The "terrorists" -aided largely by "liberals" in media and academia (who consider their enemy he same - i.e. Western Civilization) have won many many battles already and know and understand with whom they must deal and how to effect those who will give them what they want -i.e. respond in cowardly appeasement to islamic (liberal enabled) violence and terror. As these "leaders" do respond to islamists with appeasement and force "pc" upon their own kind - they also are -outright- aiding "Enemy 3". In other words - they are not only cowards - but are also traitors and they should be apprised of their status -loudly, often and non-stop until they realize their errors (if possible) or give up their temporary positions of influence and authority.
The average person - has been subjected to massive decades-long conditioning by "Enemy 2" in accepting such a coward's stance - by means of what can be collectively termed "political correctness" -i.e. mental illness - which has spread to every aspect of life -causing nothing but doubts about what to think and when to act - worst of all when facing survival or death situations. Again - disable "Enemy 2" and this may be turned around.
But all actions which need to be taken require as many possible adherents to pro-Western-Civilization as well as global anti-Islamists and soon as possible.
Hint - don't wait for "leaders" of government, academia, media to move in the right direction. They have proven over and over again that they can't or won't. They have proven that they don't get it -i.e. islamic war against Western Civilization and all non-islamic Civilizations is now in progress.
A very convincing essay- however, will it ever be read in Europe?
From what I can tell (and my experience is limited) it seems like the concept of "freedom of speech" is almost non-existant in Europe.
Why are Europeans choosing fear instead of action?
Why don't Europeans want to save their way of life?
Why have they stopped thinking and swallowed the lies of Islam?
Listen the most common thing i hear is the EU is failing, nation members cannot keep cohesion and the chance of a federal state of europe is about as likely as islam turning to peaceful ways (even France said NON when it voted)
in short the left/liberal dream is dead in the water, of course the various left/lib governments are still trying desperately to cling onto the dream, and via the backdoor they are attempting still to push it through
BUT their days are numbered in europe, the swing back to the right of politics is under way, in Britain barring electoral fraud (mainly commited here by muslims btw) its a dead cert that the conservative party is about to win the next election
THINGS WILL CHANGE, Because they have to and currently Muslims are getting a hard time here in blighty and rightfully so, even their political puppets New Labour have casually turned against them
it can only lead onto other better things, and i definitively agree that all it takes is just one western european nation to start removing the islamic scum and the rest will follow suit
the only thing left is who is going to start the ball rolling? France though maligned above is looking the very best possibility as french people (not their government) are doggedly french and simply cannot or will not conceed to surrender being french when the alternative is Islam
it'll start there, and from them it will spread, as nation state upon nation state elects in right wingers who will then not be bound by lib/left idealism
we havent lost yet, just one person in power with national interests at heart will see europe ultimately de-islamified
the only true potential European Union is via the unified christian churches in europe
thats about all that will ever happen by way of union
Beyond that maybe one terrible islamic terrorist atrocity with the dead count in the thousands will see actual war break out with them here
hopefully it doesnt come to that, but if it does there's plenty of non islamics ready and willing and able to take them down
's' asked:
"A very convincing essay- however, will it ever be read in Europe?"
Indeed. Jihadwatch & dhimmiwatch (w/ Fjordman) are daily must read sites. Are these sites translated into additional languages for global consumption? If not, what will it take to do so?
I notice that english is not the first language of some of the commenters and want to welcome each and every one enthusiastically.
Interest in these sites is growing and should be encouraged with equal enthusiasm.
Posted by: miira at October 26, 2006 7:24 PMOne good thing about the EU is that just by signing a piece of paper Blair managed to allow 600,000 Polsh and Latvian immigrant workers into the UK in a single year. All those Muslim women spent years battery producing babies and have hardly matched that. They must be wondering if it was worth the effort.The government has lost its nerve qabout allowing Rumanians and Bulgarians in, when they join. They'd only expected 40,000 Poles and are applying strict limits this time. It's a pity in one way: both countries spent centuries under Ottomsn rule and their inhabitants should have few illusions about the religion of peacr.
Also the democratic deficit of the EU has been a major topic of political discourse for years. The French (and their poodles, the Belgians) have ben far and away the most authoritarian, anti-democratic and manipulative force working within it have ben losing influence for nearly a decade and I think things can only improve in that respect. The main problem with the EU at the moment is to keep Turkey out - the next half-dozen years are therefore critical.
"We can start with the Muslims. Their greatest flaw is that they are insanely aggressive and can't handle criticism or mockery at all. A smart move would be to deliberately provoke Muslims as much as humanly possible."
This needs to be done in every country. Desecrate a few Korans in front of mosques, laugh at the walking burlap sacks, post Mohammad cartoons, make the Muslims go nuts and force the left and the multi-culti's and the EU'crats to choose sides.
Posted by: arkroyal at October 26, 2006 8:37 PMThe EU needs to be reformed and a constition adopted that imposes STRICT SECULARISM all over the EU. More, not less. The EU must not be destroyed.
Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at October 26, 2006 8:46 PMI suggested over on JW that one way to provoke Muslims would be to produce print-outs of Mo cartoons from your computer on adhesive labels. These could be surreptitiously affixed to a various surfaces where slaves of allah are likely to see them.
Posted by: wallyUK at October 26, 2006 9:02 PMit seems to me quite obvious that the principles of Multiculturism were iniated by the elites of society to facilitate the policies of mass immigration from muslim lands.
The alliances that europe originally sought for political and financial gains with the arab world in its defiance of THE USA and the Soviet regime could not be implemented without this immigration.
The realisation by the elites was perhaps even then, that there would never be integration in the western democracies by those new muslims.
But this should not be revealed as alarm bells would have sounded for all the public to hear.
So the principles of multiculturism were laid down which would readily excuse the muslims from their duties to integrate with their hosts as countless waves of immigrants had done previously. The whole thing was of course cloaked in layers of tolerance, freedom of expression, human rights, etc rendering the theory unassailable for all conservatives or right wing politicians.
The instrument for dispensing multiculturism was as it has always been in democratic societies, namely the dissenters and demopaths of western society.
The mindset was created that no immigrant group should be coerced into integrating with its host society and that such coercions were relics of the old european imperialism and colonisations.
Now you may rightly ask why such folly was allowed to continue for 40 years, resulting for example in second and third generation Muslims who cannot even speak their host country's language.
The answer lies in the Corruption of the establishment and the elites and their efforts "not to rock the Boat" so that they could carry on their lucrative business in the middle east.
They use the left as emotional ideological patsies to further their own aims so it is business as usual for the arms dealers,oil companies , nuclear plant providers nd host of other contracts.
chevalier de st george
Very insightful, I think you are on the money but I think part of the problem was world events caused most of the world leaders/elite’s to become distracted while the mass immigration creeped up on them. I think simple distraction and arrogance are partially to blame.
WallyUK:
An excellent idea. Sticky labels just appearing all over everything. Everybody needs to put on their thinking caps and start doing things individually. Once started, others will pick up on it, and if we are lucky, it will become a common sport in Western nations.
Posted by: arkroyal at October 26, 2006 9:23 PMChevalier - I've recently been connecting the same dots and have come to the same conclusion about the establishment and elites in America. The Dow broke another record here today.
Posted by: Malinois at October 26, 2006 9:28 PMarkroyal,
I start conversations in airports, leave Robert's book in the coffee shops and routinely wear “support Denmark” shirts to places I know I have a good chance of running into muslims. If you decide to do your own acts of defiance just be aware of your surroundings and remember you could be charged with a hate crime dependant on where you are. So far no real problems but don’t stop with physical stunts, emails and letters to editors, schools and politicians go a long way. Also, I learned this the hard way, if you buy books and leave them for others, place a note on top inviting them to read it, I have had well meaning people turn them into lost and found.
Here's a DOT:
Javier Solana
High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy,
Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union
Mr Solana assists the Council in foreign policy matters, through contributing to the formulation, preparation and implementation of European policy decisions. He acts on behalf of the Council in conducting political dialogue with third parties
WallyUK, arkroyal and Ronin,
I have been leaving this on trains and other public places, nice summary I think, on one page (both sides)...
http://nopedophileprophets.blogspot.com/
Posted by: PAS at October 26, 2006 10:06 PMAnd other thing....The mufti confirming what we already know, that muslim men behave like voracious animals etc, etc, is all over the news here in Aus.
Posted by: PAS at October 26, 2006 10:08 PMPas, good work, do you mind if I print a few and help spread them?
Posted by: Ronin at October 26, 2006 10:13 PMMuslims. Their greatest flaw is that they are insanely aggressive and can't handle criticism or mockery at all. A smart move would be to deliberately provoke Muslims as much as humanly possible.
So true. And the kicker is that this can be done, has been done, by quoting Islamic scriptures, the sacralized histories of Islam and biographies of Mohammed, and the statements of Moslem clerics from today all the way back to 632 AD.
The fun thing about Islam is that it can be deeply offended and humiliated by telling the truth about it. To wit, Spencer's important new book, or the Pope's rather tentative historical citation.
610 * 623 * 732 * 1066 * 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001
We need a major shake-up in the political situation, something that is visible to everybody, to demonstrate that change is possible.
My theory is that the media barrier (Cf., Marshall McLuhan) to realizing such a shake-up will not happen until a group of well-funded Moslem activists detonate an atomic device in a major American or European city, killing hundreds of thousands or more.
The first week after this is done, and it will be done, will be the most important week in world history, except maybe the 7 Days of Creation if you're a JudeoChristian.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at October 26, 2006 10:18 PMBe my guest, not mine, found it on here months ago.
Posted by: PAS at October 26, 2006 10:32 PM"it seems to me quite obvious that the principles of Multiculturism were iniated by the elites of society to facilitate the policies of mass immigration from muslim lands."
I can see this point if Multiculturism started in France. The French saw themselves without natural energy reserves. Thus, their friends, the Arabs, that they knew so well and BTW were superior to, could easily cross the national boundries to the obviously superior nation of France. The Arabs would also become a source of labor that would do "Jobs that Frenchman won't do."
Very insightful chevalier de st george.
Posted by: credit man at October 26, 2006 10:58 PMConcerning the inanity of the EU:
"A disruption (in the talks) will be in no one's interest -- neither in the EU nor Turkey."
Meanwhile, South Europe hesitant on Romania and Bulgaria workers
Posted by: ummahnewslinks at October 26, 2006 11:02 PMI agree!
I have noticed, for one thing, that the EU's present "Socialist" leadership has a curious soft spot for Communism and just as strongly one that is anti-American. France, one of the EU's founders has a huge and politically powerful Communist party; I believe that Germany has one as well. In fact this streak in European society and government has gotten,if anything, stronger with the growth of the EU and it explains much of the rabid anti-Americanism and social decay rampant there. I am seeing a nexus between "Socialism" and Communism I don't like (Castro now refers to Communism as 'Socialism'), not only in Europe but increasingly in the United States too. Didn't Germany's ex-Chancellor Gerhard Schroder take a job with Vladimir Putin's government? Isn't Vlad 'the Impaler' Putin former KGB?? Ominous.
Maybe without the EU's present ("Socialist" or otherwise)non-leaders at the helm, Europeans will finally come to understand that the United States is not the global enemy of humanity that they have been brainwashed into believing it is. Perhaps without the EU's non-leaders at the helm, western Europe will see that the United States is a superpower for legitimate reasons, and its policies are more often than not justifiable and in need of their support. And then the United States would be able to help Europe out of its current impasse on an honest basis instead of the ongoing walking-on-eggshells predicament we have found ourselves in.
And then maybe (western) Europe can regain some semblance of sanity.
Posted by: pythagoras at October 26, 2006 11:06 PMFjordman's primary thesis - the effects of demography on, and the apparent lack of will in, European countries today, if I understand it aright - is something that I, and, obviously, many others can agree with. His secondary thesis - that the EU is to blame - is, perhaps, a little too simplistic; remember here that I am no supporter of the EU and have posted highly critical comments on this site about that organisation.
However, Fjordman also has, in the essay above, another target in his sights - the welfare state. He advocates that we Europeans should abandon the welfare state and spend the money saved in so doing on our armed forces. This is a smokescreen argument, an argument by someone who dislikes the idea of a welfare state on principle and who will, therefore, use any argument which comes to hand in an attempt to discredit the idea. Global warming - abolish the welfare state; not enough births - abolish the welfare state; rioting farmers - abolish the welfare state; falling literacy rates - abolish the welfare state; trains don't run on time - abolish the welfare state; too many motor vehicles - abolish the welfare state; too few motor vehicles - abolish the welfare state; and on, and on, and on ...
Fjordman also argues by implication that the welfare state encourages moslems to come and live in Europe - that they are much more of a drain on the finances of the welfare state than other groups are. Some justification for that viewpoint can be found at
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=979
but, and it's a big but, there is no way of telling, not a single way of ascertaining, whether or not economically inactive moslems claim benefits from the state since benefit claimants are NOT asked to provide details about their religious beliefs.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation - a well respected organisation here in the UK - has done a survey and found that "Perceptions of benefits are strongly influenced by cultural and religious factors and negative perceptions have led to non-claiming, under-claiming and delayed claiming, particularly amongst Chinese and Bangladeshi households. The attachment of shame and stigma to claiming was most strongly felt amongst Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Chinese households and communities." So it may well be that moslems who hail from Pakistan or Bangladesh do not claim at the same rate as the indigenous population but at a lower rate despite higher unemployment levels.
More research would be needed in order to ascertain the exact position of moslems with regard to the welfare state. Fjordman cannot claim, nor, in fairness, does he in the essay above, that moslems are solely responsible for the alledged rising costs of the welfare systems in Europe - he may well be correct but there is no evidence to support such a contention at the moment.
Furthermore, the notion that a demographic time bomb is going to render public pension provision unaffordable in the first half of the next century is open to challenge. Analysis of demographic changes is a fine art and sweeping assertions are just that - sweeping assertions.
Despite our alledgedly profligate welfare systems it is worth reminding ourselves that a substantial number of pensioners in Europe (perhaps as many as one third) struggle to make ends meet, often live in poor housing, unable to keep themselves warm in winter, have a poor diet and receive barely the minimum of care. Each year tens of thousands of old people across Europe die needlessly of hypothermia or from other poverty related causes. This despite our supposedly profligate welfare systems.
So, Fjordman asks us to abandon the welfare state in order to spend the money on the armed services. This is attractive to some - but specious. The armed services are not the answer to jihadist terrorism - good intelligence and rigorous policing are, and both of those areas are already well funded and the budgets are going up month by month with no apparent attempt by anybody to cap them and no suggestions that they should be capped. The only army ever to have won against guerrilas wageing a war against it and the state was the British Army in Malaya (1948-60) and it is to be doubted that the trick could be repeated again by any army.
Abandoning the welfare state in order to fund other operations is neither necessary nor desirable. What would one say to the millions who have paid large sums in extra taxes in order to secure a pension in old age; what would one say to the severely disabled who rely on state assistance; what would one say to the orphaned children that the state looks after, or to the men and women made unemployed through no fault of their own and who turn to the state for a modicum of assistance whilst they look for another job (and who have paid additional taxes to ensure that that modicum of assistance is there when needed), or to the sick who rely on a free for everybody at the point of use health care system and have paid for it by increased taxation (to make that point yet again), or to the countless millions of people who could not fund private education for their children on the wages currently paid to them (would you say that your wages are not going to go up but we are going to remove the welfare system and keep taxes high in order to spend the money elsewhere?).
The welfare systems of Europe are paid for by the people by way of higher taxation. If you abolish the welfare state you have to give the taxes back so you would not end up with more money for government to spend elsewhere you would just end up without the welfare systems - without disease control, without education for millions of children, with people starving and losing their homes if they are made unemployed, with disabled people living lives of squalor and misery, with the old deprived of that which they have paid for, with the very armed services you would be seeking to enhance deprived of the one fundamental requirement necessary to them - a pool of healthy and fit young people to recruit from.
As welfare systems come under increasing attack from Fjordman and others of his ilk the Pentagon has expressed major concerns about the health and fitness of volunteers to the US armed services already. Europe is not far behind in underfunding its welfare systems and there are some fears already being expressed in this field by the military. Abolishing the welfare health care systems altogether could only make matters worse.
Finally, there exists in my mind a feeling that abolishing our welfare systems simply because we face a jihad is illogical; it's like abolishing drinking water because someone might drown in the reservoir. But more importantly, it would be capitulation in the face of threat and a capitulation based on no evidence at all.
Dominic.
ALARMED PG FARMER: "My theory is that the media barrier (Cf., Marshall McLuhan) to realizing such a shake-up will not happen until a group of well-funded Moslem activists detonate an atomic device in a major American or European city, killing hundreds of thousands or more."
RESPONSE: You're underestimating both the depth of our enemy's ideological penetration of our internal discourse and...our own intellectual depravity. It will be only a matter of days before the Islamo-Leftist propaganda-mill will start grinding and the atrocity will be blamed on neo-cons and/or Jews. Within a year, majorities in Europe and the Islamic world, and a large minority here at home will believe Muslims had nothing to do with it.....no different than 9-11.
The sea-change in attitudes will only occur overseas when America has been so weakened that its very survival hangs in the balance. It is at that moment that Europeans and others will begin to dispense with their hatred/jealousy of America and start looking around at other threats.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 26, 2006 11:58 PMIt makes sense to me that civilized humans are smart enough (evolutionarily aware enough?) to seek governing structures that best suit their collective needs. The European Union cannot survive. And you can probably extrapolate that to include large Countries over the next century.
It made sense for the US to expand from sea to shining sea because there was no real downside. The risk of diluting the power of the eastern states wasn’t a threat to US citizens because they themselves would be the ones to populate the west. And everybody benefited from the resources and collective strength of a larger country. It made sense for Western Europe to organize, first to counterbalance the USSR militarily, and now to counterbalance the US economically.
Most of the pressures in today’s world tend to reduce the size of organizations, both in business and geopolitics. After WWII, larger businesses were very profitable. The General Motors and the United Airlines and the Westinghouses accomplished great things for their workers, their customers, and the world as a whole. In 2006, GM is hemorrhaging money, United Airlines is bankrupt, and Westinghouse is gone. They have been brought down by the affordable costs of doing good things for their workers being amplified through the unsustainable social safety net template imposed on them by the government. The shareholders in this safety net include the non-productive; but more so the system. Lawyers, government workers, diversity police, health-care for the government workers, human resources benefit councilors, business-class airline tickets for Mark Carr’s government escorts, etc., etc. But the burden begins with the non-productive, and as this population grows, so does the rest of the mess.
You can avoid many, but not all, of these costs by running a small business. The formula is easy. You find a purpose, do the job, collect the money, give the government their slice, and keep the rest. All of the small business owners that I’m aware of are doing pretty well. I’ll speculate that the underlying reason is that they pay a disproportionately small share of the cost of the safety net.
A similar thing will happen in government. Populations seem to self-segregate. And when they do, the more productive areas will look to divorce themselves from the less productive. It’s happening by my house in one of the most PC parts of the northeast. People with money moved to an island and are now trying to secede from the ‘multicultural’ artsy town with the Mosques. I’m sure that the reason they moved is for ‘good schools’ and the reason they want to secede has nothing to do with the tax burden of operating a train-wreck.
These pressures are more than local. And the smart money’s on the fact that they will play a major role in the way the world looks in one hundred years.
p.s. Voltaire; The island votes Democratic.
Interesting if you consider that the Austro-Hungarian Empire was a cause of much conflict. Nation states like Poland were dismembered by Prussia, Russia and A-H only to re-emerge after 1918 and be dismantled again in 1939 to be recreated in 1946.
The A-H Empire dissolved to create Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Austria - just as the previous century Italy had been created from the A-H Empire.
Now the EU proposed to recreate this A-H Empire in effect by submerging nation-states. It is funny to think that in creating nation-states in 1919 The Versailles Treaty had minority German speakers throughout Central Europe which Hitler used as his reason for smashing all the nation-states of Central Europe and folding them into his Reich which was not so much a German nation-state as a German A-H Empire.
So the nation-state is as much a victim of Trans-national Politics as being in any way a cause. Hitler was not a nationalist - he did not believe in nations but in a Volk
Posted by: Voyager at October 27, 2006 4:01 AMDismantling the EU is not an answer.
The problem is that the European Union is not making policies favorable to Europe, but to the Islamic interests.
Europe as a whole has never been in front of a greater danger, like Oriana Fallaci repeated until she became hoarse.
Hence, unity is something to be desired and striven for. Action should be taken using the United Europe as a platform.
The necessity of the moment is to articulate an common European policy towards the protection and promotion of Europe's values and heritage.
Immigrants should vow to abide by European values and respect them. Otherwise there is no purpose for them to live in europe.
Multiculturalism must go.
Dominic, Voltaire.
You guys are spot on:
"I don't like the way people use anti-Jihad to push their right wing agendas. "
Europe should shed islamic fifth-columnists without resorting to fascism. There are many ways to do it. Bureaucracy, when properly used is one.
Posted by: rocky at October 27, 2006 5:38 AMnecessitasnonhabetlegem:
Of course we shouldnt completely abolish the welfare state but things dont have to be so black/white. We can abolish the "welfare" for muslims (Yes we should discriminate, we would be stupid not to). Yes some people deserve welfare payments but there needs to be a radical overhaul of the "welfare state". I am sick of all the drug users who rely on the "welfare state" for their drug payments. Many, MANY people need to lose their "welfare" payments.
Not that this will ever happen.
Fjordman's central theses are correct. Welfare state, however, is not to be abolished but reformed, so that it is financially sustainable. The combination of crumbling public services and high tax rate will eventually mean that the most productive individuals will emigrate.
Pension systems in some European countries are indeed 'pyramid schemes' that are prone to collapse if there are not enough productive people to finance it. If the imported replacement population is satisfied with living on benefits and black market income, this worsens the problem. The welfare state was not designed for a society that is no longer keen on having children.
There are also the behavioral aspects. The underlying intent of the welfare state was to provide a way for people of poor background to achieve higher standard of living through access to education. However, the people who are born into a welfare state tend to expect more from the state than their parents.
So, the welfare state does not create independent, self-sustained citizens but state subjects.
The topic of welfare state is too wide to be discussed here. However, there is a connection between welfare state, EU and immigration, which is fairly well covered in Fjordman's postings.
Posted by: Saatanan Islam at October 27, 2006 7:51 AMI knw this is totally OT but perhaps a little light relive is in order please enjoy.
And to illustrate this well-made point, Ayaz Mishabi has been at the forefront of imposing his own "offended sensibilities" onto the world at large. We wrote in February that the Manchester Central Mosque was working itself into a lather about a male sex doll produced by the Ann Summers chain, which can be viewed in its vinyl finery HERE.
The doll was called Mustafa Shag and was advertised as the "ideal escort for your hen-night adventures." A letter was sent from the Manchester Central Mosque, which stated: "You have no idea how much hurt, anguish and disgust this obnoxious phrase has caused to Muslim men, women and children. We are asking you to please relent on compassionate grounds."
No information was given on where children had seen the doll, and the emotive whining from the mosque caused Jacqueline Gold, CEO of the Ann Summers company, to write: "We don't want to offend, but this feels like political correctness gone mad. If anyone has a better name for a blow-up doll, please let us know."
Posted by: Holger Dansker at October 27, 2006 8:09 AMThe right wing so-called agenda, is the only agenda that will end the muslim problem. The left, and their agenda, created the problem, so the antidote is the the agenda of the right. It should be embraced. Let's not cherry pick what we like about the right and discard what makes some of the anti-jihad leftist among us squirm.
The welfare state, in addition to being fundamentally corrupt, is the only thing that sustains the islamic menace. Paying working-age people not to work has always been a bad idea with bad consequences. The fact that the muslims are now relying on this mistake of social engineering is simply the proof that it is a mistake that will destroy us. Yet we still have people defend the welfare state, out of an ideological love for certain leftist principles.
All leftist principles, whether it be multiculturalism, third world immigration, or the welfare state, are bad in and of themelves, need to be eliminated, and the muslim issue simply provides us with the urgency to do that.
Fjordman is right on the money. There is a nexus between the Left, its institutions like the welfare state, and the muslim threat. We must remember that the threat of islam to the west is facilitated by the policies of the Left. So we can not deal with that threat without first dealing with the underlaying pathogen, which is Leftism and its core policies and institutions.
Posted by: August22 at October 27, 2006 8:24 AMI've seen a few posts here in support of the EU and I cant understand why anyone would want to keep it. Why do you want your affairs to be run by unelected officials in a foreign land? That just doesn't make sense to me.
Fjordman points out:
I've heard people say they are afraid that if the EU collapses, we might see a resurgence of aggressive nationalism. Frankly, I can't totally discount the possibility.
I would say, what's the matter with you Europeans? (I am BRITISH, I am not a European, and the difference should between the two is spankingly obvious to me).
Can't you Europeans exist in nation states without making trouble with your neighbour? Are you children? Are you animals that you have to slide into dispute without some Tyrant controlling you?
I know that you have shown this deficiency again and again in the past, but you are not a slave to that. You don't have to be in the same country as those with different cultures as you, and it doesn't follow from that that you have to squabble with them.
You are Men. In control of your own destiny. You need to leave the Middle Ages and get with the Enlightenment, which happened three hundred years ago now, folks.
The last thing to say to Europeans is that you shouldn't worry if you can't curb your jack-booting tendancies and you can't help but go to war with each other. The English speaking peoples of the world will come to your rescue - AGAIN!
Posted by: FREE LEE at October 27, 2006 8:55 AMGuys, Lets leave anti-Jihad out of it if you like. The Left and Right are just names. The Left is a handle to make recognisable to you a philosophy that some people haven't completely thought through. It is a failure as a philosophy. This doesn't mean that I would call myself Right Wing. I believe primarily in the common sensical as a means by which we should organise ourselves.
The Left isn't interested in society as it claims to be. It is interested in Empowering its elite, and making sure that very few others cannot displace them.
Welfare is a huge waste of resources. Wastage is a policy of oppression. Read your Orwell.
I think that a better way is to have wealth creators, who invest in their society. There can be safety nets, and there should be. But how can we expect a single mother, with a trail of boyfriends none of whom she's ever wed, who has never worked and who got herself pregnant in order to milk the state, how can we expect her to be of any value to our society? There's a high possibility that she has given life to our future prison population. That doesn't help us.
Do you think that she would have embarked on her career as a baby-making machine if she didn't have it so easy?
Cos I believe in society, and I want this girl to contribute. I believe this girl could better herself. I want her to better herself, because I believe that Humans should move forward, not go backward. I believe that she can achieve, and others think that we should keep paying for her to stay in her pit.
But we have had some muddled thinkers in power since the War who believe in degeneration. I don't know whether this is because they are corrupt, or they are just massively muddled. Either way, our society has degenerated.
Wanting human beings - that form modelled in the shape of a deity - of all and any creed to be the best they can be, is that Right Wing?
Posted by: FREE LEE at October 27, 2006 9:20 AMI have a feeling my next post will turn a few heads here.
Leftist ideas stemming from socialism and liberalism and even communism arent ALL that bad. They're only bad when they're being implemented or considered by A LEFTIST. What I mean is that everything should be looked at from two sides. Radical Centrism. Eg: A socialist will be a moron and nationalize every single industry he can (and fuck up everything). But a radical centrist will pick and choose which things to nationalize and which things to leave out (and hopefully pick the wrong things provided he has the "good intentions"). Health Care industry should always stay in government hands. Conservatives dont think so and in this they are VERY wrong. Im not even going to bother getting into "why" this is wrong im sure some of you will understand. The topic is too long to consider going into detail with.
Sometimes you might want to nationalize industries which are mining natural resources. Coal, Uranium. Depending on the type of government and the country in the situation in question, there are many reasons why you'd want these resources to stay in government hands.
Either way, looking at these issues from ONE side and one-side-only is prone to failure.
And sure there are good things that come from communism. At least from a product of a country living in communism. Eg: - When everyone turns 18 you make them take their fingerprints and enter those fingerprints into a central police database. Also, a national ID card (Both of these things came out of my country which was in communism, and the same has happened with other countries, im not saying this is a communistic idea but the ideas arose from a product of communism)
Both of those 2 help in the fight against terrorism and crime. We should have EVERYONE's fingerprints so that we can make it easier to find people who have commited hard crimes like murder. We should also take everybody's DNA at the time they turn 18.
Also there are good points and bad points about globalization. At least from a centrist view we can pick appart the bad points and improve on them instead of just giving UNQUESTIONALBE BIASED SUPPORT that the right-wing does so often.
Im a radical centrist. I think we should take things from both worlds. Being very hard on crime (ring-wing) is one of them. Being soft on crime (leftists usually) is absurd. Especially when it's crime like murder,rape,treason. Many leftists seem to think that we should not punish our murderers and paedophiles but treat them with "rehabilitation programs"
Obviously choosing which idea to take and which not to take is a difficult one and one we'll disagree on a lot.
We should have a welfare state. But we should have very very stringent controls on it. No welfare being given to people that test positive for hard drugs. No welfare being given to alcoholics. No welfare being given to MUSLIMS - NEVER. No welfare being given to mexicans. And certainly no welfare being given to illegal immigrants in America.
Money should be given to students that go to university and students that want to complete the last year of high school. They should be encouraged to study this way.
We could save a lot of money with this kind of discrimination.
I could go on for another 20 pages on all the ideas and policies and bullshit-theories but I probably shouldnt since it doesnt really much to do with the topic), I'm just giving my centrist view.
One thing of course you might think, what do I think about the United Nations and the European Union in this case given my centrist stance on internationalizm. I stand for both internationalizm and nationalizm. The United Nations and the European Union arent a bad idea in theory but they're being run by some VERY BAD PEOPLE THAT NEED TO BE SHOT IMMEDIATELY. In "theory" they arent so bad but the EU was constructed by very evil people and is being run by very evil people and it's going to do us all a lot of damage just like the United Nations has because it has also been run by very bad people. Of course, the fact that the european union draws up its laws in SECRET is absolutely atrocious and for this we must destroy it. An "european UNION" wouldnt be so bad if we had some centrists running the organization, providing that it was actually DEMOCRATIC, not china-cratic. Anyway, hate both organizations they are being run by very evil people.
Lets not thow away all the ideas of the left because some of them are very good. I think We just need to implement them from a 'centrist' point of view.
Posted by: bff at October 27, 2006 10:59 AMThe last thing to say to Europeans is that you shouldn't worry if you can't curb your jack-booting tendancies and you can't help but go to war with each other. The English speaking peoples of the world will come to your rescue - AGAIN!
Had Woodrow Wilson managed to get the US Senate to stand behind the program the President of The United States imposed at Versailles in 1919, the need to come to fight in Europe in 1941 would not have been necessary for Americans, and Britons and Poles could have relaxed in 1939
Posted by: Voyager at October 27, 2006 11:51 AMFreeLee
you think as an islander, yet a menace like ken livingstone and dhimmi charles (and thank god Diana didn't marry that muslim playboy) is a product of the UK.
A united europe if the majority of states have enough balls can be a powerful tool against muslims.
I make you a simple example: south europe (spain, italy and greece) are weak in controlling immigration via sea, we shouldn't accept immigrants but if you shoot at the boats you are called RACIST (it happened). We hope that when germany/scandinavia etc will be FED up with immigration coming to their countries VIA south europe they will FORCE south europe to behave.
That's one of the positive things about europe. Of course it goes both ways, EU can force you to do stupid things but I am positive that when east EU countries will join there will be a more christian balance.
BTW, why your UK is rejecting bulgarians and romanians and keeping dirty pakis? I have been in london last week and I wondered if I was in Saudi arabia.
Posted by: StillFedUp at October 27, 2006 12:06 PMJavier Solana says: ‘Hamas doesn’t want to destroy Israel’.
Hamas wants to “liberate the Palestinians,” not to destroy Israel, Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.
In an interview following his talks in Tel Aviv with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Solana insisted that it was “not impossible” for Hamas to change and “recognize the existence of Israel.”
History had shown that people and nations “adapt to reality,” he said. “I don’t want to lose hope.”
Pressed as to whether he was underestimating the fundamentalist religious imperative at the heart of the Hamas ideology, Solana said, “I cannot imagine that the religious imperative, the real religious imperative, can make anybody destroy another country... Therefore that is an abuse of religion...”
“I don’t think the essence of Hamas is the destruction of Israel. The essence of Hamas is the liberation of the Palestinians,” he added. “The liberation of their people, not the destruction of Israel.”
"This mind-blowingly obtuse utterance has to rank right up there with Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time.” In order to believe something like this, you have to ignore decades of statements from Hamas leaders—not to mention the genocidal Hamas charter itself. This is the European sickness, encapsulated in one incredibly stupid man." Charles at LGF
Posted by: Malinois at October 27, 2006 1:36 PMStillFedUp,
We receive in Spain far more illegal immigrants (Muslims or not-Muslims) through the Pyrenees than sailing to the Canary Islands or the mainland.
It is not that southern European countries cannot control their borders. It is that currently we have a progressive Government in Madrid, like the Italians, too, and they fail to appreciate the need to be tough on illegal immigration.
So your argument about the need for Europe is not true. Actually, Europe here is of little use in this field.
In my experience, the Schengen space whereby we eliminate internal borders and intend to enforce a common outer border for most European countries is not working well.
I still believe EU nationals should be free to move throughout the territory of the Union and live wherever they please. But nations should keep control of their borders, if only for practical reasons related with efficiency.
However, I still believe there is some use for European nations working together. I in this field, I do not agree with Free Lee.
Don´t be so insular, this is just ridiculous!
We also say "Europe" in Spain when we refer to the rest of Europe. And I can understand you up to a point. But whether you like it or not we all live together in the same vicinity.
The only thing is that I am growing less and less sure about the idea of "Europe" and I like more and more the idea of "West".
Europe is finding it difficult to define its last borders, hence Turkey is knocking the door and Russia should never be part of the Union.
Europe does contain Muslims, not only the newcommers, but Albanians, Bosnians and other minorities.
Europe is simply defined by political systems (that we share with other countries) or geography, which is not always precise.
The West, however, is better. You immediately understand who is a Westerner and who is not. Japan is a democracy and we would welcome every increase cooperation with them. But Japan is not a Western country.
The same applies to our main goal here: Muslims. It is pretty evident they are not Westerners.
On top of that, the reasons that advice us Europeans to cooperate and integrate with each other, also apply to the other Western countries.
This is evident with Israel, for example.
But also with Australia, too. Why should me, a Spaniard, consider myself less related to an Australian simply because they are in a different sea?
The same rule applies to every other single Western country in Europe, the Americas, New Zealand, etc.
And, last but not least, "Europe" as a project, and whatever the ideals and aspirations of some of its supporters, has actually developped in a way which consistent with the historical French imperialistic designs. The French have managed to inspire the whole EU and they have ensured during years it became an extension of their foreign policy, even if now this is becoming to be questioned. (There is nothing wrong with the French; the wrong thing is for the other to follow blindly).
Therefore, I conclude, we need a newly formulated and vigorous idea of The West, as the real challenger and contender with Islam on a planetary basis, and not only locally.
..Fjordman said that tens of millions of the common people are waking up to the Islamic threat. Waking up is step one. Now, step 2: What are they going to do? A lot of people think up a lot of strategies. But, step 3, How do they agree on a strategy and coordinate efforts? They must have a communication system or that's where the snowball stops rolling.
..Here in the U.S., 90% of the readers and listeners are glued to liberal voices. The conservatives who understand the threat and urge good strategies talk mostly to other conservatives. Apathy and closed minds keep the majority from thinking outside their liberal box. The FIRST strategy, then, MUST be for the right-thinkers to get the attention of the sleeping majority and inform them.
..Here in the States, we conservatives are making slow progress in increasing our media outreach, but I'm afraid it is going to end up too little and too late. After all, why is our country being run by the blind dhimmis? Because they are elected by blind voters. For many decades now, our voters' minds have been controlled by the liberal media. We have our work cut out for us.
Two things Europeans should consider:
1. Increase non-Muslim immigration.
2. Decrease Muslim immigration.
Of the two items, #1 is politically the easier way to reduce the percentage of Muslims in a population. #1 cannot reasonably be called xenophobic or racist or fascist. Yet it would postpone, perhaps permanently, the growth of Muslim majorities.
Posted by: traeh at October 27, 2006 10:17 PMA fascinating conversation. Whether or not you should dismantle your welfare states is, of course, your business. But if an outside may ask, don't you fear that it encourages in the people in a rather childlike dependency on their governments? "Mummy says we must welcome muslim immigration...I don't want to make Mummy mad"
Posted by: ps at November 1, 2006 1:07 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.)