Fjordman: The Eurabia Code, Part 3

Here is the third installment of the essential Eurabia Code series from Fjordman. The Eurabia Code Part 1 is here and Part 2 here.

In March 2006, the two-day plenary session of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, held in Brussels approved a resolution which “condemned the offence” caused by the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad as well “as the violence which their publication provoked.” These MEPs and national MPs from the EU and Arab countries also urged governments to “ensure respect for religious beliefs and to encourage the values of tolerance, freedom and multiculturalism.”

During the parliamentary assembly, Egyptian parliament speaker Ahmed Sorour insisted that the cartoons published in Denmark and other recent events showed the existence of a “cultural deficit.” Jordanian MP Hashem al-Qaisi also condemned the cartoons, claiming that it is not sufficient to deplore the cartoons as these things might occur again in another country.

And European Parliament president Josep Borrell referred to the Mediterranean as “a concentrate of all the problems facing humanity.” He said that after one year presiding over the assembly he “still did not fully understand the complexities of the Mediterranean.” Following the cartoons affair, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana had travelled to the Middle East and made joint statements with Islamic leaders that “freedom of the press entails responsibility and discretion and should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions.” Solana said that he had discussed means to ensure that “religious symbols can be protected.” He held talks with Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of Al Azhar University, the highest seat of learning in Sunni Islam, and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa.

Solana also met with the leader of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. Following their discussion, Solana “expressed our sincere regret that religious feelings have been hurt”, and vowed “to reach out”¦ to make sure that people’s hearts and minds are not hurt again.”

Only a few years earlier, Mr. Solana, then Secretary General of NATO, in a speech stated that “the root cause of conflicts in Europe and beyond can be traced directly to the absence of democracy and openness. The absence of the pressure valve of democratic discourse can lead these societies to explode into violence.” The irony that he himself is now trying to curtail the democratic discourse in Europe through the promotion of Islamic censorship apparently did not occur to him.

Meanwhile, the tentacles of the vast, inflated EU bureaucracy insinuate themselves into regulations on every conceivable subject. Some of the examples of the bureaucracy are ridiculous; some are funny. But it is the sinister side to the European bureaucracy:

– The promotion of an official, “EU federal ideology” advocating Multiculturalism;

– The denunciation as “xenophobes” of all those who want to preserve their democracy at the nation state level; and

– Calling those who would limit Third World immigration “racists.”

A report from the EU’s racism watchdog said that more must be done to combat racism and “Islamophobia.” One method of accomplishing this is the promotion of a lexicon which shuns purportedly offensive and culturally insensitive terms. This lexicon would set down guidelines for EU officials and politicians prohibiting what they may say. “Certainly ‘Islamic terrorism’ is something we will not use … we talk about ‘terrorists who abusively invoke Islam’,” an EU official said.

Early in 2006, the EU’s human rights commissioner Alvaro Gil-Robles’s criticized a plan to revamp Christianity as a school subject in elementary schools in Denmark. Gil-Robles said doing so went against European values. “Religion as a school subject should be a general course that attempts to give students insight into the three monotheistic religions [my emphasis],” he said. The “three monotheistic religions” means Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

As I see it, there are several possible ways of dealing with the issue of education about religion.

1. Teach the traditional religions within a particular country, which in Europe means Christianity and Judaism.

2. Teach all the major world religions.

3. Leave religion out of the curriculum.

What the European Union does, however, is to treat Islam as a traditional, European religion on par with Christianity and Judaism. This is a crucial component of Eurabian thinking and practice. Notice how EU authorities in this case directly interfered to force a once-independent nation state to include more teachings of Islam in its school curriculum in order to instill their children with a proper dose of Eurabian indoctrination. Notice also that they didn’t ask for more teaching of Buddhism or Hinduism. Only Islam is being pushed.

In another case, the European Commission rebuffed a call by the Polish president for an EU-wide debate on reinstating the death penalty. “The death penalty is not compatible with European values,” a Commission spokesman said. Again, the issue here is not your opinion regarding the death penalty. The real issue is that the metasticizing EU has already defined for you what constitutes “European values.” Thus, major issues are simply beyond public debate. This innocent-sounding phrase “European values” cloaks a federal, Eurabian ideology enforced across the entire European Union without regard to the popular will.

Perhaps the most shameful and embarrassing aspect of the history of Eurabia is how the supposedly critical and independent European media
has allowed itself to be corrupted or deceived by the Eurabians. Most of the documents about the Euro-Arab Dialogue place particular emphasis on working with the media, and the Eurabians have played the European media like a Stradivarius. Aided by a pre-existing anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, European media have been willing to demonize the United States and Israel while remaining largely silent on the topic Eurabia.

In May 2006, a big conference was held in Vienna involving media figures (journalists) from all over Europe, who met with partners from the Arab world as a part of the Euro-Arab Dialogue.

European officials responded publicly with “regret” to Israel’s ambassador to Austria Dan Ashbel’s decision to boycott the conference on racism in the media because of concern in Jerusalem that anti-Semitism was getting short shrift at the meeting. Speaking for the conference “” entitled “Racism, Xenophobia and the Media: Towards Respect and Understanding of all Religions and Cultures” “” an official claimed that anti-Semitism was not taken off the agenda. This official countered that the meeting was “primarily a dialogue between the media representatives of all the Euro-Med partners on the problems that beset their profession. These include xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia [my emphasis].”

Writer Bruce Bawer thinks that many Europeans recognize that Multiculturalism is leading their societies to disaster. But they’ve heard all their lives from officially approved authorities that any concern about Multiculturalism and its consequences is tantamount to racism:

There’s a widespread resignation to the fact that multiculturalists control the media, academy, state agencies, and so on. They know very well that if you want to get ahead in European society, you don’t take on multicultural orthodoxy. The political establishment seems solidly planted, unmovable, unchangeable. There may be a widespread rage, in short, but it’s largely an impotent rage. Europeans today have been bred to be passive, to leave things to their leaders, whose wisdom they’ve been taught all their lives to take for granted. To shake off a lifetime of this kind of indoctrination is not easy.”

According to Bat Ye’or, fear of awakening opposition to EU policy toward the Arab Mediterranean countries led to the repression of all discussion of the economic problems and difficulties of integration caused by massive immigration. Any criticism of Muslim immigration is basically brushed off as being “just like the Jews were talked about in Nazi Germany,” a ridiculous but effective statement.

Bat Ye’or agrees with Bawer’s analysis “concerning the totalitarian web cohesion of ‘teachers, professors, the media, politicians, government agency workers, talking heads on TV, the representatives of state-funded “independent” organizations like SOS Racism’ to indoctrinate the politically correct. This perfectly expresses the political directives given by the European Commission to coordinate and control in all EU member-states the political, intellectual, religious, media, teaching and publishing apparatus since the 1970s so as to harmonize with its Mediterranean strategy based on multiculturalism.”

Professional harassment, boycott and defamation punish those who dare to openly challenge the Politically Correct discourse. According to Bat Ye’or, this has led to the development of a type of “resistance press” as if Europe were under the “occupation” of its own elected governments. This free press on the Internet and in blogs has brought some changes, including the rejection of the European Constitution in 2005. Despite overwhelming support for the Constitution by the governments in France and the Netherlands and a massive media campaign by political leaders in both countries, voters rejected it. Blogs played a significant part in achieving this.

Only a few months later, EU authorities lined up together with authoritarian regimes such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and the Chinese Communist Party in favor of “more international control with” (read: censorship of) the Internet.

According to Richard North of the EU Referendum blog, “The most dangerous form of propaganda is that which does not appear to be propaganda. And it is that form at which the BBC [the British Broadcasting Corporation] excels. Perhaps the biggest sin of all is that of omission. By simply not informing us of key issues, they go by default, unchallenged until it is too late to do anything about them.”

Vladimir Bukovsky is a former Soviet dissident, author and human rights activist who spent a total of twelve years in Soviet prisons. Now living in England, he warns against some of the same anti-democratic impulses in the West, especially in the EU, which he views as an heir to the Soviet Union. In 2002, he joined in on protests against the BBC’s compulsory TV licence. “The British people are being forced to pay money to a corporation which suppresses free speech “” publicising views they don’t necessarily agree with.” He has blasted the BBC for their “bias and propaganda,” especially in stories related to the EU or the Middle East.

Conservative MP, Michael Gove and political commentator Mark Dooley also complain about lopsided coverage: “Take, for example, the BBC’s coverage of the late Yasser Arafat. In one profile broadcast in 2002, he was lauded as an “icon” and a “hero,” but no mention was made of his terror squads, corruption, or his brutal suppression of dissident Palestinians. Similarly, when Israel assassinated the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, in 2004, one BBC reporter described him as “polite, charming and witty, a deeply religious man.” This despite the fact that under Yassin’s guidance, Hamas murdered hundreds.”

Polish writer Nina Witoszek, now living in Norway, warns that people who have lived under Communist regimes are struck by a strange feeling of dejá vu in Western Europe:

“Before formulating a sentence, you put on a censorship autopilot which asks: Who am I insulting now? Am I too pro-Israeli, or maybe anti-Feminist, or – God forbid — anti-Islamic? Am I “progressive” enough? Soon we shall all write in a decaffeinated language: We shall obediently repeat all the benign mantras such as “dialogue,” “pluralism,” “reconciliation” and “equality.” Norway has never been a totalitarian country, but many people now feel the taste of oppression and of being muzzled. I know many wise Norwegians — and even more wise foreigners — who no longer have the energy to waste time on contributing to a castrated, paranoid democracy. We prefer safety above freedom. This is the first step towards a voluntary bondage.”

She quotes follow writer from Poland Czesław Miłosz, who won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1980 for books such as The Captive Mind, where he explained the seductiveness of totalitarian ideology.

One essay by Miłosz is titled “Ketman.” “Ketman” or “kitman” is an Islamic term brought to Milosz’s attention by Arthur Gobineau’s book Religions and Philosophies of Central Asia. He had noticed that the dissidents in Persia, long accustomed to tyranny, had evolved a style of their own. The need for survival often involved more than just keeping your mouth shut, but of actively lying in every way necessary. This strategy of dissimulation and deceit, which is especially pronounced by Shia Muslims but also used by Sunnis, is primarily used to deceive non-Muslims, but can also be used against other Muslims under duress.

According to Miłosz, a very similar strategy was used in Communist countries. Similar to Islam, those practicing dissimulation felt a
sense of superiority towards those who were stupid enough to state their real opinions openly. In Communist societies, dissimulation was just as much a technique of adaptation to an authoritarian regime as a conscious, theatrical form of art that became increasingly refined.

It is frightening to hear people who have grown up in former Communist countries say that they see this same totalitarian impulse at work in Western Europe now. According to them, we in the West are at least as brainwashed by Multiculturalism and Political Correctness as they ever were with Communism. It is frightening because I believe they are right. Have we witnessed the fall of the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe only to see an Iron Veil descend on Western Europe? An Iron Veil of EU bureaucracy and Eurabian treachery, of Political Correctness, Multicultural media censorship and the ever-present threat of Muslim violence and terrorism that is gradually extinguishing free speech. The momentum of bureaucratic treachery is accelerating.

Native Europeans and indeed some non-Muslim immigrants are quietly leaving in growing numbers, gradually turning the continent into a net exporter of refugees rather than an importer of them. When large parts of Europe are being overrun by barbarians “” actively aided and abetted by our own trusted leaders “” and when people are banned from opposing this onslaught, is Western Europe still a meaningful part of the Free World? Have the countries of Eastern Europe gone from one “Evil Empire” to another? Are they “” and we “” back in the EUSSR?

Vaclav Klaus, the conservative President of the Czech Republic, has complained that: “Every time I try to remove some piece of Soviet-era regulation, I am told that whatever it is I am trying to scrap is a requirement of the European Commission.”

In an interview with Paul Belien of the Brussels Journal in February 2006, Vladimir Bukovksy warned that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fully-fledged totalitarian state.

“The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people “Europeans”, whatever that means. According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening.”

Timothy Garton Ash is considered a leading expert on Europe’s future. Bruce Bawer views Garton Ash as typical of Europe’s political élite. Ash mistrusts national patriotism but adores the EU. He writes about the need for a factitious European patriotism (“flags, symbols, a European anthem we can sing”) to encourage “emotional identification with European institutions.” And just why does Europe need the EU? Garton Ash’s answer: “To prevent our falling back into the bad old ways of war and European barbarism.” Among his suggestions is that Europe encourage “the formation of an Arab Union.” He makes no mention of Arab democracy. Imagining “Europe in 2025 at its possible best,” he pictures it as a “partnership” with Arab countries and Russia that would extend “from Marrakesh, via Cairo, Jerusalem, Baghdad, and Tbilisi, all the way to Vladivostok.”

The European Commission proposed the controversial idea of a singing event in all member states to celebrate the European Union’s 50th “birthday,” the 50th anniversary of the 1957 Treaty of Rome. Commissioner Margot Wallstrom was lobbying for big-style birthday celebrations to “highlight the benefits that European integration has brought to its citizens.” Diplomats said the idea had sparked feelings of disgust among new, formerly Communist member states such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, which were reminded of “Stalinist times” when people were forced by the state to sing. Brussels also intended to spend around €300,000 on the appointment of 50 citizen “ambassadors,” dubbed the “Faces of Europe,” who are supposed to “tell their story” throughout the year on what the EU means to them in their daily life. Germany will go ahead with its own idea to let thousands of its bakeries bake 50 sorts of cakes with recipes from all 25 member states.

Commissioner Wallstrom in 2005 argued that politicians who resisted pooling national sovereignty risked a return to Nazi horrors of the 1930s and 1940s. Her fellow commissioners also issued a joint declaration, stating that EU citizens should pay tribute to the dead of the Second World War by voting Yes to the EU Constitution. The commissioners gave the EU sole credit for ending the Cold War, making no mention of the role of NATO or the United States.

Is the EU an instrument to end wars? In October 2006, Michel Thoomis, the secretary general of the French Action Police trade union, warned of a civil war in France created by Muslim immigrants: “We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails. You no longer see two or three youths confronting police, you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their ‘comrades’ free when they are arrested.”

These Muslim immigrants were allowed in by the very same European elites who now want European citizens to celebrate their work through cakes and songs. While civil society is disintegrating in Western Europe due to Islamic pressures, EU authorities are working to increase Muslim immigration, while congratulating themselves for bringing peace to the continent. What peace? Where?

The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 ended the Thirty Years’ War, the last major religious war in Europe, and helped lay the foundations for modern nation states. Before nation states, we thus had a pattern of borderless religious wars and civil wars. This is what we have returned to, full circle, only this time a borderless Jihad is triggering civil wars in Europe. While the EU may help prevent wars between nation states with old grudges, such as Germany and France, it may also actively cause other kinds of wars. It accomplishes this by increasing Multicultural tensions and a dangerous sense of estrangement between citizens and those who are supposed to be their leaders.

Wars have existed for thousands of years before the advent of the modern nation state. It is far more likely that weakening nation states will end our democratic system, a system which is closely tied to the existence of sovereign nation states, than that it will end wars.

When asked whether the member countries of the EU joined the union voluntarily, and whether the resulting integration reflects the democratic will of Europeans, Vladimir Bukovksy replied, “No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht treaty twice. Look at Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage.”

In 1992, Bukovksy had unprecedented access to Politburo and other Soviet secret documents, as described in his book, Judgement in Moscow. In January 1989, during a meeting between Soviet leader Gorbachev, former Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone, former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, American banker Rockefeller and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Giscard d’Estaing supposedly stated: “Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that.”

This was in the 1980s, when most of the media still dismissed as scaremongering any talk of a political union that would subdue the nation states. Fifteen years later, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing became the chief drafter of the truly awful EU Constitution, an impenetrable brick of a book, hundreds of pages long, and lacking any of the checks and balances so crucial to the American Constitution. Giscard has argued that the rejection of the Constitution in the French and Dutch referenda in 2005 “was a mistake which will have to be corrected” and insisted that “In the end, the text will be adopted.”

Giscard has also said that “it was a mistake to use the referendum process” because “it is not possible for anyone to understand the full text.” Does it instill confidence among the citizens of Europe that we are supposed to be under the authority of a “Constitution” that is too complex for most non-bureaucrats to understand? According to Spain’s justice minister Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar “you don’t need to read the European constitution to know that it is good.”

Jean-Luc Dehaene, former Belgian Prime Minister, said that “We know that nine out of ten people will not have read the Constitution and will vote on the basis of what politicians and journalists say. More than that, if the answer is No, the vote will probably have to be done again, because it absolutely has to be Yes.”

Journalist Nidra Poller, however, is more skeptical. Commenting on the debate prior to the EU Constitution referendum in France, she noted a submissive attitude among EU leaders towards Muslim demands: “The Euro-Mediterranean ‘Dialogue’ is a masterpiece of abject surrender.” The European Union functions as an intermediate stage of an ominous project that calls for a meltdown of traditional European culture, to be replaced by a new, Eurabian cocktail. And she asks: “When subversive appeasement hides behind the veil of ‘Dialogue,’ what unspeakable ambitions might be dissembled by the noble word ‘Constitution’?”

FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    “I know many wise [insert nation state allegiance here]– and even more wise foreigners – who no longer have the energy to waste time on contributing to a castrated, paranoid democracy. We prefer safety above freedom. This is the first step towards a voluntary bondage.”

    “When asked whether the member countries of the EU joined the union voluntarily, and whether the resulting integration reflects the democratic will of Europeans, Vladimir Bukovksy replied, ‘No, they did not… The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting.[”

    I may have to drink the whole bottle ruminating on those two.

  2. says

    Great write up as usual Fjordman, to those that think Eurabia is myth, check out the summary of election results at the Brussels Journal. The Muslim block vote has swung victory to the socialists in Antwerp, seven of the new seats are now held by Muslim immigrants.

    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1480

    Also note that the only real opposition is comming from the nationalist Vlaams Belang party. The only way to deal with the EU/Eurabian threat is coordinated action from Europes nationalist parties.

    Dismantle the EU now!!

  3. says

    A saying by Ben Franklin seems to come to mind when I hear this

    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

  4. says

    A saying by Ben Franklin seems to come to mind when I hear this

    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

  5. says

    If I lived in Europe this info that Fjordman has put out the last few weeks would frighten me. It is indeed ironic that such victims of communism as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic can clearly see the dangers posed by the EU while Western Europe does not. It’s also dreadful how these countries were wooed into joining the EU and how it coerces its members to toe the party line. It’s amazing how all these democratic nations joined together to form an undemocratic monstrosity like the EU-it’s almost the exact reverse of what happened in Eastern Europe in 1989-91.

    And who’s standing ready to basically take over this entity? The Islamaniacs,of course. What they failed to achieve centuries ago will soon be possible thanks to the traitorous leadership of the EU. The Islamaniacs will enslave the EU’s people and quickly move forward technologically by taking over all of the West’s achievements. This would be a disaster for the US, Israel, and the rest of the world. Somehow, some way the people of Europe need to rise up and put an end to this experiment gone wrong before it’s too late.

  6. says

    Franklin lived amongst American pioneers and French whores. The world has changed in the interim. It is depressing to say his quote has been overcome by events.

    We’ve been living the feel-good lifestyle since the 60s and will have a big hangover before the events play out. Liberal democracies as enjoyed over the last few decades are at one one end of the balance. Sharia law is at the other. Yugoslavia is somewhere in the middle.

    The essay is brilliant.

  7. says

    I have inveighed against the EU frequently on this site. I have often, and repeatedly, attempted to warn people of the pernicious effects that the unelected – yes, my dear American friends, unelected and completely without any form of democratic mandate what-so-ever – leaders of the EU are having. I am no believer in the wilder extremes promoted by people who see a conspiracy behind every door, behind every bush and hedgerow, but one has to ask oneself the following: ‘If it looks like a conspiracy to destroy Europe, if it sounds like a conspiracy to destroy Europe, if it smells like a conspiracy to destroy Europe, if it tastes like a conspiracy to destroy Europe then what other conclusion can one possibly draw other than that it is a conspiracy to destroy Europe?’

    The scum who have risen to the top in the EU beaurocracy are so deeply mired in politically correct multicultural values that they simply do not realise just how stupid and self-defeating almost everything which they say actually is. Very few of them have any idea just how out of touch really they are with the ordinary folk of Europe nor, regrettably, just how much damage they are doing to freedom and democracy. They few at the very top who guide this process and who do realise exactly what they are doing are executing a deliberate policy of destruction of all the normative values that Europeans still, in the main, hold dear. They are nothing more than traitors. These people need to be removed from the positions which they hold – by force if necessary, by violence if no other course will suffice, by assassination if nothing else will accomplish the task of freeing Europe and the EU from their grip.

    So this then, I suppose, is my fatwa. Destroy these people in any way that you can. They are not worthy of us and they do not carry the torch freedom in their hearts. They are proven traitors and have to removed – and the sooner the better – violently and with extreme prejudice if necessary.

    However, the destruction of the EU is not the answer. The democratisation of this great enterprise is. The big question is how do we, the people, impose democracy on this Union without losing our humanity, without pandering to all that is base – such as the desire for the cheap and cheerful revenge of the death penalty despite the imperfections of the human-created system which judges those who would suffer it – a system, in the UK at least, which would have got it wrong far more often than it would have got it right, by a ratio of 7:1, over the last ten years alone had the death penalty still been on the British statute books.

    You Americans did it with your Union so tell me: how do we do it with ours? How do we put control, at all levels, back in the hands of the voters? How, in the name of all that’s Holy, do we get rid of the traitorous scum who are hell-bent on only one thing – our destruction as a voluntary collection of free, democratic peoples?

    Somebody, surely, will rid us of these turbulent priests of dhimmitude?

    Surely, surely … before it is too late.

    Sigh! Sob! Whimper!

    Dominic.

  8. says

    The Eurabia code explains many things.

    “The Euro-Mediterranean ‘Dialogue’ is a masterpiece of abject surrender.”

    Where I live in Europe there is an old stone fountain with the shield of the town. One day I noticed that the cross on the top part of the shield had been chiseled off. Workers from North Africa and Pakistan were working putting new flagstones for the church courtyard exactly at that time. But no one in town seemed to have noticed that the little cross was missing and they didn’t seem to care after it was made public.

    The general attitude is of having already surrendered.

  9. says

    So this then, I suppose, is my fatwa. Destroy these people in any way that you can. They are not worthy of us and they do not carry the torch freedom in their hearts. They are proven traitors and have to be removed – and the sooner the better – violently and with extreme prejudice if necessary.

    I agree, to not do so will destroy Europe as we know it, I wonder if the newer members such as Poland have quite realized the faustian bargain they have made.

  10. says

    Where I live in Europe there is an old stone fountain with the shield of the town. One day I noticed that the cross on the top part of the shield had been chiseled off. Workers from North Africa and Pakistan were working putting new flagstones for the church courtyard exactly at that time.

    Although not denominational, I find your story highly disturbing.

  11. says

    My comments in upper case,in parantheses, about the reaction of “muslim scholars” to the Danish video clip.

    “One of the main goals of this ferocious campaign against Islam and its sanctities is to distract Muslims from achieving the Islamic civilizational project to rid the Muslim nation of its subordination to the West,” the International Union for Muslim Scholars said in a statement, a copy of which was sent to IslamOnline.net.”
    [ISLAMIC CIVILIZATIONAL PROJECT TO RID THE MUSLIM NATION OF ITS SUBORDINATION TO THE WEST,INDEED. BY CONQUERING THE WEST THROUGH SUBTERFUGE AND JIHAD! -Dunk]
    http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2006-10/09/04.shtml

    …”The IUMS, nonetheless, renewed a call to boycott Denmark, economically and culturally, building on the successful economic boycott to the Scandinavian country in the wake of the cartoons controversy.” [AND WHAT BETTER WAY TO BOYCOTT THAN FOR MUSLIMS TO GET OUT OF DENMARK IMMEDIATELY FOR GOOD. AND IF THIS DOESN’T WORK, THEY MAY HAVE TO BOYCOTT AND GET OUT OF SCANDINAVIA AND THE REST OF EUROPE TOO. EUROPE HAS BEEN WARNED. – Dunk]

  12. says

    “Europe in 2025 at its possible best,” he pictures it as a “partnership” with Arab countries and Russia that would extend “from Marrakesh, via Cairo, Jerusalem, Baghdad, and Tbilisi, all the way to Vladivostok.”

    Gengis Khan? Hitler? Napoleon?

    No, Timothy Gorton Ash.

    Such a huge “identity” will bring back localized tribal warfare. The impracticality of keeping order in such a monstrosity means people will have to band together to protect themselves. It’s a new medieval Europe. Enjoy!

  13. says

    I followed the travails of Bukovsky, Andre Amalrik, Natan Sharansky, Zhores Medvedev, Sakharov and others during the 70s and 80s when Samizdat was a fascinating look at Soviet counter-culture.

    I find it perfectly logical that brave men like Bukovsky and Vaclav Havel, men who have tasted the evils of totalitarianism up close and personal, would have an instinctive revulsion for both Islam and the EU.

    I’m not a brave man; I never had to personally confront the evils of dictatorship. But I studied the crimes of Stalin for 2 decades of my life…and doing so effectively inoculated me from any romantic susceptability to the utopian promise – presented in whatever color.

    The dignity of the individual is the basis for all human morality, that much I’m sure about. A man like Bukovsky, who wasted away in a psychiatric hospital for his political beliefs, he understands the premise…right down to his marrow.

    But how to reach the uninitiated?…the common man whose common sense instinctively tells him something is rotten in Mecca, but who hasn’t got the inclination to pursue it over the head of a culture that assures him there isn’t?

  14. says

    The worm is turning on the general attitude of the EU elite towards Islam:
    Franco Frattini, the vice president of the European Commission has made a statement saying that Muslim traditions can only be respected if they do not contradict European values – he was the most outspoken supporter of the pope in the recent controversy.

    http://euobserver.com/9/22591/?rk=1

    Also an ex-commissioner on emlargement is complaining about the increasingly negative signals the EU is sending Turkey concerning its application to join. He sees Turkish membership as “a key geo-political goal” but, unlike the German social democrats, the ruling conservatives are opposed to full membership.

    http://euobserver.com/9/22593/?rk=1

    Funnily enough, it’s the Americans who seem most enthusiastic about Turkey joining – they intervened recently to try and break a logjam between EU negotiators and the Turks over trade with Cyprus. Once again, Blair appers to be acting as Bush’s poodle by being one of the few leaders actually enthusiastic about the idea. Blair wouldn’t know the Eurabia project if it bit him on the backside, although he is amazingly naive about Islam.

  15. says

    km.
    I have a picture of the shield without the cross on the ancient stone fountain, if you are interested you may post it in your blog.

  16. says

    wallyuk:

    Not all Americans support the admittance of Turkey to the EU. After the Pope Rage debacle the chances of it happening are even less.

    I’m not a Bush bot, though I voted for him. I oppose his administration’s stance on this vehemently. However, if a Democrat was in office, they’d be doing the same thing.

  17. says

    atheling,

    How can I send it to you? The picture of the shield on the fountain is about 280KB so that you can see the chisel marks. then there is a little picture of the original shield of the town.

  18. says

    Dominic,

    A few comments about to attempt to answer your excellent question about American success in keeping power out of “elite” hands and with voters. I realize America is not perfect in this regard, but I do believe we have been more successful than European democracies in this regard.

    1. Our founding philosophical document, the document that gives the ideals behind the Constitution is the Declaration of Independence. This line sums up the derivation of rights for the American people: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, THAT AMONG THESE RIGHTS ARE LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS (THIS MEANT “PRIVATE PROPERTY”). THAT TO SECURE THOSE RIGHTS, GOVERNMENTS WERE CREATED AMONG MEN.” It goes on to say that if a government becomes subversive to the rights it is to protect, that government has lost it’s authority and can be replaced. This was the primary justification for the US breaking from the United Kingdom. The belief was that Parliament went beyond it’s mandate in legislating taxes, etc. when it gave no representation to the American colonists. The American leadership appealed to an authority over the government: God (and God’s natural laws that must be followed by government).

    America, in comparison to European democracies, has always been the most “Christian”. Alec De Touqueville noted that America was the “most Christian nation on the face of the Earth” back in the early 19th century. Many outside commentators have made the same comments about the effect of Christianity on American government. In 1955, Eisenhower added “On Nation, Under God” to our Pledge with virtual unanimous consent of Congress. This was to show the contrast with the USSR, in which rights came from Government (and therefore the USSR had authority to mass murder tens of millions) Until very recent times, Americans have always held the general belief in the idea of a power above Government. In other words, moral absolutes and unalienable human rights. American at all levels could always appeal to a higher authority when government went beyond it’s mandate of protecting rights. Interestingly, the Civil Rights movement under Baptist minister Martin Luther King Jr. appealed to the idea of “God given” rights in civil disobedience.

    As Europe has become more and more secularized, it has lost the utimate check on govenment power. If there is no God, there is nothing above government to give authority to “unalienable” rights. Nothing for the common man to appeal. God is the ultimate check on the power of government. Communism had to be atheist. It had to be unchecked. Islam is a civil code. “Allah” is just rhetoric for a communist-like system of oppression of human rights.

    As America becomes more secularized, I pray for the future of my children. When the ideal of God above government is gone, the people become sheep to the “god” of government. At that point, government becomes the ultimate authority for human rights. As power corrupts, government will take all human rights.

  19. says

    Amazing. There’s a column in YLE News (the news agency of the Finnish government) where the author talks about Eurabia, French colonies, and the fear of Islamic extremism in France. He also goes on to talk about Oriana Fallaci and mentions that, according to Angela Merkel, Germany’s multiculturalist experiment has failed. Lastly, he says that France’s integration of Muslims may have failed.

    I didn’t think it was possible to say something like that in Finland.

  20. says

    When asked whether the member countries of the EU joined the union voluntarily, and whether the resulting integration reflects the democratic will of Europeans, Vladimir Bukovksy replied, “No, they did not.

    It seems, regrettably, the only way to restore the Italians to Italy, the French to France and the Dutch to Holland is for the indigenous citizens of those countries to follow the example of Muslim immigrants: Make their leaders fear them more than they fear their pushy, self centered, volatile, violence prone new neighbors. If their vote doesn’t matter maybe their blood will.

    50 citizen “ambassadors,” dubbed the “Faces of Europe,” who are supposed to “tell their story” … Germany baking 50 sorts of cakes with recipes from all 25 member states.

    This whole growing malignant tumor of multiculturalism is sickly reminiscent of politically correct Stepford Wives. Smiling with their mouths only, more of a grimace, regurgitating the one-big-happy-family party line. Their eyes are dead. Drink the Flavour-Aid dears…

  21. says

    The European Commission proposed the controversial idea of a singing event in all member states to celebrate the European Union’s 50th “birthday,” the 50th anniversary of the 1957 Treaty of Rome.

    We already do this, every year! It’s hysterically funny, and Terry Wogan is an integral part of it.

    WSW

  22. says

    A truly briliant and frightening essay fjiordman – many thanks- it seems we shall need a revolution to rid ourselves of this monstrous edifice – the EU project – the arrogance of the EU unelected and unrepresentive “leaders” sickens me – time they fell!

  23. says

    Is there any way to obtain video from these various Euro-Arab meetings? If so, it might be beneficial to post them on a variety of sites. It’s one thing to read a article, it’s quite another to see your government officials selling you out in person.

  24. says

    “One essay by Miłosz is titled “Ketman.” “Ketman” or “kitman” is an Islamic term brought to Milosz’s attention by Arthur Gobineau’s book Religions and Philosophies of Central Asia. He had noticed that the dissidents in Persia, long accustomed to tyranny, had evolved a style of their own. The need for survival often involved more than just keeping your mouth shut, but of actively lying in every way necessary. This strategy of dissimulation and deceit, which is especially pronounced by Shia Muslims but also used by Sunnis, is primarily used to deceive non-Muslims, but can also be used against other Muslims under duress.”

    When in Taiwan, I once met an old man from the Northeast of China who said that the Japanese were better than the Communists because “the Japanese at least let you remain silent”.

    Kitman as a strategy is a loser. One reason the societies of the Middle East are so corrupt and unstable is because honesty has ceased to be credible currency in them. Perhaps one reason why those Muslims repelled by the violence do not speak out is because the habit of kitman has taken its toll on character.

  25. says

    I tried to read Bat Y’eor’s book “Eurabia” but found myself overwhelmed with detail.

    Fjordman’s synopsis is a great relief for me as I believe we need to know exactly what we are up against in order to initiate alost a counterrevolution, which sounds far fetched in 2006 but will probably not by 2025.

  26. says

    The problem is not islam , The problem is those that want to
    use Islam to degrade and destroy western democracy . They
    are using Islam and immigration as a weapon in along with
    many other means ( education degradation , economic failure .
    propagandistic news media , inflation of currency , degradation
    of religious belief , corruption of politicians , European Union ,
    the United Nation , the economic help of tyrants ( food to North
    Korea ) as weapons , to institute their agenda ( The New World Order ) .

  27. says

    British General Sir Richard Dannatt, who took over as Chief of Staff six weeks ago has not minced his words in cloying PCness, when speaking out against continuing British presence in Iraq.

    He said: “When I see the Islamist threat in this country I hope it doesn’t make undue progress because there is a moral and spiritual vacuum in this country. Our society has always been embedded in Christian values; once you have pulled the anchor up there is a danger that our society moves with the prevailing wind. I think it is up to society to realise that is the situation we are in.

    “We can’t wish the Islamist challenge to our society away and I believe that the Army, both in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably wherever we go next, is fighting the foreign dimension of the challenge to our accepted way of life. We need to face up to the Islamist threat, to those who act in the name of Islam and, in a perverted way, try to impose Islam by force on societies that do not wish it.

    “It is said that we live in a post-Christian society. I think that is a great shame. The broader Judaic-Christian tradition has underpinned British society. It underpins the British Army.”

    He has also called for a disengagement from Iraq, as there is nothing worthwhile left to be done there now, something which I have been saying all along in my posts at JW. Read all of it at:

    http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1868137.ece

    hello123, I think this is just the point you are making too… excellent observation about islam really being just a civil code and alla being a rhetorical name for the islamic establishment.

    tobeknown: the problem, I am afraid, is indeed islam and ONLY islam. Muslims, especially their women, are in a way victims too, suffering from a Stockholm Syndrome. Muslims are ordinary human beings, born with the same sense of right and wrong, same empathy for another human being as the rest of us. But they have been led down a path of unmitigated evil by a cult called islam that believes in violence and deceit against all non-conformists whom they call Infidels or Kafirs.

    We make a mistake when we confuse the violent cult of islam with religions like Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism etc, that are based in reason and love of all human beings and creatures.

  28. says

    To illustrate Fjordman’s excellent and foreboding article, note the reaction of the EU Commission to the French National Assembly’s vote on the Aremenian Genocide. The bill voted on forbids denial of the Armenian genocide by the Muslim Ottoman Empire during WW One, just as another French law forbids denial of the Jewish Holocaust. The EU opposition to the bill is not based on a freedom of speech/press argument, but on the possible impact on negotiations for bringing Turkey into the EU, as well as on an extremely hypocritical claim that the bill hampers reconciliation between Turks and Armenians [see link to Corriere below]. First, read EU Commission president Barroso [in Il Foglio 10-13-06]: “The law on the Armenian genocide comes at an unfortunate time in the context of EU relations with Turkey”
    “Inopportuna la legge sul genocidio armeno nel contesto delle relazioni dell’Ue con la Turchia”, ha detto ieri il presidente della Commissione europea Barroso.
    The Corriere della Sera quotes other EU officials in the same vein but worse. See link:
    http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Esteri/2006/10_Ottobre/12/armeni.shtml
    Now, I believe that not all the guilt for the Armenian genocide should be placed on Turkey, since other Muslims in the Ottoman Empire took part. Furthermore, the Empire’s European allies [Germany, Austro-Hungary] helped in the massacres and covered up for the Ottoman Empire.

  29. says

    I should add to my post above that the EU bosses are totally unconcerned about historical truth. They show the same disdain for historical truth in their anti-Israel proclamations that are issued every Monday and Thursday.

    The EU needs to be dismantled soon before it destroys civilization.

  30. says

    “These people need to be removed from the positions which they hold – by force if necessary, by violence if no other course will suffice, by assassination if nothing else will accomplish the task of freeing Europe and the EU from their grip.” Dominic.

    Assassination?
    That’s way out of line.

    How am I the only one outraged with such nonsense?

    Mosco.