The Berlin Missionary

The Berlin Missionary

Created 2008-07-27 16:58

Democrats and star-struck adulators will remember Barack Obama’s speech in Berlin as something more than it actually was. “By this foreign policy speech will future ones be measured,” declared dKos editor Tim Lee Lange, and, well — not really. The truth is that the definitive statement on the speech is probably Jim Geraghty’s: he acknowledged that “[t]here was not a ton to object to, and indeed a lot to like,” and then challenged his readers to see whether they could distinguish its rhetoric from that of We Are the World. You can’t, and that’s the point. Barack Obama’s celebrity appeal is not (contrary to what he appears to believe) fueled wholly by his innate qualities: the elements of desperation and projection, powerfully amplified by his comparative lack of public accomplishment, build him into the apparent juggernaut — and thus enable him to travel to Berlin, deliver a thoroughly pedestrian speech, and receive adoration for it.

What Barack Obama’s partisans want to hear less than this — that their candidate’s speech was unremarkable — is that it was very much in the rhetorical tradition of one George W. Bush. In listening to it, the recollection was not of the oft-cited JFK or Ronald Reagan, but of the current President’s Second Inaugural Address. The central themes are quite nearly the same: a wholesale reversal of John Quincy Adams’s formulation of American foreign policy, which stated that America “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.” George W. Bush explicitly rejected this when he proclaimed, “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.” Barack Obama expressed the same rejection less succinctly:

Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century … Now the world will watch and remember what we do here — what we do with this moment. Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time? Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words ‘never again’ in Darfur?

The implied answer to each query: under President Obama, yes we will!
 
If George W. Bush and Barack Obama share the same conceptual view of America-in-the-world as an active exporter of values and mores, it does not follow that they are the same in their particulars. (The President, mercifully, never inflicted upon us pseudo-scientific whoppers such as, “As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.” Question: will some alert member of the press corps ask Obama to identify and travel to the inch of Atlantic coastline that “cars in Boston and factories in Beijing” shrunk?) Nonetheless, it is tremendously important to understand that their differences are fundamentally those of process, not premise.
 
Again, this is not what Obama supporters want to hear — nor, I suspect, is it what the President’s ever-shrinking fan club wants to hear. The group that loves the one generally loathes the other. There are good reasons for this, but we increasingly see that the basic vision of America’s place in the world is not one of them. The specific differences matter, but can we argue that one is fundamentally worse than the other? With Iraq still at war (however improved that war is), with Osama bin Laden still free, with the Taliban resurgent, with the Iranian nuclear program going strong, with Hamas in possession of a de facto state, with Hezbollah ascendent, and with Pakistan still unstable, is there a case to be made that the vapid platitudes that undergird Barack Obama’s foreign-policy program are qualitatively worse than the vapid platitudes that informed most of George W. Bush’s?
 
In the end, they share the most vapid platitude of all: that America’s mission in the world is to, well, “lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty.” We’re a long way from the United States’s former mission — you know, the one compelling it to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” America’s engagement in the world after 1945 used to be justified and justifiable on those terms, and every postwar president till now more or less grasped this. George W. Bush decisively changed that, and the question was whether his re-orientation of America’s raison d’etre was unique to him, or a lasting shift in foundations of American policy. With Barack Obama’s speech in Berlin today, we know the terrible answer. 


Next stop, Germany: Ich bin ein beginner!

Obama’s Berlin Gambit

Obama’s Berlin Gambit

By Stephen Brown
FrontPageMagazine.com | 7/11/2008

 

There are no shortcuts to history, but don’t tell that to Barack Obama. In his ongoing campaign to appropriate John F. Kennedy’s aura, the presumptive Democratic nominee has accepted an invitation to speak in Berlin later this month.

 

 

It’s not unusual for American presidential candidates to visit Germany’s capital in an election year. But the venue Obama’s handlers have chosen – Berlin’s symbolic and history-laden Brandenburg Gate – is obviously intended to recall Kennedy’s famous “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech in Berlin in 1963. The political subtext is clear: “BHO” is JFK’s political heir.

 

Already, Obama’s planned speech has opened up a political rift in Germany. On the one side is the German Left. Led by Berlin’s socialist-dominated Senate, the city’s ruling body, which invited Obama, they see the invitation as a clever attempt to influence the upcoming American election.

 

On the other side are those who charge that the senator’s desire to speak at the historic monument is an opportunistic scheme to claim a role traditionally reserved for visiting American heads of state. Letting Obama speak at Brandenburg Gate, they argue, would only encourage vote-hungry foreign politicians to exploit the structure’s symbolism and ultimately cheapen its significance.

 

This objection is hard to dispute. Until now, only elected American presidents have made speeches in Berlin. Of these, Kennedy’s 1963 speech, delivered at Berlin’s city hall the year the Berlin Wall went up, is among the best known. Likewise, Ronald Reagan delivered his powerful “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” address in 1987 at the Brandenburg Gate. And, at the same historic landmark, Bill Clinton made an equally appropriate “Berlin is free!” oration in 1994.

 

It’s because of the powerful symbolism of the Brandenburg Gate that Obama’s plan to use it as a backdrop has fractured Germany’s conservative-socialist coalition government. Obama’s presumptuousness even prompted German Chancellor Angela Merkel, head of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in the coalition, to publically reject the idea last Wednesday. Merkel noted, sensibly, that the edifice has been reserved for elected presidents. She would like to keep it that way.

 

The chancellor also does not want Germany to be accused of meddling in American politics. Merkel’s spokesman has said that she does not want the American election campaign to be transported before the Brandenburg Gate. For that reason, Merkel’s office has asked Berlin’s government to withdraw its invitation.

 

But Berlin’s socialist mayor, Klaus Wowereit, has other ideas. He has told Merkel to essentially mind her own business. As he sees it, Berlin’s Senate, a ruling council of eight senators over which Wowereit presides, had the right to invite Obama. But it is noteworthy that all eight senators belong either to Germany’s socialist or (supposedly) former communist parties, strengthening the impression that their invitation is a thinly disguised ploy by the German Left to aid Obama’s campaign.

 

Germany’s vice-chancellor, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, a member of the Socialist Party of Germany, the junior partner in the ruling coalition, is also pressing ahead with plans for the visit. Dismissing Merkel’s concerns, Steinmeier says Obama’s proposed appearance at the German landmark would be nothing more than an expression of German-American friendship. Another socialist party politician has gone even further and accused Merkel of being in league with the Republican Party.

 

Democrats, for their part, have no objection to Obama’s speech. And no wonder: Having Obama appear before an enthusiastic Berlin crowd will boost immensely their strategy to sell the candidate as a new John F. Kennedy. It was Kennedy who made perhaps the most electrifying of the three presidential speeches in Germany’s capital and his defiant proclamation, “Ich bin ein Berliner,” thrown in the faces of communist totalitarians, has kept his memory very much alive in Germany. Now Obama can use it to his advantage.

 

But it is here that Obama’s plan to co-opt the Kennedy legacy may backfire. Spiegel Online has reported that, in contrast to Kennedy’s imperishable words, Obama’s expression for posterity in his speech will be the feebler, “I can listen.” This phrase, according to Spiegel, may turn up repeatedly in his remarks and is meant to reassure Europeans that, unlike George Bush, Obama is willing to engage with them.

 

Perhaps his speech will have that effect. But it may also expose his appearance as nothing more than a campaign photo-op, transforming an extraordinary symbol of the German nation into a mere political prop. And with his words falling far short of those spoken by more inspirational predecessors, Berliners may in the end come to the same realization about Obama as Lloyd Bentsen did about Dan Quayle in their 1988 vice-presidential debate: “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”



Stephen Brown is a columnist for Frontpagemag.com. A scholar and former news reporter, his field of expertise is Muslim forced marriages and honor killings. Email him at alsolzh@hotmail.com.

Berlin Paranoid of Terroism: 32,000 Muslims Monitored

Berlin Paranoid of Terroism: 32,000 Muslims Monitored

Friday, November 24, 2006
zaman.com

 Fear of terrorism, which has seized Europe after the Sept. 11, Madrid and London attacks, has put more pressure on Muslims, who are now being treated as “potential terrorists.”

Following statements in Britain that more than 600 Muslims were being monitored, Germany announced that 32,000 German Muslims were under surveillance.

Chair of the Bavaria Office for Protection of the Constitution, Wolfgang Weber stated that 32,000 out of 2,300,000 German Muslims were being monitored. Speaking at a panel in Munich, Weber, claiming that they were watching everybody who endangered the German democratic order, classified those who were monitored into three groups: 1) Those who wanted to establish an Islamic state based on Shariah law without resorting to violence, such as National Vision; 2) Those who collected donations for the violent groups, such as Hamas and Hezbollah; 3) Jihadist groups, such as al-Qaeda, and Ansar al-Islam. Weber asserted that Germany has become a venue where terrorists finalize their preparations.

Weber, who also responded with hesitancy to the proposal to establish dialogue with Muslim associations, noted that dialogue attempts should be conducted with the utmost care. Hep Monatzeder, Deputy Chair of Munich Municipality on Relations with Muslim, criticized Weber’s isolationist approach. Noting that the intelligence reports were based on assumptions, not on evidence and facts, Monatzeder stated: “The inclusion of the name of an association in those reports does not mean all of its members pose danger. Muslim associations carry out a wide range of activities; we are unable to isolate those who benefit from those. We should continue dialogue.”

Speaking at the panel, Chair of Muslim Council Memduh Kapicibasi, who stressed that they felt offended by the connection made between Islam and terrorism, proposed the use of the notion “religion-motivated violence.”

Media exaggerates the danger

Speaking to Zaman, Wolfgang Weber, Chair of the Bavaria Office for Protection of the Constitution, said that the terrorism threat had been exaggerated by the media. Noting that the point of view and the degree of exaggeration varied according to the channel and newspaper, Weber said they mostly focused on Islamic radicalism and extreme right wing groups, and further confessed that they had intelligence agents inside the Muslim associations.

Number of Mosques Rising, Churches Declining

A recently conducted research in Germany revealed that the number of mosques was increasing, while the number of churches was declining. According to the study by Central Islamic Archive Institute, the number of mosques has risen from 141 to 159 since 2004, while 128 were under construction. Likewise, the number of Muslims has increased from 56,000 to nearly one million since the early 1980s.

Fjordman: Why the European Union Must be Dismantled

 

Fjordman: Why the European Union Must be Dismantled

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?

The Rape of Europe

The Rape of Europe

The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (12 October) that young Europeans who love freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now. Whilst sitting on a terrace in Berlin, Broder pointed to the other customers and the passers-by and said melancholically: “We are watching the world of yesterday.”

Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate himself. “I am too old,” he said. However, he urged young people to get out and “move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable.”

Many Germans and Dutch, apparently, did not wait for Broder’s advice. The number of emigrants leaving the Netherlands and Germany has already surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. One does not have to be prophetic to predict, like Henryk Broder, that Europe is becoming Islamic. Just consider the demographics. The number of Muslims in contemporary Europe is estimated to be 50 million. It is expected to double in twenty years. By 2025, one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families. Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for new-born boys in Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and other major European cities.

Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose islamization. “The dominant ethos,” he told De Volkskrant, “is perfectly voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated. She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death.”

In a recent op-ed piece in the Brussels newspaper De Standaard (23 October) the Dutch (gay and self-declared “humanist”) author Oscar Van den Boogaard refers to Broder’s interview. Van den Boogaard says that to him coping with the islamization of Europe is like “a process of mourning.” He is overwhelmed by a “feeling of sadness.” “I am not a warrior,” he says, “but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”

As Tom Bethell wrote in this month’s American Spectator: “Just at the most basic level of demography the secular-humanist option is not working.” But there is more to it than the fact that non-religious people tend not to have as many children as religious people, because many of them prefer to “enjoy” freedom rather than renounce it for the sake of children. Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to resist.

“If faith collapses, civilization goes with it,” says Bethell. That is the real cause of the closing of civilization in Europe. Islamization is simply the consequence. The very word Islam means “submission” and the secularists have submitted already. Many Europeans have already become Muslims, though they do not realize it or do not want to admit it.

Some of the people I meet in the U.S. are particularly worried about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. They are correct when they fear that anti-Semitism is also on the rise among non-immigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit. Contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to anti-Americanism. People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit.

This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of European “islamophobes” who dare to talk about what they see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between submission (islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen submission – just like in former days when they preferred to be red rather than dead.

Why Muslim Immigration is a Threat to Western Democracy

Why Muslim Immigration is a Threat to Western Democracy

Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
(Bertold Brecht)

I have warned earlier, especially (in the essay Electing a New People: The Leftist-Islamic Alliance), against Islamic infiltration of Leftist parties in the West, most recently demonstrated in Belgium, and the threat this poses to Western democracy. This is part of the reason why I advocate containment of the Islamic world and an end to Muslim immigration. Pundit Ohmyrus makes some of the same observations. But there is also another way in which Muslim immigration threatens our Western society.

In Policy Review, Lee Harris reviews Andrew G. Bostom’s excellent book The Legacy of Jihad. In his acknowledgments, Bostom expresses the wish that his own children and their children may “thrive in a world where the devastating institution of jihad has been acknowledged, renounced, dismantled, and relegated forever to the dustbin of history by Muslims themselves.”

But, as Harris asks,

“Why should Muslims renounce and dismantle an institution that, while it may have been devastating to those who have been its victims, has nevertheless been the historical agent by which Islamic culture has come to dominate such a vast expanse of our planet? […] Indeed, what is most striking about the collective project of jihad has been its immense and, with few exceptions, permanent success. Once Islamic culture sank in, it became virtually impossible for any foreign cultural influence to make any headway against it.”

He warns against those who dismiss the idea that Jihad constitutes a serious Islamic threat to the West because we are technologically superior to the Islamic world:

“Jihad has demonstrated an astonishing adaptability to different historical and material conditions. Yet the secret of the success of the Arab bands lay less in their own warlike qualities than in the weakness and decadence of the empires they overthrew. […] The jihadists are not interested in winning in our sense of the word. They can succeed simply by making the present world order unworkable, by creating conditions in which politics-as-usual is no longer an option, forcing upon the West the option either of giving in to their demands or descending into anarchy and chaos.
 
It is tempting to call this approach the crash of civilization.
 
It does not take a modern, sophisticated army to bring down a fragile and delicately balanced political order. Those who have no interest in preserving order, who are eager to destroy it, will welcome disorder for its own sake.”

Accordingly, says Harris, Muslims

“do not need to achieve the same degree of force that is the monopoly of the established order. In the crash-of-civilization paradigm – contrary to Clausewitzian warfare – the enemy of a particular established order does not need to match it in organizational strength and effectiveness. It needs only to make the established order reluctant to use its great strength out of the understandable fear that by plunging into civil war it will itself be jeopardized. This fear of anarchy – the ultimate fear for those who embrace the politics of reason – can be used to paralyze the political process to the point at which the established order is helpless to control events through normal political channels and power is no longer in the hands of the establishment but lies perilously in the streets. […] The jihadists do not need to ‘win’ in the battle against the West; it is enough if they can force the West to choose between a dreaded plunge back into the Law of the Jungle and acceding to their demands. This is a formula that has worked many times before and may work again.”

Muslims can thus undermine Western democracy in two ways: By massive immigration and infiltration of established, especially Socialist, parties until they can be turned to serve the Islamic agenda, or by simply creating a climate of fear and distrust that gradually makes the democratic system unworkable. In Western Europe right now, they are making significant headway on both accounts.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers