Twenty-Nine Reasons to Be Angry And/Or Scared

Twenty-Nine Reasons to Be Angry And/Or Scared

By Monty
Pelerin

If you’re not both angry and scared
at the world’s current situation, you’re not paying attention.

 

Rained out from a planned and
anticipated golf game is not a good thing.  As a result, I find myself confined
to the house and computer in a less than jovial mood and decided to list a few
problems in the world today.  The list grew beyond my
intentions.

In no particular order, and hardly
complete, is the following enumerated list:

  1. The Eurozone is imploding and likely
    will be unable to hold in its present constitution, if at all.
  2. Fiat currencies are being debased
    rapidly in a “beggar thy neighbor” attempt to juice domestic economies.
    Competitive devaluations provide no advantage when other countries match the
    debauchery.
  3. More money/debt/federal spending is
    not economic policy if you view same as being able to fix or improve something.
    Such action is merely political, a form of political propaganda to convince the
    masses that the economy is improving.  Temporarily propping up reported GDP may
    provide better headlines, but does not create jobs.
  4. The purpose of so-called quantitative
    easing is to shore up bankrupt governments.  The action itself is a form of
    default, albeit in slow motion.  Pretending to honor commitments while inflating
    their value away is a criminal offense, but for government it passes for
    economic policy.
  5. Inflation has broken out around the
    world, regardless of what government statistics say.  Food and commodity prices
    are soaring, and these hit the least well-off the hardest.  Rising prices of
    necessities serves to make them poorer and more desperate.
  6. Citizen unrest around the world does
    not reflect some idealistic demand for Democracy as claimed by our political
    class and media.  This unrest results from increasing hunger, loss of hope, and
    desperation by people of the world.  Food prices are being driven beyond their
    ability to pay.  They want something to eat, not some philosophy called
    Democracy.
  7. Unrest will grow worse as food,
    energy and other necessities become more expensive.  The unrest started in
    poorer countries but, as prices continue to rise, will spread to more affluent
    nations.  Can “Democratic movements” occur in supposedly already democratic
    societies?
  8. The “outs” in oppressive societies
    want to overthrow the “ins” in order to gain the right to plunder rather than be
    plundered.  Retribution also plays a role.  In a very real sense, these
    movements are little more than large-scale “gang wars” where one gang attempts
    to gain “turf” at the expense of another.  Each battles for the right to own and
    exploit the “neighborhood.”
  9. Western social welfare states are
    broke and unable to honor their commitments.  Sovereign defaults and austerity
    measures are inevitable.
  10. Citizens of social welfare states,
    conditioned to believe they have the right to be supported by productive members
    of society, will not accept austerity measures willingly.  Rioting and bloodshed
    will be most severe in the more pampered societies.
  11. Political fear will prevent
    meaningful corrective action.  Governments will continue the charade of solvency
    via continued printing of money.  They know it will not improve the economy, but
    it will enable them to continue to send out checks.
  12. Inflation will ratchet up higher as a
    result of money-printing.  That will only exacerbate civil unrest as the poor
    will be squeezed even more.
  13. Developed economies are no longer
    growing.  Most have not had true economic growth for decades.  Excessive debt
    and easy credit were used to hide this reality in the US.  It enabled living
    standards not supportable by incomes.  Now debt is unsustainable and cannot be
    serviced.
  14. A massive liquidation of debt is
    coming.  Some of it will be via contractual paydown.  Some of it may be inflated
    away, but most will be via default, producing numerous bankruptcies.
  15. Job creation is a problem in all
    Western developed countries.  In the advanced social welfare states of Europe it
    has been a chronic problem for decades.  The US economy now suffers from the
    sclerotic disease that characterizes Socialism.
  16. Decades of increasing regulation on
    business, employment, and incomes have finally taken their toll.  These
    interventions have resulted in an economic climate where obtaining a reasonable
    return on investment is no longer perceived to be worth the increased risk
    associated with it.
  17. Entrepreneurs and businesses withhold
    capital and refuse to hire in uncertain times.
  18. Many businesses have voted with their
    feet, moving jobs and capital offshore to escape onerous regulations and taxes.
  19. The continuously increasing
    redistribution of income means more has to be extracted from fewer producers to
    support the growing dependency class.  Anticipation of higher taxes reduces the
    incentives to take risk, work hard, or employ more people.  Economies do not
    grow or recover under such circumstances.
  20. GDP numbers are inflated by wasteful
    government spending.  But this spending is merely window-dressing.  It creates
    no new wealth, products, or productive jobs.  It is another form of
    redistribution that moves societies closer to bankruptcy.  Despite a reported
    increased in GDP, nothing has improved.  That is one reason why GDP can increase
    without employment increasing.
  21. Central banks and their banking
    systems are insolvent.  The amount of insolvency is difficult to estimate but is
    well into the trillions!  Citizens have been looted to cover up this insolvency
    and bail out Washington’s friends in the financial community.  Sadly, all of
    this has been for naught, as a collapse of fractional-reserve banking is
    inevitable.
  22. China is in an inflationary bubble
    with massive misallocation of resources.  Underreported
    riots
    are breaking out in China where political unrest is a national sport.
  23. China is the future economic world
    power, but that future has not yet arrived.  Its current economic condition is
    likely not sustainable as a result of the distortions of central planning.  It
    is a house of cards, awaiting a collapse.
  24. Political strife in China will become
    severe when the economy implodes.  How this turmoil is reconciled will determine
    how quickly China recovers and rises to become a world economic power.  The
    political leaders and their apparatchiks will try to retain control with tougher
    restrictions on citizens.  Ultimately they will fail, but it will prevent the
    true potential of China from being realized until free markets are embraced.
    That could be several generations away.
  25. The US and other Western democracies
    have solved nothing regarding their economic problems.  These countries,
    including the US, are heading for currency and societal collapses.
  26. The massive debt problems of Western
    economies are mathematically impossible to solve.  Massive defaults will have to
    occur eventually.
  27. Real economic recovery cannot occur
    until the debt excesses are eliminated.  Kicking the can down the road might be
    considered good political strategy, but it is terribly harmful
    economically.
  28. The outlook for peace and tranquility
    in the world is not good.  Governments in danger of failing and falling
    everywhere are not above using diversions to distract angry citizens.  Some
    countries will probably be treated to “wag the dog” endeavors.  Desperate
    scoundrels will stop at nothing to extend their reign in office.
  29. I missed my golf game.

There is another item I could have
added to this list, but it is too complex and much bigger and scarier than those
above. It deals with the notion that most of the above problems do not result
from this particular economic crisis. To be sure, most were exposed as a result
of the current crisis, but that merely determined the timing of their
revelation. Something else, much bigger and more permanent seems to be at
play.

An economic crisis implies something
of a relatively short duration with an eventual return to whatever represents a
“normal” state.  Recessions are cyclical.  But so too was the Great Depression.
While it lasted longer and was more severe than a recession, conditions returned
to normal within a reasonable period of time.

What we are in, it appears to me, is
the beginning of a massive secular change that will alter the way we view
countries, economies and institutions.  It is much bigger than an economic cycle
and likely will represent an epic movement in terms of history.  The history
books a hundred or more years from now will recognize what happened more clearly
than contemporary participants will be able to do.  The changes will be massive
and glacier-like in movement.  No generation alive today will see the end of
this massive secular change.

To be continued on the next rainy
day.

 

Monty Pelerin blogs at
www.economicnoise.com.

Ethnic War in Brussels: Moroccans Attack “Whites”

Ethnic War in Brussels: Moroccans Attack “Whites”

Created 2008-05-23 23:54

On Friday evening (today), riots broke out in the streets of Brussels between Moroccan youths and supporters of football club RSC Anderlecht. On Thursday evening, a blog had called for attacks on the “white” supporters of the club, and “to burn pubs, houses and cars.”

The official story is that the problems began last Sunday, after the Belgian Cup Final between RSC Anderlecht and AA Gent. RSC Anderlecht won the Cup, but after the match its supporters and Moroccan youths had clashed near the metro station of Sint-Guido nearby the Constant Vanden Stock Stadium where the match was played. Since then, the atmosphere had been tense in and around the Brussels borough of Anderlecht, but on Thursday a blog was created on Blogspot calling for attacks on the “white” supporters of the football club and to burn pubs, houses and cars.

There may be more to this story than the media are telling us. In a reaction to a blog posting by an Anderlecht supporter, who uses the nickname da reflect, provides a clue to the reason why riots between Moroccans and supporters of Anderlecht broke out on Sunday evening: Someone, using the name RSCA SpideY, asks whether today’s riots have something to do with “that Moroccan guy who tried to rob an Anderlecht supporter on Sunday evening and was beaten up by other RSC Anderlecht supporters afterwards.” There is no confirmation of this story in the mainstream media, but they are not citing any other reason why riots broke out on Sunday.

Another interesting aspect of the story is that there is no information about the author of the inciting blog. It seems remarkable that the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism (CEOOR, a government body) has not yet commented on the case yet since the posting clearly must have been in violation with the Belgian anti-discrimination laws. According to the press, the word “white” was specifically mentioned in the posting. One would expect that the CEOOR would leave no stone unturned to find out who the author is and bring him to court. Others have received warrants, in a “knock on the door” fashion for articles that were far less offensive or explicit, as the readers of this website know. I could not find the address or a copy of the blog posting, so I assume it has already been removed from Blogspot’s servers.


Europe Shall Bleed, Once Again

http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=105&Itemid=2

Europe Shall Bleed, Once Again

  
Friday, 23 May 2008
Me and my brother against my cousin; me, my brother, and my cousin against the other. This is an old Muslim saying and Muslims live by this motto. To be sure the people of the-religion of peace-find the world full of “other,” to oppress and kill, both within as well as without the Islamic Ummah.Civilized peoples’ idea of the “other” is the exact opposite of that of Muslims. All over Europe, for one, people have been singing the praises of multiculturalism; the idea that everybody should bend over backwards to accommodate the different in society. However, the different in this case are the hordes of invasive Muslims, with their rigid medieval ideas about every aspect of private and public life.
To Muslims, anyone who doesn’t toe the line of Islam, as each sect defines it, is the “other” and fair game as kafir (blasphemous; unbeliever in Allah). The “other” covers a broad spectrum: the six billion or so people of the world who are not Muslims, including the Jews and Christians who are considered Dhimmis. Every one of the numerous sects and sub-sects of Islam consider every other sect and sub-sect as “other” to be punished and even eliminated.Centuries old Sunni-Shiite bloodletting is only one glaring example of the Islamic unceasing animosity for the “other.” Yet, these devotees of Allah never lose sight of the most important objective: destruction of everything non-Islamic and imposition of Islam on everyone and every land. Just recall what the Taliban did to the statues of Buddha, among other things; what the Wahabis are doing throughout the world; and, what the bomb-seeking Shiite mullahs of Iran are doing to the Baha’is in Iran in relentless race to dominate the region, destroy Israel, and later rule the world.

The sword that Muhammad wielded to kill all those who didn’t see things his way has never been sheathed by his followers. As soon as Muhammad died his devoted adherents carried on with his practice of killing. Killing gets merit points for Muslims. The Commander of the Faithful, Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, was knighted by none other than Muhammad for beheading, some 600 unbelievers in one day with his own sword, assisted only by one other killer. Ali’s blood-drenched sword had its own title, Zulfaghar.

The Muslims’ killing campaign did not end with their defeat at the gates of Vienna. Their eviction from Spain was a temporary forced retreat. But now the Muslims have, in huge numbers, penetrated the gates of every city and town of Europe without yet having to use their swords.

The Islam in Europe blog
reports on the numbers and percentages of Muslims in many European cities. Here are some of the statistics:
Marseilles – 25% (200,000 of 800,000)
Malmö – ~25% (67,000 of 270,000
Amsterdam – 24% (180,000 of 750,000)
Stockholm – 20% (>155,000 of 771,038)
Brussels – ~20% (some say 33%)
Moscow – 16-20% (2 million of 10-12 million)
London – 17% (1.3 million of 7.5 million)
Luton – 14.6% (26,963)
Birmingham 14.3% (139,771)
The Hague – 14.2% (67,896 of 475,580)
Utrecht – 13.2% (38,300 of 289,000)
Rotterdam – 13% (80,000 of 600,000)
Copenhagen – 12.6% (63,000 of 500,000)
Leicester – 11% (>30,000 of 280,000)
Aarhus – ~10%
Zaan district (Netherlands) – 8.8 percent
Paris – 7.38% (155,000 of 2.1 million)
Antwerp- 6.7% (>30,000 of >450,000)
Hamburg – 6.4% (>110,000 of 1.73 million)
Berlin – 5.9% (~200,000 of 3.40 million)

In the West, an unholy coalition of mentally-deranged suicidal-homicidal liberals; together with self-selling Islamic apologists; are doing their level best to assist the Islamists in the destruction  of the existing order of freedom and liberty.

In Europe, the gullible, self-indulging native non-Muslims have welcomed the arrivals as a source of cheap labor to serve their needs for a life devoted to self-gratification with little concern for the future. Europe is living on credit. And the creditors are hordes of Muslims who have already started delivering their bills.

Many affluent Europeans who see the handwriting on the wall are packing and moving to North America, Australia, and other seemingly safe lands. Yet, the Muslims’ bills, with compounded interest, shall continue to be delivered to those who remain behind. In response, politicians will keep bending backwards to placate the evermore powerful creditors by gradually instituting the Islamic Shariah as the law of the land. Before very long, Europe will have to turn its deed over to the new Islamic invaders or rebel and fight block by block, city by city. That’s when Europe shall bleed, once again.

Political Islam – a ‘European’ ideology?

Political Islam – a ‘European’ ideology?

Created 2008-05-14 15:34
An article written in December 2007 and published online in January 2008 has just attracted the attention of the spokesman for Islam, Integration and Extremism in the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU). The article is by the Grand Mufti of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mustafa Ceric, and two things are remarkable about it at first sight. The first is its title, “The challenge of a single Muslim authority in Europe” (more on this in a moment); the second is the place of publication.
 
The article, which can be read online here, advocates the creation of a single global authority to regulate the religious and civil life of Muslims all over the world. It argues that the best place to start constructing such an authority is Europe itself.
 
The journal which has published this piece is European View, the journal of something called the Centre for European Studies, a mouthpiece of the European People’s Party (EPP), the parliamentary body in the European Parliament grouped around the German Christian Democrats. There is no doubt about the political affiliation of the journal: its editor, for instance, has an EPP e-mail address.
 
According to Kristina Köhler, the CDU spokesman on such matters, the article advocates extremism. On 12 May, she told Die Welt that the author was arguing that all Muslims in Europe should live under a common political and spiritual leader and under sharia law, and that the state should guarantee this parallel jurisdiction by treaty. “This would mean a European caliphate,” she said.
 
Ceric makes no bones about the fact that Muslims must obey shariah law. “The Islamic convenant, the shari’ah, is perpetual, it is not negotiable and it is not terminable,” he writes. According to him, “a European Muslim imamate” should be established “as a way of institutionalising Islam in Europe”. (By ‘imamate’ he means the application of shariah law in practice.) The author says that the two great strands of Islam, Sunnism and Shiism, should unite “with the objective of creating a global Muslim authority”. Ceric argues that Europe is specifically the best place to start creating such a global authority. He writes,

It is not enough that Europe recognises the presence of Islam on its territory. Muslims deserve more than that. They deserve that their presence be legalised in the sense of creating a political and economic climate in which European Muslims can represent themselves through the institutions that should have both governmental support and public acceptance.

This is the part of his text which Köhler attacks as implying “a parallel jurisdiction” and she is right. In a sense, we should not be surprised that such a call should come from a Bosnian. Bosnia precisely did have such parallel jurisdictions under Ottomon rule, with courts for Muslims and courts for non-Muslims. To some extent, the paraphernalia of minority rights, which became a centrepiece of the 1974 Yugoslav constitution and which continues to bedevil Bosnian politics to this day, is a hangover from that period: both stand in marked contrast to the English and French traditions of centralised statehood.
 
But what is really striking about the article – and what the Christian Democrat official naturally overlooks – is that the rise of a Muslim political identity (and even perhaps of a Muslim parallel jurisdiction of the kind which the Archbishop of Canterbury seemed to call in a recent and very controversial speech) is precisely made more likely by the weakening of national identity caused, in part, by the anti-national pan-European ideology of which the German CDU is one of the main propagators.
 
Ceric himself sees the link between Europeanism and political Islam very clearly. After a few concluding sentences which border on the threatening – European society is still too “immature” to realise the advantage of a single Muslim authority, yet it will come whatever the European political establishment now thinks – he concludes with this sentence:

A single Muslim authority in Europe will come sooner or later because of need by young European Muslims who are capable of seeing their Islamic identity as prior to their ethnic or national identities and who are comfortable with their European identity coexisting with their Islamic upbringing. [my emphasis – jl]

Elsewhere in the piece, the author makes the link between Islam as a “universal” religion and Muslims as “global citizens”. There is, in other words, a specific link between the proposal, which amounts to the creation of a global caliphate although Ceric does not use this term, and the general cosmopolitan ideology of globalism of which European integration is a key part. To put it bluntly, the stronger national identities, the weaker Islamic identity – and vice-versa.
 
Robert Dreyfuss makes the point, in his arresting work Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam, (New York: Henry Holt, 2005) that British and later American secret operatives deliberately supported pan-Islamic radicals in order to weaken nationalist leaders in the Arab world. The more such people were committed to the ummah, the less they would be interested in creating strong nation-states. Ceric seems to have the same view, since for him the need for a Muslim political authority rises as national identities weaken, whereas European “identity” is no threat to it at all. Could there be a clearer indictment of the suicidal nature of the EU’s project of dissolving national identity in Europe today? 


Creating a European Indigenous People’s Movement

Creating a European Indigenous People’s Movement

Created 2008-04-06 14:13

An American friend of mine has proposed that native Europeans should create a European Indigenous People’s Movement. I have hesitated with supporting this because it sounded a bit too extreme. However, in more and more European cities, the native population is being pushed out of their own neighborhoods by immigrant gangs. The natives receive little or no aid from their authorities, sometimes blatant hostility, when faced with immigrant violence. In an age where the global population increases with billions of people in a few decades, it is entirely plausible, indeed likely, that the West could soon become demographically overwhelmed. Not few of our intellectuals seem to derive pleasure from this thought.

Bat Ye’or in her book about Eurabia has documented how the European Union is actively allowing Muslims to colonize European countries. The next time EU leaders complain about China’s treatment of minorities, I suggest the Chinese answer the following: “Yes, we represent an anti-democratic organization dedicated to subduing the indigenous people of Tibet, but you represent an anti-democratic organization dedicated to displacing the indigenous peoples of an entire continent.” There is no love lost between me and the Chinese Communist Party, an organization responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of its citizens, but even Chinese authorities do not actively seek to displace their own people with violent Muslims. European authorities do.

In decadent societies of the past, the authorities didn’t open the gates to hostile nations and ban opposition to this as intolerance and barbarophobia. What we are dealing with in the modern West is not merely decadence; it’s one of the greatest betrayals in history. Our so-called leaders pass laws banning the opposition to our dispossession as “racism and hate speech.” To native Europeans, when listening to our media and our leaders, it’s as if we don’t even exist, as if it were normal for them to put the interests of other nations over their own. Despite having “democratic” governments, many Western countries have authorities that are more hostile to their own people than dictators in some developing countries. Why?

At the Daily Telegraph, Simon Heffer suggests that the mass immigration encouraged in particular by the Labour governments of Blair and Brown in Britain is not happening out of incompetence, but is part of “a doctrinally driven determination by the new Government in 1997 to destroy our national identity and to advance multiculturalism.” I agree, but this policy of state-sponsored population replacement is far from limited to Britain.

Numbers discussed in 2008 showed clearly that mass immigration has had no positive effects on the economy in Britain, and I have seen similar calculations from France, Denmark and Norway, among others. On the contrary, it is a drain on the finances of the native population, and that’s even if we don’t count the wave of terrorism, insecurity and street violence which is sweeping Western Europe, from Sweden via Germany to the Netherlands. On top of this, the costs of destruction of national cohesion and weakened cultural legacies are incalculable, yet mass immigration continues as if nothing has happened. In April 2008, a report indicated that Spain needed over two million new foreign workers just until 2020, many of whom are likely to come from Muslim North Africa. The authors of the report would call upon the Spanish government to adopt a new law on immigration “to facilitate the legal entry, take advantage of the new arrivals and encourage integration.”

I have earlier toyed with the idea of giving native Norwegians the legal status as indigenous people in Norway. A large proportion of my ancestors have lived here since the end of the last Ice Age, for as long as this country has been habitable for humans. The original settlers, who came from Central Europe (Germany and the Czech Republic), have been supplemented by other Europeans. Genetic traces from peoples of Near Eastern origins who spread agriculture to Europe are detectable, but until recently most Europeans were overwhelmingly the descendants of men and women who had lived in the region for tens of thousands of years.

Genetically speaking, native Europeans have thus lived longer on the same continent than have Native Americans. Many Southeast Asians are descendants of southern Chinese settlers who displaced or eradicated the original, dark-skinned inhabitants of the region in early historical times, just as many of the nations of sub-Saharan Africa are Bantu invaders who displaced or eradicated the indigenous Khoi-San peoples throughout much of Africa. Modern-day Japanese have lived in Japan for a shorter period of time than Europeans have lived in Europe. Yet a Scottish councillor, Sandy Aitchison, was chastised for using the term “indigenous” about native Brits. Why is it considered ridiculous or evil if Europeans assert our rights? Is it because we are white? Everybody’s supposed to keep their culture, except people of European origins? Is that it? Why is colonialism bad, except when my country, which has no colonial history, gets colonized by Third World peoples?

Western Europeans have in recent years accepted more immigration in a shorter period of time than any society has ever done peacefully in human history. If we want a break we have the right to do so. What we are dealing with is not “immigration” but colonization, and in the case of Muslims, internationally organized attempts to conquer of our countries. If non-Europeans have the right to resist colonization then so do Europeans. Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Norway hardly have any colonial history at all. The Germans had a colony in Namibia. Why should they accept millions of Turkish Muslims, who have a thousand years of brutal colonial history of their own, because of this? There are hardly any Britons in Pakistan today, so why should the Brits allow huge numbers of Pakistanis to settle in Britain? And if the Algerians can demand independence from France, why can’t the French demand independence from Algerians?

I like cultural diversity and would hope this could be extended to include my culture, too. Or is Multiculturalism simply a hate ideology designed to unilaterally dismantle European culture and the peoples who created it? If people in Cameroon or Cambodia can keep their culture, why can’t the peoples who produced Beethoven, Newton, Copernicus, Michelangelo and Louis Pasteur do the same? As Rabbi Aryeh Spero points out, European elites insist “on the primacy of indigenous cultures and religions when speaking of other faraway regions, yet find such insistence arrogant when it concerns the indigenous culture of its own lands.”

Yes, a little immigration from compatible cultures can be absorbed, and can be beneficial on certain terms. But what we are dealing with now is not from compatible cultures, and it certainly isn’t little. My nation runs a very real risk of being demographically wiped out during this century, as do the other Nordic countries. We will go from being among the most successful societies in human history to being eradicated in the space of a few generations if current levels of mass immigration continue. Do I have the right to worry about this, or is that “racist”?

The author Gore Vidal once stated: “Norway is large enough and empty enough to take in 40 to 50 million homeless Bengalis. If the Norwegians say that, all in all, they would rather not take them in, is this to be considered racism? I think not. It is simply self-preservation, the first law of species.” Thomas Jefferson said that “The law of self-preservation is higher than written law,” and he was right.

As I wrote two years ago: “By any standards possible, we’re one of the most successful cultures in the world, our largest flaw, which could eventually bury us, probably being our naivety. So why on earth should we quietly watch while our country is subdued by the most unsuccessful cultures in the world? The most basic instinct of all living things, even down to bacteria level, is self-preservation. In 2006, you have a natural right to self-preservation if you are an amoeba, but not if you’re a Scandinavian. Maybe the solution then is to argue that Scandinavians are indeed a species of amoebas, and that we need special protection by the WWF. We could showcase some of our finest specimen of Leftist intellectuals and journalists to prove our point. Shouldn’t be too hard.”

For simply suggesting that I would not enjoy being turned into a persecuted minority in my own country, I have been accused of being a “white nationalist,” which says a great deal about how demonized people of European ancestry have become. What about Koreans or Japanese? If they were gradually being displaced by, say, Nigerians and Pakistanis and were harassed in their cities by people who moved there out of their own free will, would they be denounced as yellow nationalists if they objected to this? In fact, why do the terms yellow nationalist, brown nationalist and black nationalist hardly exist, whereas the term white nationalist does? Isn’t that by itself an indication of a double standard?

I started out initially writing almost exclusively about Islam, and I still write predominantly about Islam. However, I have gradually realized that we are dealing with an entire regime of censorship that needs to be removed before we can deal with Islam. I will in any situation highlight and support the struggle of Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Baha’is, Jews, African Christians, Chinese Taoists etc. against Islamic Jihad, which is a global fight. I always have and I always will. The one thing I will not do is surrender my land, which is not mine to give. I do not see anybody else quietly accept being turned into a minority in the country where their ancestors have lived since the end of the last Ice Age, and I cannot see why I should have to do so, either. I don’t care if white Westerners are “scared of being called a racist.” I will not leave a ruined land behind to my descendants because I was afraid of being called bad names. If you think it is “racist” for Europeans to preserve their heritage and protect their children from abuse, then I’m not the bigot here. You are.

I hereby propose that native Europeans should create a European Indigenous People’s Movement, on behalf of the traditional majority populations of Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark etc., inspired by the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The European Indigenous People’s Movement should support the right of Europe’s indigenous peoples to preserve their self-determination, traditions, sovereignty and culture as majority peoples in their own lands.

The list of goals and objectives should include:

1.) The right to maintain our traditional majorities in our own lands, control our own sovereignty and our own self-determination. We do not wish harm or ill-feeling toward any other peoples on earth, but we assert the right to maintain our own majorities in our own lands without being accused of “racism.” We reject current trends which preach that we have no right to oppose, control or lessen unlimited immigration from non-indigenous cultures.

2.) The right to teach our children our cultures, languages, historical interpretations, religious celebrations and traditions unimpeded. We reject educational trends which encourage our children to forget or despise their culture, traditions, religious practices and history in order to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens.

3.) The right to maintain, cherish and practice our own indigenous religious holidays and celebrations. We reject out of hand current trends which preach that traditional indigenous European religious or cultural celebrations such as Christmas are somehow “racist” or “non-inclusive” and therefore must be “downgraded,” “renamed” or otherwise de-emphasized or eliminated in order to avoid offending non-indigenous European residents or citizens. We reject current policies which establish that our indigenous cultures are somehow deficient and therefore are not complete until they are “enriched” by other, non-indigenous cultures.

4.) The right to maintain, cherish and display our own indigenous religious, national, ethnic and cultural symbols. We reject out of hand current trends or policies which preach that our national flags or ethnic symbols of centuries standing are somehow “racist” or “non-inclusive” in order to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens.

5.)  The right to maintain, cherish, protect and display our own indigenous cultural expressions such as music, artwork and sculptures. We reject out of hand current trends or policies which preach that indigenous European cultural expressions such as statues of boars, folkloric tales about pigs or dogs, paintings with Christian or Classical pagan themes, war memorials with a Christian theme, etc., should be removed from public view, banned, destroyed, modified or otherwise threatened in order to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens.

6.)  The right to maintain, cherish and protect indigenous burial sites, structures, buildings, churches, museums and other public works and structures from destruction, modification or other changes. We reject out of hand current trends or policies which establish that indigenous public works and structures must be changed or modified to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens, or to “make way” for structures or public works that benefit non-European residents or citizens (i.e. digging up indigenous graves that are centuries old in order to “make room” for non-indigenous cemeteries, removing external Christian symbols and statues from churches, etc.)

Mr. Franco Frattini of the EU Commission, the unelected and unaccountable government for nearly half a billion people, has stated that Europeans should accept further tens of millions of immigrants within a generation. The British Foreign Minister Milliband stated late in 2007 that the EU should expand to include Muslim nations in North Africa and the Middle East. The French President Sarkozy and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed this early in 2008. This is part of an organized attempt to surrender Europe to Islamization that has been going on for decades. Since the European Union involves the free movement of people across borders, European leaders are opening the floodgates to tens of millions of Muslims and other non-indigenous peoples at a time when native Europeans fear for the survival of their civilization and feel like aliens in their own cities. Meanwhile, Ernst Uhrlau, the president of Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, warned about the rising assertiveness of violent Jihadist organizations in North Africa.

Based on this evidence, the European Union can hardly be seen as anything other than a criminal organization dedicated to the demographic dispossession and cultural marginalization of the indigenous peoples of an entire continent. Consequently, the EU should be immediately and totally dissolved. Native Europeans should demand that we have an interim period with public de-Eurabification, where the lies propagated by pro-Islamic Multiculturalists should be removed from our history books, and a proper respect for European cultural traditions should be restored. Those officials on senior levels who have participated in the creation of Eurabia should stand trial for crimes against their civilization.


European Leaders Agree to Create Eurabia

European Leaders Agree to Create Eurabia

Created 2008-03-05 11:26
Bat Ye’or in her book about Eurabia documented how European leaders have for years been quietly planning to merge Europe with the Islamic world. This has been denounced as a “conspiracy theory.” Only a few months ago the British Foreign Minister David Miliband said openly that the European Union should expand to include the Muslim Middle East and North Africa. Now French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are saying virtually the same thing. The greatest betrayal in European history is fact, not fiction. And to think that many people supported Sarkozy because he should “halt” Islamization. Now he is speeding it up:

Merkel and Sarkozy Find ‘Club Med’ Compromise (Der Spiegel, 4 March 2008)

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced jointly that they had reached a compromise regarding Sarkozy’s proposed Mediterranean Union. At a press conference held jointly with Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel added that the ensuing outcome should be called the “Mediterranean Union” and that it “should be a project of all 27 (European Union) member countries.” Merkel was referring to her position that any deal to create a union with the Mediterranean states that border the European Union should be negotiated and drafted in conjunction with all EU member states – not just those that border the sea, as Sarkozy had initially proposed.

The Eurabia Code

How was a project as big as the creation of Eurabia pulled off? I have thought a lot about this question, and come to the conclusion that it succeeded precisely because of its size. St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great. “How dare you molest the sea?” asked Alexander. “How dare you molest the whole world?” the pirate replied. “Because I do it with a little ship only, I am called a thief; you, doing it with a great navy, are called an emperor.” It’s a matter of scale. If a small group of people sideline the democratic process in one country and start imposing their own laws on the public, it’s called a coup d’état. If they do so on an entire continent, it’s called the European Union.
 
The European Union and the Islamization of Europe

The British Foreign Minister David Miliband in November 2007 stated that the European Union should work towards including Middle Eastern and North African countries. The EU involves the free movement of people across borders. If it expands to the Middle East, hundreds of millions of Muslims will have free access to Germany, Italy, France, Britain, Sweden and the Czech Republic. If Turkey becomes a member, it means that Greeks, Bulgarians and others who have fought against oppression by Ottoman Turks for centuries will now be flooded with Muslims from a rapidly re-Islamizing Turkey. The same goes for Poles, Hungarians, Romanians and others who fought against Muslims for centuries. Appeasement of Islam is so deeply immersed in the structural DNA of the EU that the only way to stop the Islamization of Europe is to dismantle the European Union. All of it.

The Euro-Arab Axis Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis
Author: Bat Ye’Or,Bat Yeor
ASIN: 083864077X

Europe is a dying continent

Major Shift

Created 2008-03-02 23:22
A quote from Yale Daily News, 29 February 2008

Europe is a dying continent. I say this not as a criticism, but rather as a statement of fact. In Europe, an acute failure to produce the next generation has created a looming demographic crisis. […] Given present trends, within about a century, Europe will cease to be a white, Christian continent.

No one wants to talk about racial or religious issues, but it merits consideration that the vast majority of immigrants to the European Union are Muslims from North Africa, the Middle East and Turkey. By the year 2150, barring a major shift in either native European fertility rates or immigrant nationality, Europe will be a largely Muslim continent with whites and Christians as minorities composing less than 20 percent of the population. Much of Europe has come to terms with that possibility, but a significant portion of the population is uncomfortable about the prospect of a change in Europe’s continental character, warranting wider spread support for xenophobic political parties across the continent.


Dollard Talks Iraq Media Coverage, Upcoming Surge Report

The Future of Iraq

The Future of Iraq

By Joseph Puder
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/23/2007

On September 15, 2007, General David Petraeus is scheduled to deliver his report on Iraq to the U.S. Congress.  President Bush has stated that he would follow General Petraeus recommendations.  According to the Times of London (8-16-07) Petraeus “would recommend troops reductions by next summer, but cautioned against a significant withdrawal.”  The Times reported that Petraeus qualified his remarks, saying that the “U.S. footprint in Iraq would have to be a good bit smaller by next summer.” At the same time Petraeus also signaled “the surge would continue into next year” and, he gave warning against a quick and hefty withdrawal that “would surrender the gains we have fought so hard to achieve.” 

The German weekly Der Spiegel reported on Aug. 18, 2007 that a new study released last Wednesday in Berlin on the Iraqi situation concluded that Iraq’s future is “not too bright,” and that “already today, the main priority is to prevent Iraq from breaking apart completely.”  The study concluded that there is little hope of a centralized power in Iraq and that the country’s future depends on walking the fine line between decentralization of power and a civil war.”  Guido Steinberg, a terrorism and Middle East expert authored the study titled Iraq Between Federalism and Collapse, published by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.

Steinberg’s basic assumption is “that a federalist solution will be the only possibility to maintain Iraq as a single country.  The most important role (for) German and European policies should therefore be that of supporting steps toward a peaceful federalist solution.”  If federalism fails, Steinberg asserts, “the result would be devastating, including the possibility of full scale civil war complete with foreign intervention.” 

General Petraeus’ report notwithstanding, the current Iraqi government of Nuri al-Maliki is dysfunctional, and the likelihood that Maliki will be able to create a viable government is in doubt.  The recent withdrawal of Sunni cabinet members has basically sealed the fate of the Mailiki government.  Of the 18-benchmarks set up for the Iraqi government to act upon, key ones have been ignored or remain unfulfilled. 

A unitary government in Iraq is a pipe dream that the Bush administration will be compelled to abandon sooner or later – preferably sooner.  Like Humpty Dumpty, Iraq – once broken cannot be put together again.  Under the cruel and punishing rule of Saddam and his Baathist predecessors, Iraq trudged through by force.  The minority Sunni-Arabs lorded over a majority of Shiite and Kurds since 1932.  And now the Iraqi Army is gone, as is the Baathist fear apparatus.  No mechanism currently exists that could compel the Kurds and the Shiites to be subjugated once again to a Sunni minority rule.  The Sunnis however, believe in their “right” to rule Iraq, and will never allow Iraq to be dominated by the Shiites – whom they consider heretical.  

Winston Churchill contributed a great deal to the survival of democracy and the defeat of Nazism. He was perhaps the greatest statesman of the 20th century.  But even Churchill made fatal errors.  One of them being the arbitrary and irrational creation of Iraq – an inorganic mix of disparate and antagonistic groups that he hoped would allow British interests control over oil in the Kurdish north and the Shiite south. 

The Kurds, who had sought independence from Ottoman/Turks, Arab, and Iranian rule, were promised autonomy in the Treaty of Sevres (1920), but had their rights to any form of self-determination squashed when the Allies signed the Treaty of Lausanne in1923.  The British ignored their rights as well as those of the majority Shiite Arab population. 

Today, the Kurds with their capital in Erbil, are conducting themselves as an independent state.  The regional government of Kurdistan has its own assembly, flag, army, and constitution and serves as the best example of a functioning state and a nascent democracy.  The Shiites in Southern Iraq are also building their own state institutions, albeit, an Islamic state modeled after the theocracy in Iran.  The Sunni Arabs remain uncompromising in their quest for reversing reality. Arrangements for a fair distribution of oil revenues might help persuade the Sunnis to join in a federated Iraq, which might create a measure of stability and eventually end the current Sunni insurgency against the Shiite dominated government.

The argument for a multi-religious and/or multi-ethnic federalized Iraq is however weakened by the Yugoslav experience.  Held together by its strongman Josip Broz Tito until 1980, the federation unraveled within a decade of his death, coinciding with the end of Soviet domination over the East/Central European states (former Soviet Bloc) and the emergence of nationalism and democracy.  In Yugoslavia, it culminated in a series of wars between the Serbs (Orthodox Christians) and the Croats (Catholic), and between the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims in Bosnia.  The wars led to the independence of all the components of former Yugoslavia.

While Iraq’s prospects as a federal state are still unclear, there are visible indications that the Kurds and the Shiites are opting for independence.  Justice requires that the Kurds be granted the right of self-determination.  America owes the Kurds much more than the Palestinians (the Bush administration is currently pushing for an independent Palestinian state), and a free and democratic Kurdistan would leave the Bush administration with a proud legacy.

As hopeful as General Petraeus’ report might be, it will not change the political realities in Iraq.  Neither the U.S. government nor General Petraeus will be able to accommodate the demands of the three main groups that make up the current Iraq: Shiite Arabs, Sunni Arabs, and non-Arab Kurds. To prevent an Iranian takeover (perhaps unavoidable in the Shiite south) of Iraq or interference by outside forces, the U.S. might consider stationing its reduced troop levels in friendly and pro-America Kurdistan (despite the fact that the Bush Sr. administration abandoned them to Saddam Hussein’s genocide after encouraging them to rebel).

The Kurds would welcome American bases in Kurdistan as protection from the Turks (who have threatened invasion if they declare their independence) and for economic reasons.  U.S. bases in Kurdistan would keep our troops safe while within striking distance of all points in Iraq, Iran and Syria.

High Stakes Game in Northern Iraq

High Stakes Game in Northern Iraq

By Kenneth R. Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/23/2007

Over the past week, with Iranian shells raining down on Iraqi villages in Kurdish areas along the border zone in the north, Iran’s leaders have engaged the United States in a high stakes game that has gone virtually unreported in the elite media.

Iran has massed thousands of troops along its northwestern border in preparation for a ground assault against Iranian Kurdish fighters who have sought refuge in the rugged Qanbil mountains in northwestern Iraq.

On Tuesday, villagers found leaflets bearing the official Islamic Republic of Iran logo, ordering them to leave the area or face the consequences.

“Our enemies, mainly the Americans, are trying to plant security hurdles in our country (Iran),” the leaflets said. “They achieve this through using agents in the areas of Qandil and Khanira inside the Kurdish region. ‘The authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran will work on cleansing this area.”

Hundreds of Iraqis from the villages of Qandoul and Qal’at Diza, close to the Iranian border in the province of Sulaymanyah, fled as a result of the Iranian shelling, according to wire service accounts.

Should Iran be allowed to carry out its planned attack, it would amount to an overt aggression against its neighbor. But the potential damage is far worse, because of the deep U.S. engagement in Iraq.

A successful Iranian attack against opposition Kurds from the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (known as PJAK) based in Iraq, will strike a triple blow against America.

Not only will the Iranians have violated Iraq’s sovereignty, guaranteed until now by the United States; they will have shown that despite the presence of 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, the United States “can do nothing” against Iran, as the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, liked to say.

Even worse: if the United States sits this one out, we will send a terrible message to Iranian opponents of the regime in Tehran that despite all our calls for “freedom” and “democracy” in Iran, we will not intervene to prevent them from being massacred, even when we have the opportunity and the forces in place to save them from certain death.

And yet, unless Congress and the White House react immediately, that is precisely what is going to happen.

An Iranian victory in northern Iraq will have far-reaching consequences, and will further embolden president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is engaged in political, military, and intelligence hardball with the United States on multiple fronts, including inside Iraq.

Just last week, U.S. forces arrested another “high-priority” Iranian Revolutionary Guards officer in Baghdad, and accused him of funneling aid to Iraqi insurgents.

U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Garver announced the arrest on August 15, and said that coalition forces “will continue their focused operations against unhelpful Iranian influence interfering in Iraq.”

An unnamed U.S. official said that the Iranian Guardsman was responsible for smuggling explosively-formed penetrators, Katyusha rockets and other weapons into Iraq, and “had direct ties to senior militant leaders and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force.”

Another U.S. military spokesman. Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, told reporters in Iraq on Aug. 14 that Iran had recently provided 240 mm long-range rockets to insurgents in Iraq for attacks on U.S. forces.

“The 240 mm rocket is a large-caliber projectile that has been provided to militia extremists groups in the past along with a range of other weapons from Iranian sources,” Bergner said.

Similar Iranian-made rockets I examined last summer in Haifa and in other northern Israel towns and cities had been fired against Israeli civilian targets by Hezbollah with warheads containing thousands of miniature ball-bearings, designed to kill and maim.

On May 25, PKK guerillas in Turkey derailed a train bound for Syria for Iran, ostensibly carrying construction materials. When prosecutors went through the wreckage they found an Iranian-made rocket launcher and 300 rockets bound for Hezbollah in Syria, according to Turkish press reports.

There is no way those weapons could have transited Turkey on the Turkish national railroad without someone in the Turkish government knowing what was going on.

Iran is banking on its secret “entente” with Turkey – to supply Hezbollah through Syria, and to smash the bases of each other’s opposition Kurds in Iraq – to deter the United States from any military intervention in northern Iraq.

The Turks have been threatening for months to go after the PKK, who have tens of thousands of fighters training in camps inside Iraq, along the Turkish border.

And so the Iranians have spread the rumor, which until now has been accepted at face value, that its own Kurdish dissidents (PJAK) are actually the Iranian branch of the PKK, which the U.S. has designated as an international terrorist organization.

The State Department took Turkey’s insistence that PJAK was allied with the PKK seriously enough that it refused to meet earlier this month with visiting PJAK leader, Rahman Haj Ahmadi, despite his open support for the U.S. military presence in Iraq and his identification with U.S. goals in the region.

Both the PKK and PJAK have training camps in the Qanbil mountain range in northern Iraq. But because of the difficult geography, and their different needs, they inhabit “different sides of the mountains,” Rahman Ahmadi told me in Washington.

“The PKK doesn’t need us,” he said. “They have tens of thousands of fighters, and hundreds of thousands of sympathizers.”

But Ahmadi acknowledges that PJAK and the PKK cooperate to a certain degree, if only to prevent clashes between their own fighters.

“The president of the Iraqi Kurdish Regional government, Massoud Barzani, also has an agreement with the PKK,” he told me. “Does that make Barzani a supporter of the PKK?”

This is not the first time the Turks have played us in Iraq. In 2003, on a flimsy pretext of domestic opposition, they successfully prevented the 4th Infantry Division from crossing Turkey to join coalition forces that liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein.

We can sit by and allow Iran to violate Iraq’s sovereignty, defy the U.S. military, and smash a significant Iranian opposition group on the slim pretext that Iran is “merely” seeking to punish its own rebels, just as Turkey.

Or we can extend protection to the Iranian Kurds who have established training camps in the rugged mountains of northeastern Iraq, and inflict a double blow on Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps.

Clearly, the Iranians believe they can thumb their noses at the U.S. military. For more than a week, they have conducted intermittent shelling of Iraqi Kurdish villages in the general vicinity of suspected PJAK bases.

My Iranian sources tell me that the Iranians are hoping to expel PJAK from the area and replace them with Ansar al-Islam, the precursor group to al Qaeda in Iraq,

“They want to send Saad Bin Laden, who is currently in Iran under Iranian government protection, into a new base inside Iraq,” one source told me.

Saad Bin Laden is Osama Bin Laden’s eldest son, who is widely viewed as the heir to his terrorist empire, should his father die. He was given refuge in Iran shortly after al Qaeda evacuated its bases in Afghanistan following the September 11 attacks.

PJAK is a natural ally of the United States. They seek to unite Iranians to overthrow the dictatorship of the clergy in Iran, and to work together to build a future secular democracy.

We don’t have to provide them weapons, or money, or training. But if we allow Iranian Revolutionary Guards troops to attack PJAK inside Iraq with impunity, we may as well pack up and leave – not just Iraq, but the entire region. Because we will have no credibility left.

If instead, if we seize this opportunity to smash an Iranian Revolutionary Guards offensive with massive force, we could send a message that will make Iran’s leaders think twice before messing with us again.

It’s about time we made Iran’s leaders pay a price for killing Americans and undermining America’s allies. Here is a terrific opportunity to get that job done.



Kenneth R. Timmerman was nominated for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize along with John Bolton for his work on Iran. He is Executive Director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, and author of Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran (Crown Forum: 2005).

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers