Terror Fears Grip Europe

Terror Fears Grip Europe

German government warns Australians to stay away. New “Al Qaeda In The Lands Of The Villains” cell expected to strike soon.

chp_european_terrorism.jpg

A sort of terror fever is sweeping Old Europe. Betting money is on an attack in the next 90 or so days.

Given that their governments would be changing hands in the coming weeks, both England and France were bracing for a nasty call from Al Qaeda. Well once staunchly anti-Jihadi, anti-Muslim Street Gang politician Sarkovy was elected its President, France has been all but assuming that it will be hit in the weeks ahead, especially because…

france_burning.jpg

…a very disturbing new tape, featuring a new European branch of Al Qaeda called “Al Qaeda In The Lands of The Villains” started making the international rounds on May 1. May Day. The tape features armed gangs practicing assaults on everything from buses to military installations, and lots and lots of IED making. Topographical analysis indicates it was shot in Eastern Europe, perhaps Chechnya.

The tape’s narrator lays out three specific priorities for Al Qaeda in Europe

1. A general worldwide jihadi recruitment campaign extolling the fun and virtues of killing Americans in Iraq, Jews in Palestine, Hindus in India. In other words, off-continental killing.

2. The training of believers to fight the infidels, namely the Christians and Jews living in Europe.

3. The establishment of separate Muslim states-within-states in Europe, ie the strongest admonition against culturally integrating into Western Societies. The need to remain both separate and jihadi in preparation for the ultimate conquest of the continent.

Al Qaeda has only released tapes revealing new cells if those cells are about to launch attacks. In addition, Al Qaeda chatter in Spain is currently “off the charts”, and has been for the last two weeks. And the G8 Summit goes down in Germany next month, which resulted in a series of raids which just started today ( the growing links between American/European socialists and Islamic terrorists is also disturbing. This alliance is in fact the very lifeblood of George Soros and Moveon.org, and their puppet entity, the Democrat political party. Soros’ direct communication with terrorists is currently under both official and private surveillance and review ) As a result, the governments of all nations concerned consider May, June and July to be critical.

And also just in tonight:

Australian travellers are being warned to exercise caution if travelling to
Germany, which may be at an increased risk of a terrorist attack.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade tonight reviewed its travel
advice for Germany, alerting travellers that the German government had
warned terrorist attacks might be possible.

“German government public statements continue to note the possibility of
terrorist attacks in Germany,” DFAT said on its website.

“The German Interior Ministry has said the threat has become more serious.

“On 20 April 2007, the United States Embassy issued a warden message
advising that US diplomatic missions and installations are increasing
security in response to the heightened terrorist threat.”

Posted by Pat Dollard 5 Comments

What Does Muslim Immigration Cost Europe?

What Does Muslim Immigration Cost Europe?

Do gang rapes boost GDP? That was an offensive question, you say? 100.000 young Swedish girls live as virtual prisoners

france_riot.jpg

From Global Politician
Fjordman – 5/10/2007
Do gang rapes boost GDP? Was that an offensive question, you say? Well, according to Sweden’s finance minister Pär Nuder, more immigrants should be allowed into Sweden in order to safeguard the welfare system. However, in reality estimates indicate that immigration costs Sweden at least 40 to 50 billion Swedish kroner every year, probably several hundred billions, and has greatly contributed to bringing the Swedish welfare state to the brink of bankruptcy. An estimated cost of immigration of 225 billion Swedish kroner in 2004, which is not unlikely, would equal 17.5% of Sweden’s tax income that year, a heavy burden in a country which already has some of the highest levels of taxation in the world.

At the same time, the number of rape charges in Sweden has quadrupled in just above twenty years. Rape cases involving children under the age of 15 are six times as common today as they were a generation ago. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm, who has investigated violent crimes in one court, found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or by foreign parents. Swedish politicians want to continue Muslim immigration because it boosts the economy, yet the evidence so far indicates that it mainly boosts the number of gang rapes. Meanwhile, research shows that fear of honor killings is a very real issue for many immigrant girls in Sweden. 100.000 young Swedish girls live as virtual prisoners of their own families. (Read More)

The Wahhabis are up to no good in southern Europe.

The Wahhabis are up to no good in southern Europe.

The Balkan Front

by Stephen Schwartz, The Weekly Standard

[..] Yet even in the Balkans, all is not peace and poetry. The ominous presence of Wahhabi missionaries, financiers, terror recruiters, and other mischief-makers bespeaks a fresh offensive in that tormented land. From the new Wahhabi seminary in the lovely Bosnian city of Zenica, to the cobblestone streets of Sarajevo’s old Ottoman center, to the Muslim-majority villages in southern Serbia, extremist Sunni men in their distinctive, untrimmed beards and short, Arab style breeches (worn in imaginary emulation of Muhammad), accompanied by women in face veils and full body coverings (a bizarre novelty in the contemporary Balkans), are again appearing, funded by reactionary Saudis and Pakistanis. They aim to widen the horizon of global jihad–witness the revived campaign of terrorism in Morocco and Algeria. In the Balkans, their targets are both Sufis and traditional Muslims. [..]

Posted by Ted Belman @ 9:49 am |

Europe (finally!) gets the War on Terror

Europe (finally!) gets the War on Terror

By James Lewis

Two headline-grabbing signals came from Europe this week, one from Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany, and the other from Nicolas Sarkozy, the presidential front-runner in France. Both show a new desire to heal the Atlantic alliance, which has been badly strained in the last several years.
The media on both continents naturally blame the Bush Administration for the breach; but there is no doubt that ex-Chancellor Schroeder and outgoing President Jacques Chirac exploited and worsened policy differences for their own political gain. Their aim was to separate Europe from America, in order to build up their own power by way of the European Union. Chirac was scheming to become the first full-term  president of the EU. Schroeder kept his office by scapegoating the Bush Administration. The EU Constitution was supposed to carry it all over the top, and the European Union was supposed to sail into everlasting paradise. Breaking away from America was the key.
Well, it didn’t happen that way.
One signal of new realism in Europe is a public call by the German news magazine Der Spiegel to tone down the over-the-top anti-American cat-calling that has obsessed the German press in recent years. That was followed by two major puff-pieces for Chancellor Merkel’s effort to reconnect with America.
In France, Nicolas Sarkozy has started what he hopes to be his final sprint to the Presidency by criticizing the “1968 generation,” which includes all the recent leaders of the EuroLeft. “1968” refers to the year of student rebellion that brought people like Schroeder and Joschka Fischer to power, just as in the United States the Sixties Left launched Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Both Merkel and Sarkozy are “welfare-state conservatives” rather than ideologically pure socialists. They can see clearly the suicidal limits of the multiculti Left, particularly its support for uncontrollable millions of anti-Western migrants, fresh dependent voters for the welfare state. They also see the looming fiscal limits of the social welfare state, as the Euro Boomer generation retires while a host of poorer nations are joining the European Union. Those nations cannot get the massive handouts that were routinely channeled to France. The money isn’t there. The word “cynical” and “immoral” were used by Sarkozy recently to describe the Boomer Left. Europe’s vacation from reality is reaching its natural limits, and public opinion is sobering up fast.
Most important, Europe can no longer deny the Islamist threat. The War on Terror isn’t just George W. Bush’s private phantasmagoria any more. Nicolas Sarkozy as French Minister of Interior has had to deal with two years of nightly riots by thousands of ethnic Muslim adolescents. The rioters are French citizens and cannot be expelled. They are not devout Muslims, but rather classically alienated young males who are easy prey for jihadist propaganda — just as alienated young men were natural recruits for absolutist ideologies in previous generations. 
Islam, Communism and fascism provide much the same kind of gratification. Islamists view women as either family chattel or whores to be preyed on; there are no free, respectable women in their eyes. So they are imbued with very different values from their middle-class European peers. Smaller versions of the French riots have erupted in the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway. Germans fear a spread of anarchy to their own Muslim population.
The link between terror and nuclear threats is now undeniable. Nobody doubts what Ahmadinejad wants — since he repeats it in public at every opportunity.  London newspapers have reported “dirty nuke” terror plots that were stopped in time. But it is not a comforting bit of news. Even the UK Guardian is beginning to see the writing on the wall.
Europeans are aware of the spread of nuclear technology from Pakistan and North Korea to  Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Today Paris is only fifteen minutes away from an Iranian ICBM attack. That threat will not materialize until Iran obtains nukes, but that may be only a matter of time
So the Europeans might not say it out loud, but they finally “get” the War on Terror — six contentious years after the Twin Towers fell. They still hope that a Democrat will be elected in 2008, because they are more comfortable with a European-style socialist in the White House. But given the common threat to civilized countries, they are prepared to work with the US either way. Hillary as president may declare the end of the words “War on Terror” — for PR purposes — but in truth, everybody knows that the anti-jihad struggle must be either won or lost, and the West cannot afford to lose.
Angela Merkel was visibly shocked by Ahmadinejad’s open threats of a nuclear Holocaust against Israel last year.  She has signaled very clearly that Germany takes the Iranian threat very seriously.  While Jacques Chirac still believed that France could buy off Middle East tyrants, Nicolas  Sarkozy seems to be more grounded in reality. Europe, in blissful pursuit of the fantasy of eternal peace and prosperity without having to even pay for its own defenses, may return to realism in Paris and Berlin.
In Russia, Vladimir Putin is happy to sell nuclear power plants to Iran, but he cannot tolerate the rise of a nuclear martyr regime at his southern border. Putin will publicly resist US anti-missile defenses against Iran, but privately he hopes to pressure the West to allow Russia to join missile defenses.  Every advanced nation will need such defenses in the coming decades, and Russia lacks the expensive technological edge to make effective anti-missile systems on its own.
While the Russians are making angry noises about US anti-missile installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, in fact they cannot believe that the West is a real threat to them. NATO never dreamed of invading Russia during its greatest period of weakness, and there is no reason to suppose it would do so today. As Condi Rice just said, the very idea is ludicrous. So Putin wants to bluster and threaten for the best deal he can get. In the end, he sees far greater danger from nuclear jihad than from NATO.
The US would be wise to attempt to bring Russia into the Western defense perimeter, while continuing to pressure Putin to act more responsibly at home and abroad. It will not be easy, but a shared anti-missile defense agreement would be a powerful incentive for better Russian behavior. Russia has always been torn between the West and its long history of Asiatic autocracy. It should be possible to encourage Russian Westernization against a common threat.
Bottom line: We are beginning to see a reconstruction of the Western alliance after a decade of unprecedented propaganda attacks from the European Left. That does not mean that Europe will be subservient to the US as it was in the 1950s and 60s. Europe will try to stay neutral in any nuclear standoff between the US and Iran, even though it also wants to be protected against Iranian blackmail. Ideally, Europe wishes to control America as its own foreign legion; but Americans would be fools not to demand commensurate contributions from the 450 million people of Europe. Today Europe pays less than half of what we do for defense, but they still expect to be protected by us. That is an exploitive and one-sided arrangement. France and Germany must do much more for the common defense.
Chancellor Merkel has signalled her intention to continue pursuing EU unification
The British military are being radically cut back, with the aim of reinvesting UK budgets in a EU-centered military. So the EU will try to continue its massive bureaucratic expansion in the coming decades.
Nevertheless, the fact is that Europeans do not trust themselves to exercise a muscular foreign policy in the Middle East. If German fighter jets bombed Iran or Iraq, ancient European fears of a revived Prussianism or Hitlerism would arise automatically, justified or not. The US can simply do things Germany will not be able to do for the foreseeable future. And nobody trusts the French not to be cynically self-serving. In spite of anti-American rage, therefore, in military affairs Europe reluctantly trusts the US and Britain more than it does itself.
But it does not want to repeat the helpless experience of being caught between two nuclear superpowers, as it was during the Cold War. This is understandable. But technology now seems to promise a solution. The greatest difference from the Cold War is the growing availability of effective strategic defenses. The offensive edge in nuclear warfare is slowly being whittled away. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is therefore likely to be superseded by a more normal balance between offense and defense.  Effective defenses make life a lot safer. But it will take adequate expenditures and a lot of realism spread defenses to all of Europe, and the continent must be told to carry its part of that financial and military burden.
The next US Administration will make a great public to-do about reconciliation with the sadly offended Europeans. A Giuliani or a Hillary administration would be wise to engage in a public peace dance with the continent. But we must not be fooled into believing that Europe does not serve itself first. Over the longer term the EU still aims to emerge as an autonomous superpower, in competition with the United States. The European Left is extremely powerful, and it has indoctrinated four successive generations into wanting a United States of Europe. Such ambitions can be carried out in a rational and civilized way, but Europe’s anti-American hysteria should not be indulged. The US has a tendency to overlook verbal slander by our nominal allies. But over the longer term, such “allies” are ambivalent at best, and should not be treated as friends. We should not reward sabotage.
It seems that Europe’s peace-now-and-forever fantasies will be postponed in the coming decades, as the West engages in a more cohesive struggle for survival against nuclear Islamist threats. There is no alternative.
In retrospect, the Bush Administration may look much like the Truman Administration, which first confronted the Stalin challenge in the Cold War. George W. Bush is a conviction politician just as Harry S Truman was. He has taken his stand, and it will have historic impact, just as Truman’s did.
The early years of the War on Terror have been a watershed. Nations around the world have been forced to open their eyes and make their choices. They are doing so now, not because they have been talked into it by George W. Bush, but because they have come to see the same reality he does. Nobody said leadership was going to be easy.
That does not mean that present US policy is going to work without course adjustments.  The Iraq War may turn out to be much like the Korean War, a test of American resolve, and also of the limits of American commitment to an important but remote war. At the end of the Korean War, American forces withdrew from North Korea but not from the South.  Because of that American willingness to hold firm, South Korea grew into a formidable bulwark against Asian Communist expansion, as it remains to this day. China’s new prosperity can be attributed to the democratic capitalist successes of South Korea, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan, all of them dependent upon American support. We cannot predict the outcome in Iraq, but somewhere in the Middle East a defensible line will emerge against jihadist Iran, and perhaps against newer threats.
Europe imports far too much oil from the Gulf to evade the obvious: A vital need for a renewed alliance with the United States against totalitarian aggressors with strategic weapons.
Call it Cold War Two — if we are lucky and keep our wits. But we must expect continental Europe to play a more active and constructive role for its own defense than it did in the last sixty years.
James Lewis blogs at http://www.dangeroustimes.wordpress.com

The Result of European Unification Will be War

The Result of European Unification Will be War

A comment from “Archonix” (an Englishman) at Gates of Vienna, 30 April 2007

The EUSSR[T]he EU economies are not substantially better than they were in the 90s. Many are at the same level, others are worse. Ask any Italian what he thinks of the economy at the moment and if you’re lucky he’ll just shout at you for a few hours. The only reason your dollars don’t seem to go far any more is because the dollar has fallen significantly, not because the euro has risen. The euro is placing a massive inflationary burden on the EU economies, which no longer have the mechanism of altering interest rates in order to control inflation.

Further, there is no mechanism for national debt transfer, as exists in the US, which places further inflationary pressure on individual member states. This pressure is compounded by inflation in members states that are net recipients of EU funding (Spain and Ireland as examples) who are able to cut taxes to miniscule amounts because they’re getting funded by the other EU member states. All of this is combining to produce an inflationary economy with no control mechanism. Unemployment has risen constantly within the euro zone since the euro was introduced, and productivity has fallen just as constantly. National debts are going up, taxes are rising, GDP is falling.

continue reading

Towards a Totalitarian Europe

Towards a Totalitarian Europe

Created 2007-04-30 10:12

Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy has warned that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. When people who have worked on higher levels in the EU system note similarities as well, it is time people start taking this idea seriously.

In 2002 Louis Michel, the then Belgian minister of foreign affairs and today a member of the European Commission, told the Belgian parliament that the EU will eventually encompass North Africa and the Middle East as well as Europe. The MEDA programme, the principal financial instrument for the implementation of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, between 2000-2006 spent €5,350 million on its various programs, according to the EU’s official website. During the period 1995-1999, some 86% of the resources allocated to MEDA were channelled to Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey and the Palestinian Authority.

From 2007, MEDA will be replaced by the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, which over the period 2007 to 2013 is projected to spend €11 billion on, among other things, promoting cooperation between European and Arab countries in the sectors of energy and transport; in higher education and mobility of teachers, researchers and students; Multicultural dialogue through people-to-people contacts, including links with communities of immigrants living in EU countries as well as cooperation between civil societies, cultural institutions and exchanges of young people. The European Commission, the EU’s powerful government with extensive legislative powers, shall coordinate cooperation with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), universities, churches, religious associations and the media in matters related to this project, all according to documents available on the Internet.

Bat Ye’or, author of the book Eurabia, has warned against the post-Western culture of Palestinianism that has been promoted through these networks for decades: “Through a coordinated campaign monitored by the networks of the European Union bodies, a system linking politics to markets, culture, universities, media and opinion makers, has spread its totalitarian grip over the member-states in order to impose a despicable culture of lies and denial that support Europe’s pro-Palestinian foreign policy.”

The EU Commission and senior officials, frequently diffused through innocent sounding and semi-official organizations, create agreements with Arabs and then quietly implement them later as federal EU policy. This is accomplished because billions of Euros are floating around in a system with very little control. Europeans are thus financing their continent’s merger with, in reality colonization by, the Muslim world without their knowledge and without their consent. It must be the first time in human history where an entire continent is being culturally eradicated with bureaucratic precision. This represents perhaps the greatest betrayal in the history of Western civilization, yet it is largely ignored by Western media.

Joschka Fischer, ex-German foreign minister, warned that Europe risks becoming a “playground” for upcoming superpowers in the 21st century. He wanted more EU cooperation to remedy this. But we already are a playground for foreign powers, for Muslim nations in particular, who can dump their unsustainable population growth in our countries and harass the native population with near-impunity, and this is actively caused by the EU. It is going to be interesting for future historians to unveil how many senior EU leaders or bureaucrats have been bought and paid by Saudi Arabian oil money.

The idea that the EU is going to become a superpower is laughable. Europe at the dawn of the 21st century is a global joke, a decadent, weak and pathetic continent, despised by its enemies and viewed with pity by its friends. Outsiders don’t expect Europe to generate anything new, quite a few will be surprised if it even survives. This image will not be improved by leaders who have not only abandoned, but are attacking their own people, selling out their historical legacy to their worst enemies, and muzzling those who object to this.

You cannot artificially create a dynamic power through bureaucratic decisions, you do it through the rule of law – laws passed with the consent of the people, with their best interest in mind and therefore respected by them – respect for private property rights and by getting the state out of the way as much as possible. There are no short-cuts. It is ridiculous to believe that this ramshackle, top-heavy Frankenstein monster is going to make Europe more competitive.

I am not against cooperation between European countries in whatever form, but definitely in the shape of a pan-European dictatorship with massive amounts of bureaucracy. I understand the argument that individual nation states, save perhaps Germany, are too small to compete with China and the likes. Perhaps. But we need to get our priorities straight: Survival comes first; creating a dynamic economy comes second. The simple truth is that the EU constitutes a mortal threat to the former, and does absolutely nothing to advance the latter.

Paul Belien, the editor of the Brussels Journal, has argued in his book A Throne in Brussels that Belgium is used as a blueprint for the wider European Union. In 2000, Belgian authorities passed a so-called “Quick Citizenship” Act. In 1960, 7.3% of the population in the city of Brussels was foreign. Today the figure has risen to 56.5%. According to Jan Hertogen, a Marxist sociologist, this population replacement “is an impressive and unique development from a European, or even a world perspective.”

Yes, it is probably unprecedented in human history that a country has handed over its main city to others without firing a single shot, although this feat is now being repeated in many other European cities. Is there no opposition to this in Belgium? Yes there is, but they get silenced or even banned. The Flemish nationalist Vlaams Blok was outlawed for “racism,” and changed its name. The racism consisted of citing government statistics on overrepresentation in crime by immigrants. The judge concluded that “truth is no defense.”

Père Samuel, a Turkish-born Catholic priest and one of the few speaking the language of Jesus, Aramaic, has been prosecuted for “incitement to racist hatred” by the Belgian Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism (CEOOR), because of a remark he made in 2002 when he said: “Every thoroughly islamized Muslim child that is born in Europe is a time bomb for Western children in the future. The latter will be persecuted when they have become a minority.” He claims Muslims are invading Europe and warns for an impending civil war.

Belgium is an artificial state dominated by a French-speaking bureaucratic elite, and could be viewed as a laboratory for what the EUrabians want to do to the rest of the continent, such as population replacement, largely by Muslims, and silencing opposition to this by legal harassment and through various mechanisms de facto disenfranchise the native population.

Article ten in the European Convention on Human Rights supposedly ensures freedom of speech, yet spends more text on defining what is not included within the limits of free speech than on what is. Criminalizing ideas is dangerous. As John Stuart Mill explained in his book On Liberty, freedom of speech is the foundation of true liberty. Swedish writer John Järvenpää argues that one of the virtues of free speech is that politically incorrect viewpoints force others to rationally argue against them.

In 2007, the EU agreed to make incitement to racism and xenophobia a crime across the 27-nation bloc. Under the new law, offenders will face up to three years in jail for “public incitement to violence or hatred, directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.” The term “inciting hatred” against “religion” will no doubt be used by Muslims to silence critics of Islam, especially since the Council of Europe has earlier decided to view Islamophobia as equal to anti-Semitism.

The EU’s classified handbook, also released in 2007, bars governments from speaking of “jihad” or linking Islam and terrorism. But since we now have pan-European anti-racism laws and pan-European guidelines banning mentioning any connection between Islam and violence, does that mean that it will be impossible to talk about the Jihad Europeans are subject to? The purpose of this legislation can be none other than to muzzle critics of mass immigration.

As Robert Spencer commented, “Soon Eurabia will resemble the old Soviet Union, in which dissidents furtively distributed samizdat literature and faced stiff penalties if the authorities discovered what they were doing. Europeans who care about what is happening to them will have to travel West, buy books that tell the truth about Islamic jihad, and distribute them at home away from the watchful eye of EU bureaucrats.”

The European Union is basically an attempt – a rather successful one so far – by the elites in European nation states to cooperate on usurping power, bypassing and eventually abolishing the democratic system, a slow-motion coup d’état. It works because the national parliaments are still there, and most people don’t see how much has changed. Seeing is believing. If a small group of people decided to openly sideline the democratic process and start imposing laws which the public didn’t approve, there would be a rebellion. But this is what the EU has done. They have just been smart enough to hide this fact under multiple layers of impenetrable bureaucratic Newspeak, to make sure average citizens don’t fully appreciate the magnitude of what’s going on. Ideas such as “promoting peace” are used as a pretext for this, a bone thrown to fool the gullible masses and veil what is essentially a naked power grab.

The EU can bribe the national elites by appealing to their vanity and sense of importance, elevate them from a national level to an “international level,” give them nice cars, fancy sounding jobs with power unrestrained by silly prosaic things such as the will of the people.

Through promoting Multiculturalism and mass immigration, the EUrocrats hope to create a new, larger political entity by smashing the older nation states. And besides, it’s easier to control people who have no distinct cultural or national identity. These self-serving elites are betraying the trust of the people they are supposed to serve, using them as guinea pigs in a disastrous social experiment by dismantling their culture and importing Muslims who attack them. They probably despise their own people, who meekly accept this and believe their ridiculous excuses.

Native Europeans, who are no longer safe in their own cities, have been robbed of their history and have accepted more immigration in a shorter period of time than probably any other people in human history, yet are met with intimidation and repression if they refuse to accept more. This constitutes evil, there is no other way to put it.

According to journalist John O’Sullivan, “Some defenders of the EU claim that this admittedly undemocratic provision is offset by the increased powers of the European parliament. But this greatly exaggerates the representative nature of the Euro-parliament. Though formally democratic by virtue of being elected, it has no continent-wide European public opinion to which it might be accountable.” He adds that “It was local nationalisms in Britain and occupied Europe that provided most of the morale to resist fascist ideologies.”

This last point, that Nazi Germany was defeated by proud nations states such as the United States and Britain (a long time ago), is totally lost on the EU elites. Commissioner Margot Wallstrom argued that those who resisted pooling national sovereignty risked a return to Nazi horrors of the 1930s and 1940s. Her fellow Commissioners 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 Constitution will move even more power into the hands of the already powerful and unaccountable elites. The EUrocrats are basically saying that since somebody may conceivably threaten our democratic system at some point in the future, we might as well dismantle it now, in an orderly fashion. Moreover, whereas constitutions have traditionally outlined the basic workings of the state, the proposed European Constitution, running into hundreds of pages, betrays an almost sharia-like desire to regulate all aspects of life. It is an instrument of control, a blueprint for an authoritarian state.

Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state, but such societies can also be transnational, as was the Soviet Union, which the EU resembles more than just superficially: An artificial superstate run by an authoritarian bureaucracy that overrides the will of the people and imposes its ideology on the populace. Are we back in the E.U.S.S.R?

Although the EU, due to its transnational nature, most closely resembles the Soviet Union, there are also similarities with Nazi Germany. The EU was created by perfecting the Big Lie technique that was championed by Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels: Serve people massive lies, so big that they cannot believe that anybody would lie about it, and they will believe them, at least for a while.

It should also be mentioned that Adolf Hitler stated his admiration for the warlike nature of Islam. The admiration was mutual. Muhammad Amin al-Husayni, the Mufti of Jerusalem, was an Arab nationalist and passionate anti-Semite who cooperated closely with Nazi Germany during World War II. Later, leadership of Palestinian Arabs was transferred to Husayni’s nephew Yasser Arafat, a very dear friend of the EU, who in 2002 gave an interview in which he referred to “our hero al-Husayni.”

If the EU is supposed to protect us from the horrors of Nazi Germany, it is remarkable how many of its traits it is copying, such as flirting with Arab strongmen and admiration for Islam. The Muslim immigration the EU is promoting to Europe has triggered the largest wave of anti-Semitism since the rise of, well, Nazi Germany, and may yet force the remaining Jews to leave. That Europeans should support this organization to prevent a new totalitarian regime is a sick joke. The EU is a lot closer to totalitarian states than the supposedly evil nation states it is going to replace.

Since there is no European demos, no pre-political loyalty or shared public community, and since legislate power has been transferred to the unelected EU Commission, there is no way the EU can function as a democracy in any meaningful sense of the term. The EU can only become one giant Yugoslavia, either ruled by an authoritarian oligarchy in the fashion of Tito, or fall apart into civil wars.

The slow, but steady stifling of free speech through legislation and Muslim Jihad violence indicates an ominous trend: Europe is moving in a totalitarian direction. This cannot be stopped or reversed before we stop Muslim immigration, which again cannot happen unless we dismantle the European Union. Getting rid of the EU is the key to Europe’s survival, which is now very much in question.


Source URL:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2097

Population Replacement in the Capital of Europe

Population Replacement in the Capital of Europe

In 2000, the Belgian authorities voted a so-called “Quick Citizenship” Act, bestowing Belgian nationality on foreigners as a simple procedure. Everyone who has lived in the country for a number of years (usually seven, but in some cases barely three, and sometimes even only two years) is entitled to Belgian citizenship. One does not have to speak the language nor prove one’s will to integrate in the host country.

So far the Quick Citizenship Act created 337,904 “new Belgians” – an average of 4,277 per month. Belgium has only 10 million inhabitants. One million of them live in Brussels, Belgium’s as well as the EU’s (and NATO’s) capital. While in 1960 7.3% of the Brussels population was foreign, today the figure has risen to 56.5%. The latter figure refers to non-Belgians (26.3% of the Brussels population) and to foreigners who have acquired Belgian citizenship since 1980 and their children (30.2%).

According to Jan Hertogen, a Marxist sociologist, the Brussels population replacement  “is an impressive and unique development from a European, or even a world perspective.” Hertogen’s figures show that in 1991 28.5% of the Brussels residents held a foreign nationality and 4.5% were naturalized or “new” Belgians. In 2005 the number of foreigners had stabilized at 26.3%, but the number of “new Belgians” had grown to 30.2%. Hertogen expects that by 2020 75% of the Brussels population will be of non-Belgian origin.

Belgium is an artificial country, consisting of 6 million Dutch-speaking Flemings and 4 million French-speaking Walloons. The Francophile Belgian authorities reckon that foreigners will not feel much loyalty to Flanders because most of them speak French. Brussels, which used to be Dutch-speaking, has become a French-speaking enclave in Flanders.

Today, 589 of the 661 elected local councillors in Brussels are French-speaking. 170 of the 661 Brussels councillors are “new Belgians” or foreigners. Most of them are Muslims. 168 of the 170 foreign councillors are registered as Francophones. Foreigners make up 28.5% of the French-speaking and 3% of the Dutch-speaking councillors.

Europe — Your Name is Cowardice

Europe — Your Name is Cowardice

Thomas Lifson
That’s the title of a document written by Mathias Dapfner, CEO of the massive German publishing house Axel Springer (AG) and published in Germany’s largest newspaper Die Welt. Our contributor Paul Jackson calls attention to this document, remarkable both for its content and its author, today in his Sunday column in the Calgary Sun.

Dapfner… noted a week or so ago, commentator Henry Broder wrote in the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag an article entitled Europe — your family name is appeasement.
It’s a phrase, says Dapfner, one can’t get out of one’s mind.
“Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed Adolf Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.”
Dapfner doesn’t stop there.
“Appeasement legitimized and stabilized communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderers were glorified as the ideologically correct alternatives to all other possibilities.”
Dapfner also points out rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, today European appeasement, hiding behind the “fuzzy” term “moral equivalency” countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamental Palestinians.

I don’t want to be a Pollyanna, but I am heartened that more voices in Europe are being heard warning of the mass folly in the birthplace of Western Civilization.

Europe: Let Uncle Do It

Europe: Let Uncle Do It

By James Lewis

Europe gets forty percent of its oil through the Persian Gulf. But by an accident of history (and civilized policy – ours, that is) it is the United States that guards the Gulf from madmen like Ahmadinejad. Well, so be it. We gain from world peace and free trade, and it is better to keep the maniacs far away from our shores.

But it is now way past time for Europe to step up to the plate again. They have the economic might, the population, the brains — but not the guts — to behave as a decent actor on the world stage. And the British “hostage crisis” — which was not a crisis at all, but a staged provocation, an invitation for the Brits to kowtow, which they did — should spell the end of our patience. 
Europe’s response to Ahaminejad’s game tells us all we need to know. Tony Blair tossed the hot potato to the UN, which tossed it right back again. Then he tried his good friends in the EU, and they ducked it altogether. Then, secretly, he got George W. to trade Iran’s Quds thugs, who were imprisoned in Iraq for directing IED attacks on Americans, in trade for those 15 clueless Brits. Result: The West looked helpless against the ruthless blackmailers of Qom.
So in the end, Europe got away again with letting Uncle Sam do it.
We can shrug off the screaming anti-American hate mongering of the media in Germany, France and (on the Left) in Britain. We can ignore the fact that Britain is selling its sovereignty to the EU, about as feckless a bunch of political con artists as ever exploited a badly indoctrinated population. What we cannot allow, over the long term, is to get stuck with all the adult work of maintaining the peace around the world, while the Europeans exploit our generosity and we pay the price in blood and treasure. It’s past time for Europe to grow up.
That includes Britain. Tony Blair has tried his best to maintain the Anglo-American alliance in the face of rising nuclear proliferation among the mad hatters in the Middle East. Good for Tony Blair, but his socialist party long ago walked away from him. So Blair has been out there on his own, and even the Tories are now pretending to be Mahatma Gandhi, whose lifelong principled pacificism, incidentally, led to some 4 million dead people in 1948. In the real world, pacifism kills, and the mere pose of pacifism is just another front for cowardice.
The United States must be prepared to rethink our alliances. Europe has been on a US-paid vacation from reality now for sixty years. We are subsidizing its welfare state, and its grandiose and fraudulent poses. One moment the EU is a grand new Empire, then it’s the new incarnation of Marxist hope for mankind, then it’s the self-righteous denouncer of American warmongering, and always, without fail, it’s a fraud. Sane Europeans know that.

If Britain wants to throw in its lot with the phony-baloney EU farce, it must be willing to take the consequences of permanent weakness in the face of serious adversaries like the aggressive jihadis of the Sunni or Shi’a variety. As Mahmoud puts it so plainly, you must ‘You must bow down to the greatness of the Iranian nation.’  Well, friends, you have a choice.
Alternatively, Britain and its new continental masters must get serious. Sometimes we see a little sign of that — Angela Merkel is potentially serious, and so is Blair — but it just gets swamped by the self-indulgent hoopla from the socialist demagogues who really run the place. Europe is on an endless drunken spree, and we are its enablers.
How do we get serious?
First, we must make strong alliances with other serious powers who share our values and understanding of the world. Australia, India, and Japan are the obvious candidates. All are currently helping to develop anti-missile defenses (while Europe is moaning about the free defense systems we are offering to Poland against the Iranian ICBM threat.)

In the Middle East, besides Israel, the Sunni Arabs need our help — and in exchange, we must get their commitment to stop Wahhabi anti-Western hate propaganda around the world, including in the United States itself. No more anti-American games from CAIR and its ilk.

The Iranian people, who have been terrorized by the mullahs for thirty years, deserve as much support as the oppressed Poles and Czechs did during the Cold War. Eastern Europe is sandwiched between the growling Russian Bear and the hopeless EU. The Poles and Czechs are therefore a pretty sober lot. Those are our real allies, not the grandstanding demagogues of Brussels.
Second, we must make it very clear to Europe, including Britain, that we expect their serious help when we are attacked, as on 9/11, and whenever we risk our military assets to protect their oil supplies. One way to send that signal is simply to stay passive the next time they are assaulted — when and if another Madrid or London Underground bombing happens. We can send them our best wishes, and do absolutely nothing. If they will not even spend enough money to build a usable defense force, if they keep pretending to have a military without putting them at risk, we can simply let them find their own way to perdition. NATO must be more than an excuse for milking Uncle.
Third, we must insist on a much more serious effort by Europe to fight nuclear proliferation to terrorists and their sponsors. That includes a major economic squeeze against Tehran, even if Europeans have to reduce their profitable trade with the terror sponsors.  That is the very least we must expect from them. If not, they can try to defend their own oil supply.
Fourth, we have to insist that Europeans fish or cut bait when they are confronted with a public challenge from an enemy. No more hot potatoes tossed between national capitals and the EU. No more hiding behind the hopeless UN fraudocracy as a front for imaginary “international law.” Publicly proclaiming “international law” means nothing if you cannot enforce it, or if you lack democratic legitimacy to make it in the first place.
Fifth, we cannot conceded the propaganda war — the narrative of our time — to the fantasy-prone Left. The Left is merely  European imperialism in another guise. It is too destructive, too exploitive, and too wrong about the nature of the world. Serious powers don’t live in fantasy land.

So the next President of the United States will have to voice our national vision just as Reagan did: With clarity, eloquence, and honesty. Our UN Representative, following Jeanne Kirkpatrick, should shock the dizzy dips of the UN by simply telling the truth. With a rising blogosphere in the United States, Europe and the Middle East, truth-telling can become our single most effective instrument of policy. Reagan told the truth to bring down the Berlin Wall. Nobody thought it would work, but he appealed to what everyone on the other side secretly knew to be true. That is how a democratic leader should act.
All that comes down to electing a new president for 2008. It should be someone who can articulate the American vision and back it up with grand strategy. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher are the obvious models, but human beings are unique and not cloneable. The next Reagan won’t look like Reagan, but he or she should be clear and firm and courageous, just like our soldiers in Iraq. We have the right stuff here at home. We only need to discover it.
The challenges we face are Reaganesque. With the right leadership, the American people will know how to act. And Ahmadinejad will go the way of Marx and Lenin. With only a mad 7th century ideology to peddle, he has long outlived his sell-by date.
James Lewis is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. He blogs at http://www.dangeroustimes.wordpress.com

Islamization of Europe and how to stop it

Islamization of Europe and how to stop it

I received this email today. I couldn’t help but be encouraged by it. Freedom still beats in the hearts of men. It reminded me how it as an act of bravery to resist Big Brother as in Orwell’s 1984.

Some days ago, a colleague of mine – No Sharia – also living in Sweden, published an article at Islam Watch about the detailed policy regarding integration or assimilation of muslim immigrants in Europe. One of the answers is: zero tolerance of Sharia laws. His opinion is that we now know enough about islam to formulate a detailed, practical and effective policy that will keep Europe free for the next few hundred years. He hopes that the article will start a debate regarding the detailed and concrete rules that must be instituted in every free country:

One aim of the first article in the series was to give a prognosis of the political development in European countries, if the on-going islamization process is not interrupted. The conclusion of that analysis is is that the islamists´dreams about a peaceful transition to Eurabia is a complete illusion. What we will experience in the future in European countries is an ever increasing level of violence interrupted by spikes of violent cruelty. Civil strife and in the end civil war in some countries, if the islamization process is not stopped, is the outcome according to his theory. For each month that passes now, that prognosis will be more and more validated.

Another one of his articles describes a model that can be used when a government wants to stop the process.

Besides formulating an integrated approach to prevent islamization, he has also written about three areas of the model and about which rules and laws we shall have there. One can find all articles here.

I hope that you find his articles of interest for your work.

Living in a part of a Scandinavian city with a majority of islamic immigrants, I hope that you help also me to keep my anonymity.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 3:58 pm |

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers