Europe’s Dreaded Affliction

Europe’s Dreaded Affliction

Created 2007-08-01 09:01

Liberal politicians, like Hillary Clinton, envy Western Europe for its welfare state. They tell U.S. voters that a European-style welfare state is needed to help the poor. In reality the motives of liberal politicians are not altruistic, but egotistical. Welfare makes people dependent on the state. It is not a coincidence that liberalism and secularism are almost synonyms. Liberals want to replace God by the state.The difference between Americans and Europeans is the state-dependency of the latter. Contemporary Europe is in crisis. Its welfare systems are running out of money. Its moral and legal order is breaking down, while the influence of radical Islam is growing. Its nation-states are being undermined by the European Union. Most Europeans look on passively. After three generations of welfare dependency, they have lost the ability to take their fate into their own hands.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, North America was colonized by freedom-loving people. They had left Europe because they wanted to live according to their own conscience instead of submitting to the centralist absolutist rulers of the new age that was sweeping across Europe from the 16th century onward. Their traditions were rooted in the late Middle Ages and the Aristotelian philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, which was centered on the individual. God had called man to be free from sin, but in order to be free from sin he had to be virtuous, and in order for virtue to have any value it had to be voluntary, implying that the virtuous man had to be free in every aspect of his life, including his economic activities.

Hence the paradox came about that the civil society developing in America was, in a sense, older than the new Modern Age of the absolutist monarchs governing Europe. When Americans rebelled in 1776, they rebelled against absolutism in order to keep their old freedoms. Theirs was a conservative revolution. Europe had its own series of revolutions from 1789 onward, but these were revolutions of a different sort. They toppled the ruling absolutists to replace them by absolutists of an even more extreme form: totalitarians. These were not satisfied with controlling their subjects’ political and economic lives but also wished to control their minds and souls.

Here lies the origin of the European disease, which arose from the systematic loss of faith in the Judeo-Christian God and the Judeo-Christian moral legacy, and an increasing reliance on the state as the source of order, authority and legitimacy. That disease culminated, after causing two world wars, in the creation of the European Union (EU) as a superstate, the god to absorb all gods, with a nihilistic and atheist agenda.

The perceptive Irish philosopher (and British politician) Edmund Burke, who supported the American colonies in their dispute with King George III, noticed already at the time that the spirit of the 1789 French Revolution was totalitarian. The same secularist spirit inspired the Russian Revolution, National Socialism and European welfarism.

The British economist John Maynard Keynes, who was handed the pen to draw the blueprint of Britain’s welfare system, was very candid about the true nature of his design for society. In the preface to the 1936 German edition of The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, he wrote explicitly that his “theory of [economic] output is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state” than to “conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire.”

Keynes’ oft-quoted quip, “In the long run, we are all dead” was typical. It also offers a poignant resume of the contemporary “European spirit.” In a moral society people would say: “In the long run our children and grandchildren will take our place.” Europe does not particularly care about the future: It is only interested in enjoying the present. This attitude also explains why Europe’s demographics have collapsed. People who are not prepared to make sacrifices for the future do not invest in children.

This attitude has left Europe with gigantic problems: a rapidly aging population, an unsurmountable public debt, 19 million unemployed and an overall youth unemployment rate of 18 percent. While the world’s economy is booming, Western Europe’s economic growth rate is significantly below America’s (2.6 percent vs. 3.3 percent).

Turkey (5.2 percent) is doing even better. On July 22, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), Turkey’s governing party since 2002, won a huge election victory. During the past five years the country introduced pro-capitalist economic reforms, influenced by libertarian economists such as Atilla Yayla. The AKP does not stand for radical Islamism, as its secularist opponents claim, but is an anti-centralist, conservative party of moderate, but devout Muslims. According to Dr. Yayla, a free society “requires private property, free exchange, limited and responsible accountable government, freedom of expression, religious freedom including minorities and non-believers, the absence of political crimes in law, political opposition, the rule of law and freedom of association.”

European secularists do not like the AKP and prefer its secularist opponents, who wish to build a centralist, socialist Turkey where the state is god. However, as Dr. Yayla says, “Nobody can play god or hold eternal truth in his hands” – not even the state.

Turkey’s recent election results indicate that the Turkish electorate wants to avoid the European disease. Let us hope that the American people will be equally wise next year.
 
This piece was originally published in The Washington Times on August 1, 2007 .


Source URL:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2281

Why the European Union Must Go

Why the European Union Must Go

At the EU Observer, Anthony Coughlan, a senior lecturer at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, notes that in every EU member state at present the majority of laws come from Brussels. Why do national politicians and representatives accept this situation? He suggests a plausible explanation:

“At national level when a minister wants to get something done, he or she must have the backing of the prime minister, must have the agreement of the minister for finance if it means spending money, and above all must have majority support in the national parliament, and implicitly amongst voters in the country. Shift the policy area in question to the supranational level of Brussels however, where laws are made primarily by the 27-member Council of Ministers, and the minister in question becomes a member of an oligarchy, a committee of lawmakers, the most powerful in history, making laws for 500 million Europeans, and irremovable as a group regardless of what it does.

“National parliaments and citizens lose power with every EU treaty, for they no longer have the final say in the policy areas concerned. Individual ministers on the other hand obtain an intoxicating increase in personal power, as they are transformed from members of the executive arm of government at national level, subordinate to a national legislature, into EU-wide legislators at the supranational.”

continue reading

Europe, the Killer Continent

Europe, the Killer Continent

Created 2007-07-21 08:49

A quote from Ralph Peters in an interview at Frontpage Mag, 19 July 2007

[T]he notion that Europe, the continent that’s exported more death and destruction than any other, is going to just shuffle wimpily to its doom is crazy. The Europeans have been playing pacifist dress-up while [America] protected them, but, sufficiently threatened, they’ll revert to their historical pattern – which is to over-react. Europe’s Muslims may prove to be the real endangered species; after all, Europe’s history of dealing with rejected minorities veers between genocide and, for the lucky, ethnic cleansing. For me, the question isn’t whether Muslims will take over Europe, but whether Europe will simply expel them or kill any number of them first. Sound far-fetched? How would the Holocaust have sounded to an educated German (or Brit, or American) in 1932? Europe is a killer continent. When the chips are down, it will kill again.

Meanwhile, Europe’s Muslims are behaving so stupidly that their folly can’t be measured with any tools at our disposal. Even as British pols pander to radical clerics, the average Brit has had enough of coddling mullahs who preach the destruction of all non-Muslims (and closing the pubs). In mid-July, in Germany, the major organizations representing the millions of Turkish residents refused to come to a conference held by the chancellor to address integration. The Turkish leaders demanded – demanded – that the German parliament first rescind a new immigration law that would have prevented Turks from importing child-brides, isolating them as virtual prisoners and beating them to death. Oh, and the Germans also wanted new immigrants to have a vocabulary of 300 German words upon arrival – just enough to say, “Help, husband killing me.” No self-respecting Turk was going to stand for that.

You get the point. Europe has never had a model for integrating non-white immigrants, and they don’t really want one. Meanwhile, from Denmark to Marseilles, Muslim residents make outrageous demands that only anger the average voter. Eurabia? You have a better chance of finding honest lobbyists in Washington than you do of seeing the crescent over the spires of Notre Dame.

Is Islam inherently violent? — New blockbuster, ‘Religion of Peace?,’ reveals disturbing facts

Is Islam inherently violent?
New blockbuster, ‘Religion of Peace?,’ reveals disturbing facts


Posted: November 2, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com It’s the secret question in official Washington, D.C., in the Pentagon, and in the White House. It’s the question that is so radioactive that most in government and the press dare not even pose it, let alone answer it:

Is Islam inherently violent and expansionist?

In the days following 9/11, President Bush assured America and the world that Islam was a “religion of peace” and that the violent followers of Osama Bin Laden had twisted the true Muslim faith. Acting on this belief, President Bush and other Western leaders sent troops to the Middle East in an effort to bring freedom and democracy to the Muslim world.

But what if this “understanding” of Islam is based not on fact, but instead on equal parts wishful thinking and Islamic deceit? It would mean that the entire War on Terror is based on a faulty – and increasingly deadly – premise.

(Story continues below)

In a disturbing but thoroughly researched new book, “Religion of Peace? Islam’s War Against the World,” author and filmmaker Gregory M. Davis rebuts the notion that Islam is a great faith in desperate need of a Reformation. Instead, he exposes it as a form of totalitarianism, a belief system that orders its adherents not to baptize all nations, but to conquer and subdue them. Islamic law’s governance of every aspect of religious, political and personal action has far more in common with Nazism than with the tenets of Christianity or Judaism.

Davis details how Islamic thought divides the world into two spheres locked in perpetual combat: There’s dar al-Islam (“House of Islam,” where Islamic law predominates), and dar al-harb (“House of War,” the rest of the world). This concise yet thorough book leaves no doubt as to why most of the world’s modern conflicts are connected to Islam – and calls into question why Western elites refuse to acknowledge Islam’s violent nature.

Virtually every contemporary Western leader has expressed the view that Islam is a peaceful religion and that those who commit violence in its name are fanatics who misinterpret its tenets. This widely circulated claim is false, says Davis.

As the author and filmmaker wrote in WND recently:

The mistake Westerners make when they think about Islam is that they impose their own views of religion onto something decidedly outside Western tradition. Because violence done in the name of God is “extreme” from a Western/Christian point of view, they imagine that it must be so from an Islamic one. But unlike Christianity, which recognizes a separate sphere for secular politics (“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s”), Islam has never distinguished between faith and power. While Christianity is doctrinally concerned primarily with the salvation of souls, Islam seeks to remake the world in its image. According to orthodox Islam, Sharia law – the codified commandments of the Quran and precedents of the Prophet Muhammad – is the only legitimate basis of government. Islam is in fact an expansionary social and political system more akin to National Socialism and Communism than any “religion” familiar to Westerners. Islamic politics is inevitably an all-or-nothing affair in which the stakes are salvation or damnation and the aim is to not to beat one’s opponent at the polls but to destroy him – literally as well as politically.

Davis received his Ph.D. in political science from Stanford University and is managing director of Quixotic Media and producer of the feature documentary, “Islam: What the West Needs to Know.”

Relying primarily on Islam’s own sources, “Religion of Peace? Islam’s War Against the World” demonstrates that Islam is a violent, expansionary ideology that seeks the subjugation and destruction of other faiths, cultures and systems of government. Further, it shows that the jihadis that Westerners have been indoctrinated to believe are extremists, are actually in the mainstream.

“Religion of Peace? Islam’s War Against the World” is a powerful and jarring wake-up call to all civilized nations – and one they ignore at their peril.

U.S. brings first treason case in over 50 years

 By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A California-born convert to Islam, accused of making a series of al Qaeda propaganda videos, became on Wednesday the first American charged with treason since the World War Two era, U.S. Justice Department officials said.

Fugitive Adam Gadahn, 28, who is believed to be in Pakistan, was accused of treason, which carries a maximum punishment of death, and providing material support to al Qaeda, they said.

According to the charges, Gadahn appeared in five videos broadcast between October 2004 and September 11, 2006, giving al Qaeda “aid and comfort … with the intent to betray the United States.”

“Gadahn gave himself to our enemies in al Qaeda for the purpose of being a central part of their propaganda machine,” Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty told a news conference.

“By making this choice, we believe Gadahn committed treason — perhaps the most serious offense for which any person can be tried under our Constitution,” he said.

McNulty acknowledged that Gadahn appeared to be involved only in propaganda for the Islamic militant group, not in planning any attacks.

Gadahn converted to Islam from a Jewish-Christian family when he was 17 and a few years later moved to Pakistan. He was previously known as Adam Pearlman and grew up on a goat ranch outside Los Angeles.

The charges were contained in an indictment handed up in a federal court in California by a grand jury. The evidence against him in the indictment consisted entirely of the videos.

The FBI has been seeking to question Gadahn since May 2004. The FBI added him on Wednesday to its list of the most wanted terrorists and a U.S. State Department program offered up to a $1 million reward for information leading to his arrest.

In Los Angeles, Gadahn’s aunt, Nancy Pearlman, declined to comment, saying, “We are not giving any interviews.”

There were a number of treason cases after World War Two, including a trial in 1952, legal experts said. In one of the cases, an American woman, known as “Tokyo Rose,” was convicted of treason and later pardoned. She died in Chicago last month.

Justice Department officials denied the case was timed to deflect attention from the fallout over lewd computer messages sent by a former Republican congressman to young male aides, a scandal that may help Democrats seize control of Congress in the November 7 elections.

BLOOD RUNNING IN THE STREETS

In the first video in October 2004, right before the presidential election, Gadahn announced he had joined al Qaeda and said that “the streets of America shall run red with blood,” according to the indictment.

In another video in September 2005, around the anniversary of the September 11 attacks, Gadahn referred to “the blessed raids on New York and Washington,” the indictment said.

He referred to more recent attacks in London and Madrid and stated, “Tomorrow, Los Angeles and Melbourne, Allah willing,” according to the indictment.

It said he appeared earlier this past summer in a video that also contained statements from the top al Qaeda leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri.

In a video broadcast on September 2, Gadahn encouraged American soldiers to “escape from the unbelieving Army and join the winning side.”

In a video released on or about the fifth anniversary of the attacks, he praised the pilots who took control of the planes on September 11 and referred to the United States as “enemy soil,” according to the indictment.

(Additional reporting by Rick Cowan)

The Big Picture ==The view from WWII to Now

The Big Picture

Source:  The author is attorney and writer Raymond S. Kraft, who lives in California.

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than 400 British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.

The U.S. was in an isolationist, pacifist, mood, and most Americans and Congress wanted nothing to do with the European war, or the Asian war.

Then along came Pearl Harbor, on December 7, 1941, and, in outrage, Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.

France was not an ally; the Vichy government of France aligned with its German occupiers. Germany was not an ally; it was an enemy, and Hitler intended to set up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally; it was intent on owning and controlling all of Asia. Japan and Germany had long-term ideas of invading Canada and Mexico, and then the United States over the north and south borders, after they had settled control of Asia and Europe.

America’s allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it.

All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already under the Nazi heel.

America was not prepared for war. America had stood down most of its military after WWI and throughout the depression; at the outbreak of WWII, there were army units training with broomsticks over their shoulders because they didn’t have guns, and cars with “tank” painted on the doors because they didn’t have tanks. And a big chunk of our navy had just been sunk and damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600,000,000 in gold bullion in the Bank of England that was the property of Belgium and was given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler. Actually, Belgium surrendered one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day anyway just to prove that they could. Britain had been holding out for two years already in the face of staggering shipping losses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking that the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later and turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse in the late summer of 1940.

Russia saved America’s butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years until the U.S. got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.

Russia lost something like 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow, 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than 1,000,000 soldiers. More than a million.

Had Russia surrendered, then, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire campaign against the Brits, then America, and the Nazis would have won that war.

I say this to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And we are at another one.

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam (assisted through complacence by the majority—ed.) that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs — they believe that Islam, a radically conservative (definitely not liberal!) form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world, and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East — for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win — the Inquisition, or the Reformation.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, and the OPEC oil, and the U.S., European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC — not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want jobs.

You want the dollar to be worth anything? You had better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We cannot do it nowhere.

And we cannot do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle now at the time and place of our choosing, in Iraq.

Not in New York, not in London, or Paris, or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we did and are doing two very important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist.

Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad guys there, and the ones we get there we won’t have to get here, or anywhere else. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a “whimper” in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for 14 years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 — a 17 year war — and was followed by another decade of U.S. occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again … a 27-year war. World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year’s GDP – adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12,000,000,000,000 dollars, WWII cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the U.S. about $160 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 2,200 American lives, which is roughly 1/2 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed out on 9/11. But the cost of not fighting and winning WWII would have been unimaginably greater — a world now dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

Americans have a short attention span, now, conditioned I suppose by 60-minute TV shows and two-hour movies in which everything comes out okay.

The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. It will not go away if we ignore it.

If the U.S. can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an “England” in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless we prevent them. Or somebody does.

We have four options

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran’s progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.

4. Or, we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.

Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Shar’ia, an America that resembles Iran today.

We can be defeatist peace-activists as anti-war types seem to be, and concede, surrender, to the Jihad, or we can do whatever it takes to win this war against them.

The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

In the 20th century, it was Western democracy vs. communism, and before that Western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs. German Imperialism. Western democracy won, three times, but it wasn’t cheap, fun, nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against German Imperialism (WWI), Nazi Imperialism (WWII), and communist imperialism (the 40-year Cold War that included the Vietnam Battle, commonly called the Vietnam War, but itself a major battle in a larger war) covered almost the entire century.

The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo/Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global dominance and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives in to the Jihad.

It will take time. It will not go with no hitches. This is not TV.

Remember, perspective is everything, and America’s schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a 10-year occupation and the U.S. still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50,000,000 people, maybe more than 100,000,000 people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The U.S. has taken a little more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 Killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion, to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In WWII, the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

But the stakes are at least as high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Shar’ia (Islamic law).

I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty, and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else.

Three hundred thousand Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem? The U.S. population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let’s multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you hope for another country to help liberate America?

“Peace Activists” always seem to demonstrate where it’s safe, in America. Why don’t we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most?

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but, if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.

If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. And American Liberals just don’t get it.

Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California.

Europe Is Growing Skeptical Of Dialogue With Muslims

Europe Is Growing Skeptical Of Dialogue With Muslims

BY YOUSSEF IBRAHIM
October 6, 2006


URL:
http://www.nysun.com/article/41106 

After years of dithering over political correctness with Muslims and Islam, Europe is waking up to a different morning.

A three-week tour of Italy, France, and Britain last month was enough for me to conclude that Western Europeans have moved way beyond dialogue. Confrontation, indeed even provocation, is their preferred approach to the Muslims in their midst.

Long before Pope Benedict XVI’s scathing comments in mid-September on the fallacy of phony Muslim-Christian dialogue, signs of hardening European views toward current Islamic values were plentiful on the Continent.

It was telling, for example, to see how Europeans greeted the naïve commentary that surfaced in America’s National Intelligence Estimate, titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States.” The NIE told bemused Europeans, among other things, that “greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit.”

Situated closer than America to that rough neighborhood called the Middle East, Europeans reacted by noting that the chances for “greater pluralism” in any Muslim country are about as plausible as hell freezing over.

Should the region’s despotic regimes be toppled, a number of press outlets observed, their successors would be even nastier murderers. Possibilities include the saber-wielding soldiers of the Muslim Brotherhood and its tributaries — Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and the Algerian Armed Islamic Group, among others — men who believe in carrying out ritual killings of their fellow Muslims even before the slaughter of infidels.

The common view in Europe is that pseudo-secularist tyrants in Muslim lands like Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia share the same aspirations to dominate, wage war, and rule as Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and Ayman al-Zawahiri of Al Qaeda.

A more relevant passage in the NIE reads: “Jihadists regard Europe as an important venue for attacking Western interests. Extremist networks inside the extensive Muslim diaspora in Europe facilitate recruitment and staging for urban attacks, as illustrated by the 2004 Madrid and 2005 London bombings.”

Indeed, what can one say about Britain’s Muslims, when 10% of those polled after the August airliner plot said they would be “willing” to wage suicide attacks against their fellow Britons, and another 70% refused to condemn that view?

Europeans now see a need not to massage the Muslim ethos but to remove it. One can talk forever of the necessity for Islam to reform itself, but that fails to resonate within Muslim societies, Europeans tell me.

My European tour made it eminently clear that Western Europeans — if not their more liberal, compromised ruling and business elites — believe that for Muslims living in the West, it’s either Western ways or the highway.

Harsh, maybe, but that is how it stands.

When the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci died in September, newspapers across Europe celebrated her for her journalistic exploits with the likes of Ayatollah Khomeini and Henry Kissinger. But above all, they celebrated her for her fierce, uncompromising, “rejectionist” book about Islam in Europe, “The Rage and the Pride,” which called for nothing less than the expulsion of Muslims who insist on separate societies.

Shortly before and after the pope’s pointed remarks on Islam — in which he added to his earlier statements that Turkey’s 70 million Muslims have no place in “Christian Europe” — there were numerous other mini-explosions. They included Dutch revulsion over the ritual Muslim killing of the movie director Theo van Gogh; the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad; and, most recently, a September 19 article in Le Figaro by the French philosopher and schoolteacher Robert Redeker that made the case that Muslims are bent on muzzling Europe’s democratic values.

Europe is no longer dithering. Every other week, parliaments are restricting the freedom of expression of Muslim fundamentalists, preachers, and madrassas, and questioning every value that militant Islam has attempted to sneak into the Continent over the past 20 years.

The dialogue is over. The time for action is closing in.

U.S. Islamic Schools Teaching Homegrown Hate

The Threat of Lawful Islamism — links work on this page follow them all = very enlightening

A Project of the Middle East Forum

http://www.meforum.org/

Summary: Launched April 21, 2006, Islamist Watch combats the ideas and institutions of nonviolent, radical Islam in the United States and other Western countries. It exposes the far-reaching goals of Islamists, works to reduce their power, and seeks to strengthen moderate Muslims.

Introduction: The Threat of Lawful Islamism

Islamists ultimately seek hegemonic control via a worldwide caliphate that applies the Islamic law in full. Afghanistan under the Taliban offers one model of what they would establish globally.

Terrorism is one method to advance these projects but it is not the only one. Indeed, the activities of nonviolent Islamists arguably will prove a more effective tactic in the long term. For while the public intuitively understands the threat of terrorism and is mobilized by it, and while states have well-developed institutions (law enforcement, intelligence agencies, the military, the justice system) to protect and fight against it, the activities of nonviolent extremists are not alarming and institutions do not exist to deal with this problem. And how can terrorists impose their will on whole societies?

The Progress of Lawful Islamism

Quietly, lawfully, peacefully, Islamists do their work throughout the West to impose aspects of Islamic law, win special privileges for themselves, shut down criticism of Islam, create Muslim-only zones, and deprive women and non-Muslims of their full civil rights.

Lawful Islamists advance their cause through lobbying politicians, intimidating the media, threatening international boycotts, making predatory use of the legal system, advancing novel legislation, influencing the contents of school textbooks, and in other ways exploiting the freedoms of an open society. They advance their agenda in incremental steps, each of which in itself is minor but in the aggregate point to fundamental changes in society. Here is a sampling of such steps taken by non-Muslims to accommodate Islamists:

Perhaps most alarming is how the Islamists currently dominate the Muslim political scene in every Western society, without exception. They control the mosques, publish the weeklies, host the Internet sites, run the schools, write the op-eds, appear on talk shows, engage in ecumenical activities, and enjoy access to politicians.

Resisting Lawful Islamism

The fight against insidious Islamism has two components. The first is to widen the “war on terror” from violent enemies to political enemies. The war needs to be understood to involve scholarship, think tank research, textbooks, campus activities, the media, press relations, philanthropy, corporate decisions, political lobbying, lawsuits, feature movies, toys, computer games, and much else.

The second is to identify and encourage the work of truly moderate Muslims who, working with non-Muslims, can help reduce the power of the Islamists. Moderate Muslims have several key roles: fighting the application of Islamic law (as in Ontario), engaging in undercover work (for example, the work of journalist Mazher Mahmood), gathering materials (such as those used in the Freedom House report on mosque literature), exposing Islamist writings (such as the work of Zuhdi Jasser), strengthening anti-Islamist efforts (for example, Ahmed Subhy Mansour’s criticisms of the Islamic Society of Boston). Ultimately, anti-Islamist Muslims have the burden of coming up with a modern, moderate, and good-neighborly vision of Islam.

Islamist Watch

The creative thinking in this more subtle war must be initiated outside the government. Due to the demands of political correctness, state authorities find it difficult to do and say what is needed. Governments have a record of bad judgments and of welcoming Islamists. The FBI, in particular, has a dismal record and law enforcement has not been immune to infiltration by Islamists. Even when it does the right thing, such as funding moderate Islamic institutions, government’s hands are often tied.

Islamist Watch (IW) exists to educate the government, media, religious institutions, the academy, and the business world about lawful Islamism. It focuses on the political, educational, cultural, and legal activities of Islamists in the United States and (to a lesser degree) in other historically non-Muslim countries, especially Western Europe, Canada, and Australia.

IW is not about counterterrorism; and it touches only glancingly on Islamism in traditional Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.

Islamist Watch Activities

Islamist Watch engages in a three-fold effort of research, advocacy, and activism.

  1. Solid research is the basis for all we do. This entails monitoring lawful Islamists via the Internet and periodicals, cultivating a range of sources, pursuing investigations, and perhaps engaging in undercover work.
  2. IW alerts the public of our results in various formats – articles in newspapers, Internet sites (including Islamist Watch’s own), Congressional testimony, and perhaps books and documentary movies. Particularly dramatic findings will be conveyed via radio and television.
  3. The IW staff meets privately with government officials, editors, producers, academics, and others to explain the real nature of such Islamist organizations as the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America in an effort to prevent any steps that enhance the standing of Islamists. In addition, IW staff identifies genuinely moderate Muslims and explains the need to work with them.

Conclusion: The Need for Islamist Watch

There is much speculation about why no major terrorist attack has taken place in the United States since 9/11. In part, this may be due to improved police work, better immigration controls, and other preventative measures. But there may be another factor: the realization by Islamists that violence is counterproductive. The devastation of 9/11 (as well as that in Bali, Madrid, Beslan, and London) led to a heightened public awareness of Islamism and slowed down the hitherto easy penetration by lawful Islamists into Western countries. To the extent that Islamists recognize the value of lawful methods, they will rely increasingly on legal and political means rather than on violent and terrorist ones. This implies that the work of Islamist Watch will likely become increasingly central to the preservation of Western values.

Islam: the Facade and the Facts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers