Mullahs and Opiates

Mullahs and Opiates

By Amil Imani

America and her quasi-backboned “allies” have a huge problem that grows by the day. Expectedly, there are as many analyses of our problem as there are “experts” to tell us what to think. A deluge of Western analysts have their diverse expert opinions regarding the “Mullah Problem” and what do about it. Some strategists advocate a military solution that ranges from full invasion of Iran to selective bombardment of its burgeoning nuclear centers and related facilities. Others are proponents of imposing economic sanctions of various types and severity. Still others feel that we simply have to learn to live with the inevitable-those “crazy” Mullahs with the bomb. 

Perhaps there are no easy answers. But we should still take the time to understand the millstone that hangs around our collective necks. Perhaps within the problem is a solution. So what are the forces at work? What is the source of power that positions the Mullahs to be such a large threat?
Iran’s economy is a basket case. The ruling party has eviscerated productivity, employment, and consumer power, all while destroying personal freedom, and buying every weapon the Russians and Chinese can deliver. The Islamic Republic of Iran represents the cutting edge for the newly petrodollar-invigorated Islam. This energy exporter/arms importer is not popular at home, but its rulers couldn’t care less. Iran is as far from a democracy as a country can get. No wonder it is adored by the ex-Soviets, and regional dictator-wannabes like Hugo Chavez.
But Iran is no ordinary tyranny. It has a special zeal that gives it an edge: Islam. Iran is ruled by the mullahs, who are zealously determined to complete their Allah-appointed task of ending the world of “Dar-ul-Harb”-the non-Muslim world to be warred upon-and establishing the “Dar-ul-Solh,” or “Dar-ul-Salam”-the Muslim world of the Ummeh under the rule of the “Mahdi.” If achieving this aim hinges on the conflagration of a Third World War, the mullahs are more than eager to make it happen. This is their self-proclaimed destiny.
Karl Marx once said derisively that “religion is the opiate of the people.” If so, the militant Islam of Iran is more like crack cocaine than opium. Islam is the foundation for the Iranian theocracy’s ideology of hate and destruction, but it is not the only force propelling it. Therefore, do not dismiss these vicious destroyers as mere “religious fanatics,” therefore harmless old cranks who are disconnected to reality, soon to be replaced by sane moderates. They are nowhere near the point of being forced out by a natural revolution. They know what they are doing, and they are playing a very long game of chess.
Likewise do not doubt their steadfastness to their cause even if it means their own annihilation. If invoking catastrophe will compel their precious Mahdi’s coming, their sentiment is “bring it on.” We should rid ourselves of the “happy talk” we tranquilize ourselves with by reasoning that these doddering old-world religious fools may be mischievous, but they could never do real harm. Oh, sure, they might be arming some Iraqi Shiites, killing a few US soldiers, providing a little support for Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine-but they have no global destructive capacity. After all, we pacify ourselves that we’re not exactly talking about criminal masterminds like Hitler. Or are we?
Such optimistic self-delusions fully misunderstand the evil genius of the Mullahs. The mullahs’ method of staying in power relies heavily on oil for arms… and arms for power. They have a sizable but otherwise insufficient cadre of true-believing Shiites, but popular support is not needed in their situation. To remain in power, their apparatus relies on “preventive” measures. They don’t bother much with due process of law. Their “revolutionary guard” dispenses with the “due” and gets right to the “process.” On the slightest suspicion, they arrest, convict and execute. They let Allah in the next world take the time to determine the person’s guilt or innocence.
Presently, the Mullahs have been doing all they can to imprison and kill with impunity the internal opposition, and want the rest of the world to keep its nose out of their “family” business. Executions in Iran have skyrocketed.
This bunch of miscreants has the full support of Syria, Venezuela, and Russia. They have enthusiastic support from many terrorist organizations in the region and drug-running organizations worldwide. They have tacit support from China, Cuba, and France because the power structures of these countries resent the USA, and Iran is the leader in the expression of threats against the US “superpower.” The Mullahs receive relatively little criticism from semi-socialist democracies like Western Europe and Canada who seem obsessed with anti-Bush, anti-US diatribes. Certainly the UN could care less about their bomb-building, and would be holding “talks” after the first detonation because “everybody knows war never solved anything.” The Mullahs have nothing but support and few distractions. They’re not going anywhere without a very big push.
The mullahs have their job to do on God’s earth: to cleanse it of all infidels. When one has a tall order like that to fill, he can’t be bothered with the tedious due process the Western democracies “waste” so much time and resources on.
But these high priests of Iran are not exactly living up to their brand. The mullah mafia has a great scam going. They promise the ignorant Islamic devotees the phony ‘paradise’ of afterlife while they themselves enjoy their paradise of women, wealth and wine on this earth. They are unraveled in duplicity and heartlessness. So in nearly perfect emulation of Muhammad and his leadership 1400 years ago, the pious Mullahs go about plotting earthly destruction as they enrich themselves and enjoy earthly pleasures on the backs of their people.  Nice work, if you can get it.
Lest you think these men should at least be admired for their self discipline and abstention from personal sins, know that a sizable chunk of the mullahs are heavy opium smokers. No one can prove it, of course, but I don’t doubt it. In that land, opium smoking is still very popular with people who can afford the fruit of the Poppy. It is the Muslim’s alcohol. Although its use is prohibited by law, with stiff penalties on the books, the use of opium continues and has become more endemic than ever under the mullahs’ rule. This is in part because many of the mullahs as well as the law-enforcement officials are users and many officials make a personal fortune by getting their cuts from the traffickers. Opium is the drug of choice in the countryside, and heroin is primarily used by the more affluent city dwellers. Moreover, this is the drug that is used to calm the restless people. And don’t think that a little of their stash doesn’t make its way to the west.
The mullahs take pleasure and pride in their lavish lifestyle and power, and they want to bequeath it to their children, not to the people of Iran. So they assure their minions that Allah does not approve of the anti-Islamic practice of democracy, an invention of “western devils.” Be sure to remember that these crafty, evil men are also long-term planners. They have messianic plans to rule the world some day. And with their lifestyle, they can have their cake and eat it too: leisure, power, and destruction, insulated from the corrective forces of the political marketplace.
The mullahs are superb practitioners of the art of making a deal. In this practice, like in the game of poker, much depends on how one plays their hand. In the game of deal-making, beating around the bush is a standard operating procedure. They know that weak-willed Westerners feel productive when they “talk,” and engage in “negotiations.” These activities do nothing; but then again, accomplishing anything other than advancing their own careers and generating an undeserved sense of self-importance is never the goal of  careerist diplomats.
As for the “Great Satan,” going after the mullahs seems completely out of the question. We have no stomach for it; the Ayatollahs know it. Even Bush’s most loyal sidekick, ex-UK PM Tony Blair, was opposed to it. I hope that the Iraq misadventure has taught them an old lesson they seem to have had difficulty learning: it is a terrible mistake to go half way across the world and invade a country, unless you are able and willing to bulldoze the whole thing from one end to the other, with all the people bar none buried under the rubble.
The reason this rule is so important for us to learn is that having and displaying overwhelming power usually means you will not have to use it. But because the West has forgotten how to overwhelm the enemy, the war of attrition persists, and the people of the West become disheartened. They can’t even interrogate presumed terrorists; they have to send them to Egypt to get the job done!
It’s no wonder that recent military undertakings have been by-and-large busts- in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and even Afghanistan. This same policy of weakness has been successfully replicated in Israel, where the West ties Israeli hands behind their back so they don’t “over-react” to missiles hitting their towns and cities, tunnels dug under their borders, and soldiers being captured by terrorists! The Mullahs know this game very, very well. They persist, and we pretend the worst can’t happen. Whose opiate is the more effective, theirs or ours?
In the meantime, Iran’s illegitimate regime will, with ever greater peace of mind, pursue their quest for the nuclear bomb, by hook or by crook, and the mullahs of mass destruction will keep the corrupt, yawning, toothless UN “watchdog” content and distracted by throwing it a bone or two from time to time. Eventually, these suicidal, homicidal followers of Muhammad will have their WMD. In time, they will use it. Future historians will ask: how could the entire world have seen it coming and done nothing about it? What kind of opiate were these people on?
Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. He maintains a website at Amil Imani

Fjordman: Why the European Union Must be Dismantled

 

Fjordman: Why the European Union Must be Dismantled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Rape of Europe

The Rape of Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Muslim Immigration is a Threat to Western Democracy

Why Muslim Immigration is a Threat to Western Democracy

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

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

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

But, as Harris asks,

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

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

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

Accordingly, says Harris, Muslims

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

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

Turning Red: Immigrants Tip the Balance in Belgian Local Elections

Turning Red: Immigrants Tip the Balance in Belgian Local Elections

Created 2006-10-09 10:50

In last March’s local elections in the Netherlands the immigrant vote tipped the balance in favour of the Socialists. The same phenomenon marked yesterday’s local elections in Belgium’s major cities. In Antwerp the Socialists became the largest party. They jumped from 19.5% to 35.3% of the votes, winning 22 of the 55 seats in the municipal council – a gain of ten seats. Seven of the Socialist councillors, almost one third of the total, are Muslim immigrants: Fatma Akbas, Karim Bachar, Ouardia El Taghdouini, Youssef Slassi, Fauzaya Talhaoui, Güler Turan, and Sener Ugurlu. Six of the seven are new in politics.

The self-declared “islamophobic” and Flemish-secessionist Vlaams Belang [Flemish Interest], which until yesterday was Antwerp’s largest party, gained a few extra votes, winning 33.5% of the vote (33.0% last time). Its number of seats remains steady at 20. Antwerp politics is now defined by a polarization between Socialists and the VB. Apart from the VB all parties lost heavily to the Socialists (-7.3% for the Liberals and -6.4% for the Greens). The only party able to avoid being swallowed by the Socialists are the Christian-Democrats. They won 11.2% of the votes, adding an extra 0.1%, and kept their six seats. The Christian-Democrats, too, had put forward immigrant candidates. Two of their elected candidates, one third of the total, are Muslims: Nahima Lanjri and Ergün Top.

The VB also stagnated in other cities with large numbers of immigrants, such as Brussels, Ghent and Mechelen. After the 2000 local elections, in which the VB gained considerably, the Belgian regime extended the vote to immigrants for municipal elections and passed the so-called “Quick Citizenship Bill.” The latter grants hassle-free Belgian citizenship virtually upon demand to every individual who has lived in the country for three (in some cases only two) years, which enfranchises them in the general elections, too (voting is compulsory in Belgium). These measures were introduced with the specific intent of countering the VB.

As Leona Detiège, the then Socialist Antwerp mayor, told Knack Magazine on 13 September 2000: “The Vlaams Blok [as the Vlaams Belang was called at the time] is currently overrepresented because the immigrants are not allowed to vote.” And as Johan Leman, the then director of the Center for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism (CEOOR), a government agency working for the Belgian Prime Minister, announced in the newspaper De Standaard on 15 January 2000: “What will ‘our own people’ still mean fifteen years from now? We will get so many new Belgians that this slogan becomes meaningless. The Vlaams Blok is a thing of the past.” Meanwhile six of Leman’s fifteen years have passed…

Ironically, as I pointed out earlier, in their efforts to counter the indigenous “racists” and “fascists” of the VB, the Socialists and Christian-Democrats do not hesitate to put far-right Muslim candidates on their electoral lists. Some of them, such a Murat Denizli, a member of the Turkish racist and fascist organization Grey Wolves which assassinates Socialist councilors at home, have now become Socialist councilors in Belgium (Mr Denizli was elected for the Parti Socialiste in the Brussels borough of Schaarbeek).

On 10 September I wrote that European politics will swing dramatically to the Left in the coming decades, owing to the growing influence of an immigrant vote eager to retain and expand the welfare benefits. Another trend, however, is also visible.

While yesterday’s elections saw the VB stagnate in the cities the party won massively in the smaller towns and villages. This is likely to continue. While Europe’s cities and major towns turn Muslim and red, the countryside will remain indigenous and will become ever more “islamophobic” and hostile to the cities. The indigenous Europeans – at least if they can afford it – are moving out of the cities (indeed, they are fleeing them). As Filip Dewinter, the VB leader in Antwerp, said in an interview last month: “I am a realist. The number of potential voters for our party is declining year by year [in Antwerp, which has 460,000 inhabitants]. Currently a quarter of the population are immigrants. These people do not vote for us. Every year 4,000 indigenous Antwerpians move out and 5,000 immigrants move in.”

The former city dwellers have moved to suburbia, where towns such as Schoten saw their percentage of VB voters rise yesterday from 24.5 to 34.7%, and to rural districts such as Mol, which saw the VB grow from 13.1 to 21.9%.