Fjordman: Why the European Union Must be Dismantled


Fjordman: Why the European Union Must be Dismantled

A new essay by the prolific and profound European essayist Fjordman:

In my criticism of the European Union, I have been accused of being too positive towards the nation state. It is true that Western civilization isn’t exclusively about nation states. The Renaissance took place in the city states of Italy while nation states were non-existent or weak. It is also true that there is a potentially destructive side to nationalism as opposed to defensive patriotism. However, our current democratic system is tied to nation states. The EU didn’t cause all of Europe’s problems, but it made some of them worse, and added a few new ones. If the EU collapsed tomorrow, we would still be in a lot of trouble, but at least we would have a fighting chance. I have heard a number of people say that “Europe is already lost.” I do agree with them that if the political situation remains as it is today, then yes, Europe is lost to Islam, or at least significant parts of Western Europe, maybe not all of Eastern Europe. But I’m not so sure whether the political situation will, or has to, remain as it is today.Tens of millions of ordinary citizens are now rapidly waking up to the full scale of the Islamic threat. The problem is that many Western Europeans have a sense of hopelessness because they need to confront so many enemies at the same time. Let’s call them Enemy 1, 2 and 3. Enemy 1 is Islam and Muslim immigration. Enemy 2 is the anti-Western bias of our media and academia.

Enemy number 2 is common to all Western nations, also the USA, Canada and Australia. Enemy 1 is also common to all Western nations, but more powerful in Europe because of sheer numbers and proximity to the heartland of the Islamic world.

Enemy 3 consists of Eurabians and EU federalists, who are unique to Europe and make the situation more critical here than it is in North America or Australia.

The feeling among many of those Europeans who now understand the threat is that we can face down and defeat one of these enemies, maybe two, but not all three at the same time. We need a major shake-up in the political situation, something that is visible to everybody, to demonstrate that change is possible. The downfall of the European Union could do the trick.

Muslims may actually have done us a favor. The massive infiltration of Leftist and anti-Western rhetoric that now permeates our media and academia predates Islam, but the failure to identify the threat posed by Muslim immigration has exposed it. Many ordinary citizens still remember that our so-called academic experts and media columnists hailed Multiculturalism and Muslim immigration, which are turning out to be the most massive mistakes in modern Western history. This will sooner or later trigger a backlash.

The bad news is that all our various enemies are closely tied together. The good news is also that all our various enemies are closely tied together, and may all go down if one of them falls.

We can start with the Muslims. Their greatest flaw is that they are insanely aggressive and can’t handle criticism or mockery at all. A
smart move would be to deliberately provoke Muslims as much as humanly possible. The more they rage and rant and threaten, the more they will discredit the ones who said it was a good idea to let them into our countries and that everybody who said otherwise were “racists.”

One possibility is to simply demonstrate that the welfare state is no longer able to provide “security” to non-Muslim citizens. Every time somebody gets death threats from Islamic Jihadists, or Muslims burn cars and tires in the streets, it displays the utter failure of the authorities to protect us, and thus the futility of paying high tax rates in order to prop up a system that is in reality already dead.The welfare state is now just a big pyramid scheme where Leftist parties take our money and give it to Muslim immigrants in return for
voter support. The welfare state in fact provides insecurity, since it is used to fund the Muslim colonization of the continent.

I want European citizens to hear our politicians say that we need Muslim immigration to fund the welfare state, and then in the next second see “Multicultural youths” shouting Allahu akbar! and throwing Molotov cocktails at the fire brigades in Paris, Birmingham, Rotterdam or wherever. There you go: Your future pensions, ladies and gentlemen.

Bottom line is: Our political elites are either lying to us or lying to themselves, and in both cases they are unfit to run our affairs. Westerners “need” Muslim immigration just like we “need” a hole in the head, which is incidentally what we may end up with.

Our most serious underlying problems cannot be solved by immigration. Immigration may actually worsen the low indigenous birth rates, because it breaks down cultural confidence and thus the desire to have children if it feels like our countries don’t have a future.

I’ve heard the term “Europhobe” being used of those who criticize the European Union. EU officials are busy rewriting our history books to insert Islam as a “natural part of European culture,” despite the fact much of the history of Europe since Charles Martel in the 8th century has been about defending the continent against Islam. The real “Europhobes,” those who hate or fear Europe, are those who run the EU, not those who are against it.

I find it personally insulting that unelected bureaucrats in Brussels should be allowed to define what constitutes Europe or European values. The EU is in reality the anti-European Union, since it is selling out the continent to our sworn enemies. It needs to go.

I’ve heard people say they are afraid that if the EU collapses, we might see a resurgence of aggressive nationalism. Frankly, I can’t totally discount the possibility. But we can’t think like that right now. This is now a matter of survival.

It’s like saying that you won’t have surgery that is needed to save your life because there’s a possibility that you may get an infection later. In the choice between certain death now and possible problems at some point in the future, I take possible problems later.

A period of turbulence can be reversed. Islamization never can, or at least only with extreme difficulty. I want to prevent Islamization at literally ANY cost. And frankly, it’s ridiculous to worry that the collapse of the EU might lead to fanaticism. The EU is facilitating fanaticism in the form of sharia and neo-barbarism in Europe right now.

The EU is bad for at least three reasons. First, because many of the EU elites are deliberately trying to create a common entity with the Arab world. Second, because the process of creating a pan-European federation has led to suppressing all traditional cultural, religious and national instincts that protected Europe from Islam before. And third, because the borderless nature of the EU makes both legal and illegal migration of Muslims more difficult to control from a practical point of view.

We could perhaps use NATO to control potential nationalist extremists. During the Cold War, Western European countries had a common enemy, which helped curtail national rivalries. Maybe we could do the same now, by creating a common front against Islamic aggression. But Americans should insist that Europeans ditch the welfare state to pay for decent militaries. The Americans have succeeded almost too well in pacifying parts of Europe after WW2, and may have killed Western Europe with kindness.

Unfortunately, most Europeans have never even heard of the term Eurabia. That’s why I decided to write the Eurabia Code and post it online, to give my small contribution towards exposing this betrayal. I simply refuse to accept that the battle is already lost. Individuals matter. Willpower wins wars.

We are dealing with psychological warfare, first and foremost. Relatively few people have actually been killed so far. Muslims are adept at psychological warfare, let’s give them credit for that. And right now the momentum is in their favor. That’s why we need some symbolic event that signals that the tide is turning, and we need to create a positive vision of how this post-Eurabian Europe will look like. Hope is important, and Europe now suffers from a lack of hope. Yes, the current political paradigm of über-liberalism and the Multicultural welfare state is dead, it just hasn’t been officially announced yet. But that doesn’t have to mean that Europe is dead.

I’m tired of hearing about how something is inevitable. That’s why we ended up in this mess in the first place, by listening to the mantra that Multiculturalism was inevitable, that mass immigration was inevitable, that Euro-integration was inevitable etc. It was all lies. Europe still has the means to win this, the question is whether she has the will.

We have grown weak, complacent and pathetic and will have to reassert own identity if we want to survive. Maybe is some strange way, Western Europe needs to go through her own period of colonization and de-colonization to move on and leave the colonial period behind. There are now probably more Algerians in France than there ever were Frenchmen in Algeria. Surely, if it could be called “national liberation” and “de-colonization” when the French were kicked out of Algeria, the same rules should apply if the French were to kick Algerians out of France? Or what about Pakistanis out of Britain?

Is that racist, you say? Well, Leftists always hail any struggle for self-determination for indigenous people against colonialist aggression. Then they wouldn’t mind if Europeans were to exercise this right, too? Or do we detect a double standard saying that indigenous people have the right to self-preservation, unless the indigenous people happen to be white? That would be racist, wouldn’t it?

Democratic House leader under GOP attack —- Dick Cheney, the vice-president, told an interviewer that Mrs Pelosi “is not in sync with the vast majority of the American people”, and represents “that side of the Democratic party that has not been supportive of and does not believe in a really robust, aggressive prosecution of the global war on terror”.

Democratic House leader under GOP attack

By Holly Yeager in Washington

Published: October 25 2006 22:21 | Last updated: October 25 2006 22:21

Republicans have found a strange new weapon as they fight to maintain control of Congress: Nancy Pelosi.

Mrs Pelosi, Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, is poised to become Speaker of the House – third in line for the presidency and the first woman to hold that post – if her party takes the majority in the midterm elections on November 7.

In the waning days of the campaign, Republicans have stepped up their attention to her, calling her a San Francisco liberal and warning about the wrong-headed policies of a “Perilous Pelosi Majority”.

They have hammered away at what they say is her weak stance on security, highlighting comments she made last month that capturing Osama bin Laden would be “five years too late  . . . even to capture him now I don’t think makes us any safer”.

Dick Cheney, the vice-president, told an interviewer that Mrs Pelosi “is not in sync with the vast majority of the American people”, and represents “that side of the Democratic party that has not been supportive of and does not believe in a really robust, aggressive prosecution of the global war on terror”.

Deborah Pryce, a Republican from Ohio embroiled in a tough re-election campaign, declared that a Democratic majority under Mrs Pelosi would “take us back to the failed economic policies of the past, including massive tax increases and wasteful government spending”. A television advertisement for a Republican in Georgia declares that she will “reward illegal aliens with welfare, food-stamps, and free education”.

Whether the Republican strategy will be effective is hard to gauge. A Newsweek poll this week found that 25 per cent had a favourable view of her and 26 per cent unfavourable. But another 26 per cent said they had never heard of her and 23 per cent were unsure.

Mrs Pelosi’s office brushed aside the recent attacks. “Republicans’ scare tactics and distortions are a sign of their desperation to keep their power,” a spokeswoman said.

Elected to Congress in 1987, Ms Pelosi is the scion of a political family. Her father was a member of Congress and mayor of Baltimore, Maryland – a position also held by one of her brothers.

She has won high marks for keeping Democrats in line and is a frequent, and often harsh, critic of her Republican colleagues and the Bush White House. When reminded in a CBS interview this week that she had called Republicans “im­moral” and “corrupt”, she replied: “Well, actually, when I called them those names, I was being gentle. There are much worse things I could’ve said about them.” Despite that, she has vowed to return civility to the House, pledging to allow the minority party to offer amendments and participate in debates in ways that Republicans have not.

In the first 100 hours of a Democratic majority, she has vowed to rewrite House lobbying rules, increase the minimum wage, reduce interest rates on student loans, adopt the homeland security recommendations made by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission and give the government the power to negotiate with drugs companies for lower prices for the Medicare prescription drug programme.

And, despite pressure from some liberal activists, she has also ruled out the impeachment of President George W. Bush over Iraq. “Making them lame ducks is good enough for me.”

Axis of Allies — Is it even possible to have Muslim allies?

Axis of Allies
By Christopher Orlet
Published 10/26/2006 12:07:54 AM

Writing last week in the Wall Street Journal Tunku Varadarajan made a good case that Pakistan’s leader Gen. Pervez Musharraf has been for the past five years two-timing the U.S. The general has “played the Americans beautifully”:

After five years of Pakistani collaboration with the U.S. military in Afghanistan, not one Taliban leader of consequence has been captured or killed. Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, cries himself hoarse over the Taliban functioning out of Pakistan’s western regions and he is treated with open ridicule by Gen. Musharraf. There is precious little, however, that George W. Bush can do about this: He cannot now admit that a man he has called his “ally” for the past five years has been double-crossing him nearly every minute of that time.

Nor can he admit that there is a “vast nuclear smuggling ring emanating from Pakistan” (Washington Post), doubtless with Musharraf’s tacit authorization, with Pakistani weapons finding their way to every rogue nation that can scrape together a few bucks.

Sadly, the case of Pakistan is not unique. Another so-called ally, Saudi Arabia, has also been playing the U.S. like one of Antonio Stradivari’s fiddles. The Saudis have never been big fans of Team USA. In fact, 87 percent of Saudis hold an unfavorable opinion of the U.S. And their own leaders aren’t going to win any popularity contests either. The Saudi royal family is nothing if not a web of contradictions: an ally of the U.S. in the War on Terror and a main target of Osama bin Laden, while at the same time an exporter of radical Wahhabism. In fact, the only thing the Saudis export more of is oil.

If any Muslim state should be pro-American, it is fellow NATO member Turkey. A secular, nominally democratic nation, Turkey longs to modernize and move closer to the West, while paradoxically keeping Western society at arm’s length. (About three-quarters of Turks favor EU integration, while a recent Pew Global Attitudes poll showed that only 16 percent of Turks held a favorable view of Christians, just one percentage point higher than their dislike of Jews.) Politically, Turkey is a shambles, a secular government kept that way by a powerful military that was seriously embarrassed recently when novelist Orhan Pamuk won the Nobel Prize for Politics…errr, Literature, despite the government’s recent attempts to have him locked up for “insulting the Republic.” Not long ago Pamuk had the bad taste to bring up the (1915-17) Armenian genocide. The Nobel laureate deserved some kind of award, if only because he is hated by both the Islamicists and the Turkish military, which means he must be doing something right.

As Pamuk’s novels amply demonstrate, there is in his homeland an intense hate of “Europeanized” Turks, a revulsion that is only kept from violent outbreak by a thuggish military that routinely uses torture and the threat of torture to maintain a semblance of order. The Turkish rural majority is rabidly anti-American. A recent poll shows that a mere 12 percent of Turks hold a favorable opinion of the U.S. As for our allies in the capital Ankara, the Turks not only opposed the War in Iraq, their parliament voted to forbid U.S. troops from crossing into Iraq from Turkish soil.

EGYPT IS ANOTHER so-called friend who is an ally in name only. An impressive 98 percent of Egyptians surveyed have an “unfavorable attitude” toward the U.S., according to a Zogby poll. Perhaps Egyptians hate the U.S. so much because their military is the second largest recipient of American foreign aid, which tends to be used to prop up a double-dealing dictatorship that encourages the spread of anti-American propaganda (“vicious and loony lies,” according to James Glassman of the American Enterprise) which tends to feed Muslim extremism.

And thanks to Saudi meddling, Asian Muslim nations are experiencing an upsurge of anti-Western feeling as Wahhabism replaces the mainly peaceful, moderate version of Islam long practiced by Asians. Wahhabism takes its most radical form in terrorist factions like Islamic Defenders’ Front, Darul Islam, Laskar Jihad, and Jemaah Islamiah, groups that seem determined to prove to their Arab co-religionists that they are indeed true Muslims, and who are responsible for the many terror attacks in Bali and the Philippines. Jemaah Islamiah, a member of the al Qaeda network, maintains that it will not cease its terror campaign until a pan-Islamic state, consisting of Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, and the Philippine island of Mindanao, is established.

This is especially troubling considering that Indonesia is the world’s fourth most populous country with the world’s largest Muslim population. And nowhere do terrorists get off so easily as in Indonesia. Human Right’s Watch reports that “Abu Bakar Bashir, believed by many to be the spiritual head of the terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiyah, was convicted in March 2005 of criminal conspiracy behind the 2002 Bali bombings. Due to poor conduct of the prosecution, he was acquitted of the more serious charge of planning a terrorist attack. He received a sentence of only thirty months, which was further shortened to twenty-five-and-a-half months in an August 2005 Independence Day sentence reduction.”

The standard response is that these allies should be cut a generous amount of slack, since they must delicately balance the conflicting ideals of their Muslim populations and their Western allies, which must be why they tell Bush and Rice one thing and their Muslim masses another. This would explain the Musharraf-Bush-Karzai love-in at the White House last month, while back home in Islamabad the natives were hearing that the U.S. threatened to bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age if Musharraf didn’t cooperate in the War on Terror. Such two-timing works to the general’s advantage, of course. A recent BBC poll showed that 88 percent of Pakistanis believe that Musharraf was pressured to support the War on Terror.

Majority Muslim nations and the West are not natural allies. Most Muslim countries are undemocratic, or at best illiberal democracies where separation of church and state and other basic freedoms are wanting, where Sharia law trumps what’s known as Roman or British law, where religious police or a thuggish military dispense a unique brand of primitive justice. More and more Muslims are adopting an anti-Christian, anti-American, and anti-modern desert Islam due largely to the continuing exportation of Saudi and Egyptian preachers of hate. We call these countries our allies, but only because our vocabulary lacks a descriptive noun for such an unpleasant, but necessary arrangement. Genuine allies share goals, values, an interest in outcomes — they are those nations you can trust to get your back. Britain is such an ally, Australia, Canada, Poland too. Perhaps some industrious young linguist will come up with an appropriate neologism. Ally isn’t cutting it.

Christopher Orlet is a frequent contributor and runs the Existential Journalist

Ohio State Prof: “What Terrorist Threat?”

Ohio State Prof: “What Terrorist Threat?”
By Patrick Poole
Existential Space | October 26, 2006

With the fifth anniversary of 9/11 now behind us, I’m sure that few of us can forget the horror and uncertainty of that day. But despite the pervasive presence of that event in our collective memory, some in academia say we do not need to fight a war on terror because we are fighting “an enemy that scarcely exists.”

See as Exhibit A the lead article in the September-October issue of Foreign Affairs – published by the Council on Foreign Relations and considered one of the premiere sources of foreign policy for the East Coast Leftist and inside-the-Beltway establishments, where you will find an article by John Mueller, “Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?”, which is summarized as follows:

Despite all the ominous warnings of wily terrorists and imminent attacks, there has been neither a successful strike nor a close call in the United States since 9/11. The reasonable – but rarely heard – explanation is that there are no terrorists within the United States, and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad.

This conclusion might strike most of us who pay attention to the news as patently bizarre, but Mueller is not some visiting lecturer at Antioch College or Berkeley; he is a professor at one of the largest and most respected public universities in the country: The Ohio State University (my alma mater). In fact, Mueller holds the Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies, named after Ohio State’s beloved pugilistic and military historian football coach, and a professorship in the Department of Political Science (my undergraduate major).

Of course, in August the U.S., UK, and Pakistan foiled a terror plot to attack U.S.-bound airliners, potentially killing hundreds or thousands of Americans, but we find out that Mueller doesn’t let that fact get in his way. More to the point, there is evidence immediately at hand in Central Ohio to refute his ridiculous argument. In June 2004, Nuradin Abdi and Iyman Faris were arrested and charged with terrorism for plotting to blow up a Columbus-area shopping mall and making plans to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge. Faris, who admitted to receiving his orders directly from former al-Qaeda terror operations chief, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, pled guilty to the terrorism charges; Abdi’s case comes to trial this month at the Federal courthouse just a few miles from Mueller’s office.

Upon reading his argument that there is no terror threat to the US, I sent Professor Mueller an e-mail identifying myself as an Ohio State alum and Political Science graduate, politely asking him whether the revelations of this most recent plot to blow up US-bound airliners contradicted his thesis that there is no actual terrorist threat. Within a few hours, I received his single sentence reply:

“Why do you think it contradicts my thesis?”

In my response to his question I noted the fairly obvious conclusion that the existence of actual terror plots against the United States would flatly refute his contention that there are no terror plots against the US. That seems logical to me; but then again, Mueller is Political Science faculty, not Philosophy. Needless to say, since I pointed this out to him, I haven’t heard from Mueller again.

In his article, he gives evidence that logic is not his strong suit when he openly contradicts himself:

But if it is so easy to pull off an attack and if terrorists are so demonically competent, why have they not done it? Why have they not been sniping at people in shopping centers, collapsing tunnels, poisoning the food supply, cutting electrical lines, derailing trains, blowing up oil pipelines, causing massive traffic jams, or exploiting the countless other vulnerabilities that, according to security experts, could so easily be exploited? One reasonable explanation is that almost no terrorists exist in the United States and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad. But this explanation is rarely offered.

Given their previous history of striking when their media cache sinks, wouldn’t it be more likely that al-Qaeda would attempt another 9/11-style attack to demonstrate their potency and to mask their current “desperation, isolation, fragmentation, and decline,” much as he claims they did on 9/11?

Of course, there are a number of factors that have prevented al-Qaeda from striking America again, most importantly our military assaults against them abroad and vigorous law enforcement measures at home. This includes the destruction of Al-Qaeda’s Taliban safe haven, intensive signals surveillance and human intelligence gathering, the capture and dismantling of their terror cells around the world, the identification and freezing of their financial assets and disrupting their sources of income, and the U.S. military pushing what remains of al-Qaeda’s leadership into the remote mountain caves of Waziristan.

None of that fits into his assessment, however: if al-Qaeda actually intended to strike us again they would have successfully done so by now; therefore there is no real terror threat to the US, Mueller smugly concludes. Just who exactly is arguing for the “demonically competent” terrorist, Professor Mueller? But elsewhere he writes that al-Qaeda’s powers are “overblown” and “greatly exaggerated”; that they have reached the point of “desperation, isolation, fragmentation, and decline”; and that they “scarcely exist.”

Being the good social scientist, Mueller finally retreats to the data, equating the risk to individual Americans of being killed in a terrorist attack as being hit by a meteor or drowning in the bathtub:

But while keeping such potential dangers in mind, it is worth remembering that the total number of people killed since 9/11 by al Qaeda or al Qaeda­like operatives outside of Afghanistan and Iraq is not much higher than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States in a single year, and that the lifetime chance of an American being killed by international terrorism is about one in 80,000 — about the same chance of being killed by a comet or a meteor. Even if there were a 9/11-scale attack every three months for the next five years, the likelihood that an individual American would number among the dead would be two hundredths of a percent (or one in 5,000).

If we were to take Mueller’s argument to its logical conclusion, since the annual fatality rate for car crashes in the US is 14 out of every 100,000 people, we should stop having law enforcement patrol highways. And since the lifetime risk of dying in an airplane crash is a staggering 1 in 8 million, the U.S. government should close down the National Transportation Safety Board, because there really isn’t much of a threat statistically speaking. But what comfort would Mueller’s cold calculus be to a grieving widow or widower that lost their spouse on 9/11 that their death was little more than a statistical improbability?

It is interesting to note that one scholar that Mueller cites in support of his argument is Fawaz Gerges, a Middle East studies professor at Sarah Lawrence College, who argues that militant Islam is an invention of the West and that radical Islam had for the most part abandoned violence prior to 9/11 for politics. As Jonathan Calt Harris of Campus Watch explained in the National Review in 2003, Gerges has a habit of trying to hold mutually exclusive positions – all to the detriment of the foreign policy and national security of the United States:

Gerges feels America is wrong for taking militant Islam seriously, wrong for aiding Arab states against militant Islamic opposition and wrong for not aiding Arab states against Israel. America should not “collectively punish,” yet should deny aid to a state based on the actions of its unelected ruler. America should not act “hegemonically,” yet must “push along” Islamist groups to democracy, and “literally push” Arabs and Israelis to a solution. America cannot escape its “blood legacy” for supporting Saddam decades ago, yet now it is perpetrating a “unilateral military onslaught” by removing him.

Mueller not only quotes Gerges approvingly, but heartily embraces his “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” approach to radical Islam and terrorism. For both, it is as if 9/11 never occurred and that there really is no enemy for us to protect ourselves against – except the Bush Administration, which in their mind is a cross between the Khmer Rouge and Italian fascism. Thus for these “scholars”, any terror-related intelligence gathering, investigations, or (heaven forbid) arrests of terror suspects are gross human rights abuses and war crimes.

The only other scholar cited by Mueller in his Foreign Affairs article is Georgetown law professor David Cole, who has recently received awards from the Communist Party USA-founded National Lawyers Guild (who Erick Stakelbeck has described as “Cheerleaders of Terrorism”), the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (which openly supports suicide terrorist attacks against Israel), and the American Muslim Council (whose chairman was imprisoned in 2003 for terrorism-related charges). In addition, he serves as the legal affairs correspondent for the far Left magazine, The Nation.

Last year, Cole complained to U.S. News and World Report that the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Emergency Support Team was conducting radiation monitoring at 120 sites, including mosques, in the Washington D.C.-area and five other cities to prevent a nuclear attack against the US. Cole asserted that driving by these places each day with a Geiger counter was a violation of the most basic constitutional protections. This past May he protested the fairness of the conviction of Palestinian Islamic Jihad support, Sami al-Arian, and defended al-Arian’s innocence, despite the fact that al-Arian eventually pled guilty to the charges.

Cole is also a volunteer staff attorney and sits on the board of the George Soros-financed Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR). The most recent publication by the CCR is the book, Articles of Impeachment of George W. Bush, and their most recent legal victory was securing civil liberties for the captured terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Again, Fawaz Gerges and David Cole are the only two scholars cited by Mueller, both of whom play to the conspiracy-mongers among the Daily Kos and Democratic Underground crowd. Is it any wonder then that Mueller’s Foreign Affairs article is laced with very familiar Leftist catch-phrases (“the ill-considered U.S. venture in Iraq”), politically-charged indictments (“The FBI embraces a spooky I-think-therefore-they-are line of reasoning when assessing the purported terrorist menace”) and completely over-the-top comparisons (likening US terror investigations to the Japanese-American internments of WWII)?

Professor Mueller’s opinion is sure to be sought out by eager New York Times reporters digging for quotes and his Foreign Affairs article cited in the press releases that stream endlessly from Howard Dean’s office at the Democratic National Committee, but what does it say about academia in America today that recognizing the deadly obvious terror threat to our country is considered a Copernican heresy by the faculty of our some of our most prominent colleges and universities? If 9/11 wasn’t sufficient to convince these academics that terrorism exists and that the US is the prime target, it’s doubtful that another attack will.

Click Here to support

Iranian President Ahmadinejad: The West Should Pick Up the Zionist Regime ‘By the Arms and Legs’ and Remove It from the Region; U.N. Resolutions Are Illegitimate; America & England are Enemies of the Iranian Nation

October 27, 2006 No.1337

Iranian President Ahmadinejad: The West Should Pick Up the Zionist Regime ‘By the Arms and Legs’ and Remove It from the Region; U.N. Resolutions Are Illegitimate; America & England are Enemies of the Iranian Nation

The following are excerpts from an address delivered by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which aired on Jaam-e Jam 1 TV on October 20, 2006. In the address, Ahmadinejad stated that the U.S. was extorting the entire world using the Holocaust as a pretext and that the West was being held hostage by “the Zionists” by means of the Holocaust, and instructed it to pick up “[the Zionist regime]by the arms and legs, and remove it” from the Middle East. He further claimed that the U.N. Security Council and its resolutions were illegitimate and that “the whole world knows that America and England are the enemies of the Iranian nation.”


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “This [Zionist regime] was established in order to swallow up the entire region, and to place it at the disposal of the world forces. It is a big lie that it was done in order to protect those killed in World War II, and in order to compensate them.

“Over 60 million people were killed in World War II. Let’s assume you are right, and six million [Jews] were among those killed. How come none of you mourn the other 54 million? Why don’t you pay reparations to them? Why don’t you ever think about them? All your sorrow, your pity, your mourning cries are over [victims] who were counted by I don’t know whom…

“Western Countries Are Being Held Hostage Today By tThe Zionists”

“Obviously, some of the Western countries are being held hostage today by the Zionists. Some Western countries have been paying reparations for 60 years. We sent letters and messages, and asked them: ‘When will these relations, which evolved from World War II, come to an end?’ A war broke out 60 years ago, and some considered themselves the victors in this war. They occupied Palestine. They set up bases throughout the world, and want to act aggressively against all the peoples. They also gave themselves privileges in the international forums, and the other peoples must submit to their control. We asked them when these relations would come to an end. We asked the leader of one of these countries: ‘Until when will your people have to pay reparations?’ For two generations? Three generations? For a 100 years? A thousand years? A few thousand years?

“The existence of this regime is so essential for these countries that in some of them, they even built monuments. You know that every country builds monuments for the objects of their pride. They take their children, from an early age, to show them these monuments, in order to help them develop their identity, and to instill in their memory the things that make them proud, in order to feel power and honor. In some of these countries, they set up monuments whose purpose was to degrade that very nation. From an early age, they take their children and say to them: ‘Look, our ancestors were murderers. Our ancestors used to burn people. We are in debt.’

“Why Does America Extort the World, Under the Pretext of the Holocaust?”

“Something happened three generations ago. Let’s assume it was true. What is the crime of the youth born in Europe today? What is the crime of people living in the world today that they have to pay reparations so high they cannot even be calculated? The peoples have to pay any sum decreed by America and England. What is the reason for this? When will there be an end to these claims? What is their limit? What does America have to do with this? Why does America extort the world, under the pretext of the Holocaust? Why does England extort [the world]? Wasn’t it England that laid the foundations for the fear that led the Jews to flee to the occupied lands?

“They said: ‘We want to establish a place for the survivors.’ How many survivors were there? With false promises, you gathered the wretched people from Africa, South America, Asia, and North America, and you brought them there. You banished one people from its land, and you want to create another people by force. Why? Why? Are all those now living in Palestine survivors of the war? We asked [these Westerners]: ‘The current leader of the Zionist regime – where did his parents live? Where were they?’ As you know, some of the leaders of the Zionist regime are in fact Iranians.


“The life of this regime depended on military threat, military force, and the legend that it was invincible. Today, with God’s grace, this false legend has collapsed, with the help of the young believers of Palestine, and thanks to the believing, self-sacrificing commanders of Hizbullah. Today, the Zionists do not feel secure even in their own homes, anywhere in the world.

“Today, this community, which was gathered by force, and under false pretexts, and whose members were joined to one another by a paper-clip, in order to create a false illusion of a nation… Today, they have fallen apart. I declare here, loud and clear: With God’s grace, this regime has lost the philosophy of its existence.


“I said to them: If you do not agree, open the doors, open the gates, and allow these uninvited guests to return to their countries. Let them return to their homeland. If the Western countries that support the Zionists feel sympathetic toward them, they should give them financial aid, so that they can live in their own countries.


“We have some advice for the supporters of this regime. We say to them: First of all, do not seek a new crime. Every crime being perpetrated today, every youth who dies in Palestine today, every home that is demolished, and every incursion into the neighboring countries will be accredited to the supporters of this regime, and the nations will exact their revenge.


“Since You Brought [This Regime] Over There, You Yourselves Pick it up, By the Arms and Legs, and Remove it From There”

“Our proposal is as follows: Since you brought [this regime] over there, you yourselves pick it up, by the arms and legs, and remove it from there. This will make the peoples of the region improve their attitude toward you. These will be the first steps to a long-lasting friendship with the peoples of the region. This will be to your advantage.

“You may say: ‘We feel uncomfortable doing this, because the Zionists control our countries, the propaganda machinery is at their disposal, and if we want to gain voters, we need their money and their support. Therefore, we feel uncomfortable doing this.’

“Fine. We made you another proposal: Allow that which you advocate take place in Palestine. After all, you advocate democracy, and you claim that the peoples should control their own destiny. So let the Palestinian people decide upon its own path by means of a referendum. In response, you say: ‘We might lose our reputation.’ Our response is: You have no reputation left anyway! Where do you still have a reputation anywhere in the world?

“In the recent war in Lebanon, you saw with your own eyes that the whole world was against you. Even in Argentina, where the Zionists devise conspiracies, generate strife, and put pressure on the Argentinean administration, the people took to the streets.


“The Whole World Knows That America and England Are the Enemies of the Iranian Nation”

“This [Zionist] regime is on the verge of death, and we advise you to start thinking about your long-term interests and long term relations with the peoples of the region. At the end of the day, these are all ultimatums. Noone should complain tomorrow. The things are stated clearly.


“What is this Security Council anyway? The whole world knows that America and England are the enemies of the Iranian nation.”

Crowd: “Allah Akbar.”

“Allah Akbar.”

“Khamenei is the leader.”

“Death to those who oppose the rule of the jurisprudent”

“Death to America”

“Death to England”

“Death to the hypocrites and Saddam”

“Death to Israel”

“The Security Council, in Its Present Condition, is Illegitimate; Its Resolutions Are Illegitimate”

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “They have taken control of the leading positions in the Security Council, and have the right of veto, and they are prosecuting and judging us, and they want to carry out the verdict. Sir, this is the logic of pharaonic times. The days of this logic are over. The Security Council, in its present condition, is illegitimate. Its resolutions are illegitimate. Do you want to be the judges, the rulers, the prosecutors, and those who carry out the verdicts? These days are over. Nobody accepts this behavior of yours. Even the illiterate old women of the Himalayas will not accept this behavior of yours.”

The Rape of Europe

The Rape of Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another bin Laden victory

Is California an Islamic Republic?

Is California an Islamic Republic?

Stephen Schwartz

October 25, 2006

I am not a native Californian, but was taken there as a small child by my parents, grew up there, and stayed, in all, 48 years, until 1999. From early on, I was fascinated by the inscription on the state flag, “California Republic.” It obviously suggested that California is a country unto itself.

In elementary school, we were taught the brief history of the “Bear Flag” Republic, as it was more commonly known, and which lasted for less than a month in 1846. Many years went by, and in 1998 I published a book on California history, titled From West to East, embodying my experience and outlook on California’s “separatist” identity. In 2003, I contributed an essay on the state’s progressive legacy, concluding with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s political gambit, to a volume edited by Brian Janiskee and Ken Masugi, The California Republic.

The topic of California separatism is a fascinating one, but it gained a new and unusual aspect on October 17, when the Saudi daily newspaper Okaz published a startling interview. Hamza Yusuf Hanson, a convert to Islam, was described as “the mufti of California.”   He complained to the Saudi paper about American incomprehension of Islam as well as racism. (Hanson himself is white.)

Few non-Muslims will understand the title “mufti” or the claim that it expresses. A mufti is a religious judge, directing sharia courts in Sunni Muslim countries. Muftis are appointed by or recognized by governments. Because Islamic law is not standard in non-Muslim countries, only three of the latter, all of which have significant Muslim majorities, have a mufti. France, with six million Muslims, understandably has a mufti, Soheib Bencheikh, of Algerian origin.   Russia, with more than 20 million Muslims, has a mufti, Talgat Tajuddin. Croatia, with a Croatian-Bosnian Muslim community, has a mufti, as do other former-Yugoslav republics, such as
Slovenia, with Muslim minorities, but they lack governmental recognition.

Why would California have a mufti?   Sharia governs such minor aspects of Islamic life as the issuance of halal butchers’ licenses, which are comparable to certification of kosher meat by rabbis.    Sharia also determines the propriety of certain financial transactions between observant Muslims, and many American and other Western banks, investment houses, and related institutions have sharia consultants for the preparation of business contracts by their Muslim clients.

But California has no sharia courts. California’s Muslim population is about one million, or 3.4 percent of the whole population, which does not justify appointment of a mufti.   How then does a major Saudi daily describe Hamza Yusuf Hanson as “mufti of California?”

The most benevolent interpretation of this extraordinary incident must begin with an unpleasant task – identifying Hamza Yusuf Hanson himself. Born of a Catholic father and Greek Orthodox mother, Hanson became Muslim as a youth and distinguished himself, until September 11, as one of the loudest, most radical, vulgar, and provocative Islamist agitators in the West.   In 1995, Hanson delivered himself of the opinion that Judaism is “a most racist religion.” (No such condemnation appears in the Koran or in mainstream Islamic theology, which honor the Jewish prophets.)   On September 9, 2001, Hanson declaimed in Los Angeles, “This country {America} unfortunately has a great, a great tribulation coming to it.   And much of it is already here, yet people are too illiterate to read the writing on the wall.”

With the passage of two days, of course, the world changed. Hamza Yusuf Hanson saw the difficulties that would face radical Muslim preachers in the West.   He briskly reinvented himself as a peaceful, spiritual Sufi, although he has never given any indication of a real knowledge of the Sufi way or its cultural legacy.   He also had the incredible luck to benefit from cluelessness inside the Beltway, and got to meet President George W. Bush. On the strength of that trivial encounter, he has built himself up as a major Western Muslim leader, claiming now to be a “Bush adviser” as well as the epitome of moderate Islam. Recently, he figured as a leading exponent of a curious declaration of 38 Muslim scholars, directed to Pope Benedict XVI, and which has gained considerable media attention.

Numerous Sufis and other moderate Muslims doubt that Hamza Yusuf Hanson has really changed. One of the leading Sufis in the Muslim world told me Hanson’s “spiritual teaching” was New Age mush, suitable for daytime television talk-shows but not for a real and distinguished mosque with a long history of scholarship, moderation, and good relations between Shia and Sunni Muslims as well as between Muslims and non-Muslims. Such is the mosque in which my interlocutor (who shall remain anonymous) is the imam..

Is California an Islamic republic, with sharia courts and a state-recognized mufti? Of course not.

Does Hamza Yusuf Hanson, a poseur living in California, fantasize that such a reality will come about?

Of course. Even in his alleged Sufi incarnation, Hamza Yusuf Hanson propagandizes for the Islamization of America.

Is “Islamic America” a mainstream Muslim principle? Of course not. Moderate Muslims long ago accepted that the West is ruled by non-Muslims, and that Muslims who emigrate to the West have to accept that fact.   All religious believers are proud of their faith, and many engage in proselytism.  But none except radical Muslims propose a wholesale transformation of Western religious life.  Mormons actively seek new members but do not proclaim that some day soon the world, or even America , will be Mormon; nor do Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Christian Scientists.  Nor, most important, do Catholics and Protestants, who are the leading communities in America , and who certainly accept converts. Nor do Buddhists, who are widely approached by religious seekers.  Born-again Christians do not declare that all Americans must some day join their particular denominations.  Jews do not proselytize at all.

It is one thing to argue that one’s religion is the sure path to paradise. It is quite another to argue that one’s faith is the sole basis for good governance on earth, or that its law should soon prevail in a country where it now represents a small, mainly-immigrant minority.    Normal Muslims, aside from the ignorant and gullible, consider such views madness.

It is neither a mainstream nor a moderate Muslim position to claim, as Hamza Yusuf’s chief deputy, an individual named Ziad Shakir, did as recently as June 18, 2006, in the pages of The New York Times: “ ‘Every Muslim who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Muslim country,’ he said.”   That means the great majority of Muslims, according to Hanson and his cohort, are dishonest, because they, from Bosnia to Borneo and from Algeria to Zanzibar, accept the non-Muslim religious identity of the West. 

It is Hamza Yusuf Hanson who is dishonest, when he calls himself, ridiculously, “the mufti of California,” and when he claims to be a Muslim moderate. He is neither, and it is time for mainstream media like The New York Times to quit flattering him. Contributing Editor Stephen Schwartz is Executive Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism.

© 2003-2006 All Rights Reserved

If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to

Note — The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of Family Security Matters.

Importing Poverty — This is a must read in depth look at immigration and its effect on poverty in the USA

See No Hezbollah; Hear No Hezbollah; Speak No Hezbollah

See No Hezbollah; Hear No Hezbollah; Speak No Hezbollah
By Mark D. Tooley | October 26, 2006

In keeping with the Religious Left’s sympathy for the suffering for the victims of U.S. and Israeli “aggression” — and absolutely nobody else — a group of senior religious officials recently visited Lebanon to bemoan
U.S. complicity in the Israeli strikes against Hezbollah targets.
Naturally, the news release and public statements hardly mention Hezbollah, ignoring that Islamist terrorist group’s years of rocket attacks against Israeli towns, its strikes against U.S. targets, and its reliance on Iran’s radical regime.According to this delegation, a U.S.-backed Israel attacked
Lebanon, with a special focus on civilian targets, for no reason beyond simple sadism.

“They [the Lebanese whom the delegation visited] were deeply troubled that our government did nothing to influence the cessation of the relentless bombing,” discovered the Rev. Michael Livingston, who led the five-day trip through
Lebanon as president of the National Council of Churches (NCC). “They simply could not understand how we could abide saying nothing to
Israel while innocent people were killed, roads and bridges destroyed and oil storage facilities were bombed spilling oil and polluting the sea.”

According to Livingston, the nine-member delegation “wanted to express our solidarity with the Lebanese people, to listen to them, to ask them what we could do to help and what messages we could take to the members of our congregations and to our government in the
United States.” No similar Religious Left delegation ever visited
Lebanon to express “solidarity” during that nation’s nearly 30-year occupation by Syrian military and intelligence operatives. Nor has any delegation expressed alarm by the continued occupation of southern
Lebanon by Hezbollah.
The other ecclesiastics who joined Livingston in his Lebanon tour were the Rev. A. Roy Medley, general secretary of the American Baptist Churches USA; Greek Orthodox Bishop Dimitrios of Xanthos; Rev. Raymon Hunt of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church; NCC executive Antonios Kireopoulos; and Quaker officials Thomas Swain, Martin Kromer, Edward R. Moon II, and Patricia Finley. In a surreal interview on the NCC’s website,
Livingston never actually utters the word “Hezbollah.” He does make an oblique reference to terrorism, but only to offer empathy with the motives of suicide bombers, painting them as supposedly oppressed victims acting out their understandable rage.
Asked what he would tell his congregation if he were still a pastor,
Livingston responded: “I would ask them to do some homework, to try to understand, not justify, but understand, why a young man would strap explosives to his chest and walk into public place to kill and to die. And then to use that understanding to work for a more balanced approach to creating a lasting peace in the
Middle East.” That more balanced approach doubtlessly means becoming more hostile to the State of Israel.
Quickly, he turned the topic back to the real ultimate oppressor: the U.S. “I would ask them to search their hearts for a good reason our government might sit on its hands while innocent people were bombed relentlessly in
Lebanon and while people on both sides were dying. I would tell them the people of
Lebanon want to live in peace, to raise their children without the dread of the next attack.”
No doubt, most Lebanese do want to live without war. But most of Lebanon’s strife over the last 30 years has come from conflict between the Land of Cedars’ growing Islamic population and Lebanon’s stedily diminishing Christian community; this has been compounded by an occupation by Syria, the headquartering of the PLO in Lebanon during the 1980’s, and the more recent nesting of Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces.Most of this conflict would have occurred even if Israel did not exist, but Livingston emphasizes that the solution to Lebanon’s future depends on a resolution of the Palestinians’ fate; and this is to be orchestrated by the United States pressuring
Israel into more concessions. He urges parishioners to “agitate their representatives with calls, visits, emails, letters, until we begin to act as a responsible agent for the resolution of the Palestinian and Israeli conflict.”
Livingston quotes Lebanese Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Elias Aude, with whom the
U.S. religious delegation met. The Metropolitan told of the “fear of his people at the fragility of small, beleaguered Lebanon as a whole, subject as it is to the desires of more powerful nations.”
Livingston recounted, “He spoke also of the precarious existence of Christians in
Lebanon and his sorrow at their dwindling numbers. He knew that we had little power to do anything, none of us really, and he affirmed the sovereignty of God and his trust in God’s providence.”
Why is the Christian population so “precarious?” Why is it “dwindling?”
Livingston does not explain. That would require some reference to the demands and pressures of radical Islam, whose war against Lebanon’s Christians, compounded by the Christians’ own low birthrate, have made Christians a shrinking minority in a nation where they were once the majority.
Livingston shifts to what he believes really distressed the Metropolitan. “Even as he said this, I got the sense that he did indeed desire that we go back to the United States and challenge our government to act with justice toward the whole region, to balance its unqualified support of Israel with a more profound concern for the things that make for peace in a land that has long been home to Christian, Moslem, and Jew.” 
Thank you, Dr. Livingston, for your interpretation of what the Metropolitan actually meant to say. Did all the Christians you met only complain of the U.S. and
Israel? Do they not have some other concerns as well? If so,
Livingston does not share.
For good measure,
Livingston mentions that his delegation visited the site of the 1996 “massacre” in Qana, where Lebanese civilians were killed when Israeli artillery returned fire against Hezbollah militia. (Coincidentally, Hezbollah exploited the locals as human shields.) “We found the older graves and headstones of victims of what they call the 1996 massacre, and we found the fresh graves of several families including children, who were killed in the last days of the bombing when the home in which they were all huddled was destroyed,” Livingston remembered.
At least
Livingston qualified his mention of the “massacre” by saying “they call” it a massacre. He did not explain the circumstances behind this tragedy. Once again, we can only assume that U.S.-backed
Israel was simply sadistic.   

If Israel did not exist, and the U.S. withdrew from Iraq, would Religious Left delegations ever again visit the
Middle East? That region’s various unsavory and corrupt regimes would go on oppressing, censoring, jailing, torturing, and murdering their opponents and favored victims — especially ever-dwindling Christian minorities. But there would be no consequent interest, much less protests, from any major left-leaning church group like the NCC.

Click Here to support