The next three articles are written and distributed freely by a Norwegian chap writing under the name of Fjordman, who once kept a well-received blog covering Islam, Scandanavian affairs, and global politics. We thank him for both his insight and his generosity. He has since closed down that blog but writes that he occasionally contributes to other blogs or websites such as Gates of Vienna, Viking Observer, and Jihad Watch.
UPDATE: The announcement above, and the articles which follow are reposted from several sources, including Jihad Watch and the Project Scenewash, the latter on October 20, 2006. What follows below will be dated appropriately, consigned to this update.
Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen (born 11 June 1975) is a Norwegian far-right anti-Islamic blogger who writes under the pseudonym Fjordman. Jensen wrote anonymously as Fjordman starting in 2005, until he disclosed his identity in 2011. He has been active in the counterjihad movement, which argues that multiculturalism, particularly Muslim immigration, poses a threat to Western civilization. According to The Independent, Jensen "has written numerous screeds accusing Muslims of secretly planning to take over Europe." Notably, he has advocated the 'Eurabia' conspiracy theory in a self-published book titled Defeating Eurabia, and argued that all Muslims should be deported from Europe. The Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik quoted him extensively in his manifesto. According to the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, Fjordman is "considered a 'hero' among the bloggers and debaters constituting the new far right.
MEDEA (the European Institute for Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation), supported by the European Commission, is one of the key components of the Euro-Arab dialogue. On its own webpage, it states that:
"The Euro-Arab Dialogue as a forum shared by the European Community and the League of Arab States arose out of a French initiative and was launched at the European Council in Copenhagen in December 1973, shortly after the "October War" and the oil embargo. As the Europeans saw it, it was to be a forum to discuss economic affairs, whereas the Arab side saw it rather as one to discuss political affairs.
MEDEA Institute wishes to be a resource and a reference point for people wanting to engage in the Euro-Mediterranean dialogue. Via its meetings and talks the Institute seeks to create exchanges between political, economic, and diplomatic players, experts, journalists, academics and others."
As Bat Ye'or points out, while most of the workings of Eurabia are hidden from the public view, sometimes we can catch glimpses of it if we know what to look for. If you search the archives of the MEDEA website and other sources and read the documents carefully, the information is there. Even more material exists on paper, both in French and in English. I argue, as does Bat Ye'or, that there are sufficient amounts of information available to validate the thesis of Eurabia.
Arab immigrants make a substantial contribution to the development of Europe. The EU is firmly committed to fight all manifestations of racism and discrimination in all its forms. Full respect for the rights of immigrants in Europe is a consistent policy throughout Europe. Its implementation should be improved further and co-operation in the framework of existing agreements should be enhanced to take into account the concerns of Arab partners.”
One of the documents Bat Ye'or was kind enough to send me (which she mentions in her French book about Eurabia but not in her English book) is the Common Strategy of the European Council—Vision of the EU for the Mediterranean Region, from June 19th 2000.
It includes many recommendations, such as: "to elaborate partnership-building measures, notably by promoting regular consultations and exchanges of information with its Mediterranean partners, support the interconnection of infrastructure between Mediterranean partners, and between them and the EU, take all necessary measures to facilitate and encourage the involvement of civil society as well as the further development of human exchanges between the EU and the Mediterranean partners. NGOs will be encouraged to participate in cooperation at bilateral and regional levels. Particular attention will be paid to the media and universities [my emphasis]."
It also includes the goal of assisting the Arab partners with "the process of achieving free trade with the EU." This may be less innocent than it sounds, as I will come back to later. The Strategy also wants to "pursue, in order to fight intolerance, racism and xenophobia, the dialogue between cultures and civilisations."
Notice that this statement preceded both the start of the second Palestinian intifada as well as the terror attacks of September 11th 2001. It was thus part of an ongoing process, rather than a response to any particular international incident.One point in the document is particularly interesting. The EU wanted to "promote the identification of correspondences between legal systems of different inspirations in order to resolve civil law problems relating to individuals: laws of succession and family law, including divorce."
In plain English, it is difficult to see this bureaucratic obfuscation as anything other than an indicator that the EU countries will be lenient, adjusting their secular legislation to the sharia requirements of Muslim immigrants in family matters.
In another document from December 2003, which is available online, Javier Solana, the Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission and Chris Patten, member of the European Commission, have signed a plan for "Strengthening the EU's Partnership with the Arab World." This includes the creation of a free trade area, but also plans to "invigorate cultural/religious/civilisation and media dialogue using existing or planned instruments, including the planned Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue of Cultures and Civilisations.
Arab immigrants make a substantial contribution to the development of Europe. The EU is firmly committed to fight all manifestations of racism and discrimination in all its forms. [What constitutes discrimination? Secular laws?] Full respect for the rights of immigrants in Europe is a consistent policy throughout Europe. Its implementation should be improved further and co-operation in the framework of existing agreements should be enhanced to take into account the concerns of Arab partners."
Super-Eurocrat Romano Prodi wants more cooperation with Arab countries. He talks about a free trade zone with the Arab world, but this implies that Arab countries would enjoy access to the four freedoms of the EU's inner market, which includes the free movement of people across national borders. This fact, the potentially massive implications of establishing an "inner market" with an Arab world with a booming population growth, is virtually NEVER debated or even mentioned in European media. Yet it could mean the end of Europe as we once knew it.
Another statement from the "Sixth Euro-Med Ministerial Conference: reinforcing and bringing the Partnership forward" in Brussels, 28 November 2003, makes the intention of this internal Euro-Mediterranean market:
"This initiative offers the EU's neighbouring partners, in exchange for tangible political and economic reforms, gradual integration into the expanded European internal market and the possibility of ultimately reaching the EU's four fundamental freedoms: free movement of goods, services, capital and people. Ministers are also expected to back the Commission's proposal to set up a Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue of Cultures, a Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly."
In June 2006, then newly elected Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi stated that: "It's time to look south and relaunch a new policy of cooperation for the Mediterranean." Prodi was outlining a joint Italian-Spanish initiative which sought to provide countries facing the Mediterranean with "different" political solutions from those offered in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. The prime minister then explained that the Barcelona Process - whose best known aspect is the creation of a free trade zone by 2010 - was no longer sufficient and a new different approach was needed. "The countries on the southern shores of the Mediterranean expect that from us" he added.
Notice how Prodi, whom Bat Ye'or has identified as a particularly passionate Eurabian, referred to what the Arabs expected from European leaders. He failed to say whether or not there was great excitement among Europeans over the prospect of an even freer flow of migrants from Arab countries and Turkey, which is what will result from this "Euro-Mediterranean free trade zone."
The instructions given in the book told Muslims to get together and organize themselves into viable Muslim communities. They should set up mosques, community centres and Islamic schools. At all costs they must avoid being assimilated by the majority, and to resist assimilation must group themselves geographically, forming areas of high Muslim concentration.
During the Euro-Mediterranean mid-term Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs in Dublin in May 2004, the participants declared that: "Work is now in progress to develop an agreed view on relations with the area which extends from Mauritania to Iran—the Mediterranean and the Middle East. The [European] Union has proposed to include Mediterranean partners in the European Neighbourhood Policy."
The EU can offer a more intensive political dialogue and greater access to EU programmes and policies, including their gradual participation in the four freedoms particularly the Single Market, as well as reinforced co-operation on justice and home affairs."
Again, exactly what does "co-operation on justice and home affairs" with Egypt, Syria and Algeria mean? I don't know, but I'm not sure whether I will like the answer.
The Barcelona declaration from 1995 encouraged "contacts between parliamentarians" and invited the European Parliament, with other Parliaments, to launch "the Euro-Mediterranean parliamentary dialogue." In March 2004, this was converted into a specific institution called The Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, EMPA (pdf). During the Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference in Crete in May 2003, the Ministers included a provision which envisaged the consultative role the Parliamentary Assembly will play within the framework of the Barcelona process.
EU Commissioner Chris Patten has reiterated the European Commission's readiness to co-operate fully with the Assembly, giving the Assembly the right to comment on any subject of interest to the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The Assembly consists of 120 members from EU countries, both members of national parliaments and of the European Parliament, and an equal number of representatives from the Parliaments of the Mediterranean partner countries.
Like most Europeans, I hadn't even heard about this institution before coming across it during an Internet search. However, it is apparently going to influence the future of my entire continent. This set-up leaves me with some questions. When we know that these "Mediterranean partner countries" include non-democratic Arab countries such as Syria, isn't it disturbing that representatives from these countries should participate in a permanent institution with consultative powers over the internal affairs of the European Union? Especially when we know that our own, democratically elected national parliaments have already been reduced to the status of "consultation" with unelected federal EU lawmakers in Brussels?
The Algiers Declaration for a Shared Vision of the Future was made after a Congress held in Algeria in February 2006. The document states that: "It is essential to create a Euro-Mediterranean entity founded on Universal Values" and that "It is crucial to positively emphasise all common cultural heritage, even if marginalised or forgotten." A Common Action Plan draws up a large number of recommendations on how to achieve this new Euro-Mediterranean entity. Among these recommendations are:
• Adapt existing organisations and the contents of media to the objectives of the North- South dialogue, and set up a Euro-Mediterranean journalism centre
• Set up a network jointly managed by the Mediterranean partners in order to develop "a harmonised education system" [A "harmonized education system" between the Arab world and Europe? What does that include? Do I want to know? Will they tell us before it is a fait accompli?]
• Facilitate the transfer of know-how between the EU countries and the Mediterranean partner nations and "encourage the circulation of individuals"
• Prepare action and arguments in support of facilitating the mobility of individuals, especially of students, intellectuals, artists, businessmen "and all conveyors of dialogue"
• Set up Ministries responsible for Mediterranean affairs in countries of the North and of the South [Europe and the Arab world, in Eurocrat newspeak], in order to benefit from a better management of Mediterranean policy;
• Train teachers and exchange students between the North and the South and set up a network of Euro-Mediterranean Youth clubs
• Establish a "civil watchdog" anti-defamation observatory (with an Internet tool and a legal help network), to cope with racist remarks and the propagation of hate towards people of different religion, nationality or ethnic background.
These agreements, completely rewriting European history books to make them more Islam-friendly, and gradually silencing "Islamophobia" as racism, are being implemented even now. Walter Schwimmer, the Austrian diplomat and Secretary General of the Council of Europe from 1999 to 2004, told foreign ministers at the Islamic conference in Istanbul (June 15th 2004) that the Islamic component is an integral part of Europe's diversity. He reaffirmed the commitment of the Council of Europe to work against Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance.
The Council was also actively involved in the co-organisation of a Conference on the Image of Arab-Islamic culture in European history textbooks, which took place in Cairo in December 2004. The event was held within the framework of the Euro-Arab Dialogue ''Learning to Live together.'' The aim of the conference was to examine negative stereotyping in the image of Arab-Islamic culture presented in existing history textbooks, and to discuss ways to overcome this stereotyping.
In the European Parliament, the German Christian Democrat Hans-Gert Pöttering stated that school textbooks should be reviewed for intolerant depictions of Islam by experts overseen by the European Union and Islamic leaders. He said textbooks should be checked to ensure they promoted European values without propagating religious stereotypes or prejudice. He also suggested that the EU could co-operate with the 56-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference to create a textbook review committee.
In June 2005 in Rabat, Morocco, a conference was held on "Fostering Dialogue among Cultures and Civilizations." The Conference was jointly organized by UNESCO, the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization (ALECSO), the Danish Centre for Culture and Development (DCCD) and the Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue between Cultures (Alexandria, Egypt).
Notice that this was months before the Danish Muhammad cartoons created havoc. It was not a reaction to this issue; rather it was a part of a sustained, ongoing process to promote the Arabic-Islamic culture in Europe. Among the recommendations that were raised by Mr. Olaf Gerlach Hansen, Director General of the DCCD: "We are interested in new actions in the media, in culture and in education. These proposals include:
• Concrete initiatives to develop "intercultural competencies" in the training of new generations of journalists
• Concrete initiatives for links and exchanges between journalists, editors, media-institutions, which encourage intercultural co-operation"
• Concrete initiatives for curriculum development through new educational materials and revision of existing textbooks.
Although not stated directly, one may reasonably assume that among the "negative stereotypes" to be removed from the textbooks used to teach history to European schoolchildren are any and all references to the 1300 years of continuous Jihad warfare against Europe. These recommendations were accepted and incorporated into The Rabat Commitment. According to Serge Trifkovic, "The present technological, cultural and financial strength of Europe is a façade that conceals a deep underlying moral and demographic weakness. The symptoms of the malaise are apparent in the unprecedented demographic collapse and in the loss of a sense of place and history that go hand-in-hand with the expansion of the European Union. The emerging transnational hyper-state is actively indoctrinating its subject-population into believing and accepting that the demographic shift in favor of Muslim aliens is actually a blessing."He points out specifically the EU Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation N° 1162 (19 September 1991) on "the contribution of the Islamic civilization to European culture."A decade later, in its General policy recommendation: "Combating intolerance and discrimination against Muslims," the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance emphasized "Islam's positive contribution to the continuing development of European societies, of which it is an integral part." It expressed strong regret "that Islam is sometimes portrayed inaccurately [as] a threat."The ECRI called on the EU member states to adopt measures that would effectively outlaw any serious debate about Islam and introduce pro-Muslim "affirmative action." European countries should:
• modify curricula to prevent "distorted interpretations of religious and cultural history" and "portrayal of Islam on perceptions of hostility and menace";
• encourage debate in the media on the image which they convey of Islam and on their responsibility to avoid perpetuating prejudice and bias;
Trifkovic says "Cynically defeatist, self-absorbed and unaccountable to anyone but their own corrupt class, the Eurocrats are just as bad as jihad's fellow-travelers; they are its active abettors and facilitators." Eurabians want to create a unity of the Mediterranean region. This desire is strikingly similar to the goals of some Islamic organizations.The Muslim Brotherhood, regarded as the most important Islamic movement of the past century, was founded by Hassan al-Bannain 1928, inspired by contemporary European Fascists in addition to Islamic texts. German historian Egon Flaig quotes Banna as saying:"We want the flag of Islam to fly over those lands again who were lucky enough to be ruled by Islam for a time, and hear the call of the muezzin praise God. Then the light of Islam died out and they returned to disbelief. Andalusia, Sicily, the Balkans, Southern Italy and the Greek islands are all Islamic colonies which have to return to Islam's embrace. The Mediterranean and the Red Sea have to become internal seas of Islam, as they used to be."Patrick Poole describes how discussion of a document called "The Project" so far has been limited to the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities. Only through the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson, has information regarding The Project finally been made public. It was found in a raid of a luxurious villa in Campione, Switzerland on November 7, 2001. The target of the raid was Youssef Nada, who has had active association with the Muslim Brotherhood for more than 50 years.Included in the documents seized was a 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982, which outlined a 12-point strategy to "establish an Islamic government on earth" – identified as The Project.
According to testimony given to Swiss authorities by Nada, the unsigned document was prepared by "Islamic researchers" associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. It represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the "cultural invasion" of the West. The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood "master plan." Some of it recommendations include:
• Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions
• Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations
• Involving ideologically committed Muslims in institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations
• Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be put into service of Islam
• Instituting alliances with Western "progressive" organizations that share similar goals
• Included among this group of Muslim Brotherhood intellectuals is Youssef al-Qaradhawi, an Egyptian-born, Qatar-based Islamist cleric. Both Sylvain Besson and Scott Burgessprovide extensive comparisons between Qaradhawi's publication, Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase, published in 1990, and The Project.
They note the striking similarities in the language used and the plans and methods both documents advocate. As Patrick Poolesays, "What is startling is how effectively the Islamist plan for conquest outlined in The Project has been implemented by Muslims in the West for more than two decades."Youssef al-Qaradhawi, one of the most influential clerics in Sunni Islam, has predicted that "Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor," was an important figure during the Muhammad cartoons riots, whipping up anger against Denmark and the West.According to Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen, "Clearly, the riots in Denmark and throughout the world were not spontaneous, but planned and organized well in advance by Islamist organizations that support the MB, and with funding mostly from Saudi Arabia."The current leader of the international Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammad Mahdi Akef, recently issued a new strategy calling on all its member organizations to serve its global agenda of defeating the West. Akef has called the U.S. "a Satan." "I expect America to collapse soon," declaring, "I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America."Ehrenfeld and Lappen state that the Muslim Brotherhood and its offspring organizations employ the Flexibility strategy: "This strategy calls for a minority group of Muslims to use all "legal" means to infiltrate majority-dominated, non-Muslim secular and religious institutions, starting with its universities. As a result, "Islamized" Muslim and non-Muslim university graduates enter the nation's workforce, including its government and civil service sectors, where they are poised to subvert law enforcement agencies, intelligence communities, military branches, foreign services, and financial institutions."
In the Middle East Quarterly, Lorenzo Vidino writes about "The Muslim Brotherhood's Conquest of Europe." According to him, "Since the early 1960s, Muslim Brotherhood members and sympathizers have moved to Europe and slowly but steadily established a wide and well-organized network of mosques, charities, and Islamic organizations."
The Brotherhood, particularly, is active in investments in properties and businesses across Europe, laying the groundwork for the future network that will be able to react rapidly and with great flexibility in case of another attempted crackdown on the group's financial structure. Most of the money comes from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
One of the Muslim Brotherhood's first pioneers in Germany was Sa'id Ramadan, the personal secretary of Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. The oil-rich kingdom of Saudi Arabia has granted an influx of money to the powerful Islamic Center of Geneva, Switzerland, run by Sa'id's son Hani Ramadan, brother of Tariq Ramadan. Hani Ramadan was made infamous by—among other things—a 2002 article in the French daily Le Monde defending the stoning of adulterers to death. Tariq Ramadan, a career "moderate Muslim," later called for a "moratorium" on stoning.
According to Vidino, "The ultimate irony is that Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna dreamed of spreading Islamism throughout Egypt and the Muslim world. He would have never dreamed that his vision might also become a reality in Europe."
Former Muslim Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo warns that the Islamicization going on in European cities is not happening by chance. It "is the result of a careful and deliberate strategy by certain Muslim leaders which was planned in 1980 when the Islamic Council of Europe published a book called Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States."
The instructions given in the book told Muslims to get together and organize themselves into viable Muslim communities. They should set up mosques, community centres and Islamic schools. At all costs they must avoid being assimilated by the majority, and to resist assimilation must group themselves geographically, forming areas of high Muslim concentration.
Douglas Farah writes about the largely successful efforts by Islamic groups in the West to buy large amounts of real estate, territory that effectively becomes "Muslim" land once it is in the hands of Islamist groups. Some groups are signing agreements to guarantee that they will only sell the land to other Muslims.
The Brotherhood, particularly, is active in investments in properties and businesses across Europe, laying the groundwork for the future network that will be able to react rapidly and with great flexibility in case of another attempted crackdown on the group's financial structure. Most of the money comes from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. According to Farah, the governments of Europe and the United States continue to allow these groups to flourish and seek for the "moderate" elements that can be embraced as a counter-balance to the "radical" elements.
"We do not have a plan. They do. History shows that those that plan, anticipate and have a coherent strategy usually win. We are not winning."
Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen(born 11 June 1975) is a Norwegian far-right anti-Islamic blogger. Jensen wrote anonymously as Fjordman starting in 2005, until he disclosed his identity in 2011. He has been active in the counterjihad movement, which argues that multiculturalism, particularly Muslim immigration, poses a threat to Western civilization.
IN THE WEST THERE ARE NO organized groups that will side with Muslims or organized groups that will oppose Islam. No such groups exist at the moment. The only organised group at the moment are Muslims, organised around the mosques. It was instructional to see Muslim gangs from London driving the distance to Windsor to help their brothers.
Leaving America aside for the moment, consider what will happen if right wing parties like the BNP and UKIP in Great Britain or the DVU and NPD in Germany take power and start getting really tough with Muslims. Muslims will not sit back and take it. What if Denmark and other tough-minded European nationals finally rise up and take a stand against the destruction of their cultural heritage by the steady invasion of outsiders who appear to be on the move not just in the West, but globally, just as their mullahs have instructed them to do?
In all likelihood, mimicking the civil unrest in France last year, these already radicalized agitators will quickly resort to bombings and shootings to register their demands for more cultural appeasementsthey are preparing for this type of warfare, for they know that it is how the Jihad is carried into susceptible foreign lands where they are easily outnumbered. Westerners will continue to act surprised, confused, accommodating and fearing confrontation, will choose to leave the matter to the authorities. The left-wing media will muddy the situation with its blind allegience to the foreign and ever slowly will the population decide on a tactic and which side to support.
Some will decide that fighting against these Muslim insurgencies is the best way to defend freedom, tolerance and democracy, and others will decide those same virtues are best defended by supporting the underdogsMuslims, who invariably will be stressing that they are being victimized.
Note how quickly the West acquiesced to the lies of Izetbegovic and the KLA. The West, a slow learner with a genuine drive for cultural inclusion, is now dealing with the result a thirty year flood of Muslim immigration. The Muslim agenda will be less easier to dodge, as many Muslims are now born and brought up in Western cultures, speak the language fluently and have learned how to exploit the local mores.
That is why none should wish a civil war. The thing when it comes will be messy. Predicting the outcome of war is difficult, particularly if it is a civil warthere are far too many variables.
Except for the part where the Jews of pre-Nazi Germany weren't rioting or blowing things up. And how they never tried to impose their religious law on the larger populace. And how they had no problem with free speech or pluralism. Except for that.
Here's a report from a young soldier who served in Ireland with the Queen's Lancs. Having once patrolled UK streets with an SA80, he had this to say:
"It's not too far-fetched to imagine a future Tory government that would not rule out putting troops on the streets of London or Bradford, if the Muslims are allowed to plunge the country into ghettos of violent insurgency. It was not long ago that the SAS was heavily involved in Ireland. If a Prime Minister as recent as Thatcher was able to deploy the SAS on UK streets then why would a future center right leader feel unable to deploy the same force in defense of the homeland?
"There does seem to be an assumption that the left wing lunacy will continue unabated unless it is replaced by a far right monster that will tear up the country in a frenzy of foreigner hate. But I don't think that as to be the case. The Tories are in limbo at the moment. They pledged to give soldiers tax relief and Labour stole their idea. I am sure that they meant for Labour to steal that idea but it does illustrate the futility of making firm policies for labour to attack for another two years. But the Tories are in a good position. They are ahead in the polls and the press has stopped ignoring them and are now lambasting them for not giving enough policy meat for the papers to chew on."
And while apologists from the Left and Muslims themselves plead innocense, news stories are beginning to surface that paint todays's Muslims as pre-WWI Jews, suggesting that any protectionism by Westerners is simply a reflection of 20th century fascism except that the Jews have been replaced by the Muslims and that eventually the Muslims of Europe need to organise and fight back before they land up in the twenty-first century equivalent of concentration camps and a new holocaust begins.
Others take exception to the characterization of their honest desires to protect their homelands from hateful invasion, claiming, "Except for the part where the Jews of pre-Nazi Germany weren't rioting or blowing things up. And how they never tried to impose their religious law on the larger populace. And how they had no problem with free speech or pluralism. Except for that. Wasn't a crowd of Muslims protesting in downtown London just the other day at Westminster Cathedral clamouring, "Rome Will Fall! Rome Will Fall!"
Face it. Conservative DNA is patriotic and when the thief is at the door, most Westerners become conservatives.
THERE ARE THOSE WHO THINK the tide has turned on the question of militant Islam, moderate Muslims, and the algebra of just getting along. Some believe as a result of Jack Straw's recent admission of concern over Muslim women's use of veils to cover their faces in British society and PM Tony Blair's call for full discussion on the Muslim conflict with modernity has signalled a sea change in mood for free speech traditions long stymied by the political correctness crowd.
Calling out for more common sense, these free speech advocates suggest that the rules of the game seem to have changed, that the genie is out of the box, so to speak, and isn't going back. They believe that the growing popularity of these views has been picked up by politicians at each end of the spectrum. Much of this is pure political vote grabbing, they admit, but quickly add that they are damn glad the politicians are using this particular issue to highlight voter unrest.
The right-wing BNP is not exactly a favorite among these new defenders of free speech, but they are comforted by the new strategies surfacing in regard to what is a very obvious problem: militant Muslims in their midst.
One observer of the Muslim controversy has stated, "The evidence that there is something wrong with Islam itself is just about overwhelming. Only a few pieces of critical information are needed to cinch it in the minds of millions."
Says another online pundit, "I think this observation is grievously mistaken."
1) More information, more data, more facts, will not be effective against the PC template by which millions in the West surgically detach Islam itself from the problems caused by Islam.
2) Sufficient information is already out there.
3) Millions of people whose minds are formed by the PC template already know sufficient information about Islam, but their minds filter that information.
4) It is not the knowledge of information alone that forms a person's opinion: it is the interpretative filter by which that information is fit into various cognitive and analytical slots in that person's mind.
5) Unless we decontruct the interpretative filter of the PC template, no amount of information, no mountains of data about the perniciousness of Islam, will be sufficient to change most minds affected by PC.
Summarizing the polarity of opinions is easy. It goes like this: the world community as a whole is being hurt by Muslims who are trying to make us all into dhimmis, and by the PC liberals, who have a very warped view about tolerance. I agree with this summary.
LET'S DROP THE PLUMB BOB HERE, talk some straight talk, and rid ourselves of mixed emotions on all this war effort hubris. Attempting to transform the wild west of Afghanistan is much too expensive, much too depleting, of Western resourcesperhaps not as much as the fiasco in Iraq, but it is simply the same kind of misguided belief in the mutability of Muslim man that pays insufficient attention to the permanent hold of Islam, and what it means for the West.
Resources are limited. Men of valor, war and peace material, morale. They have been squandered, in Afghanistan, as in Iraq. The belief that Afghanistan must be occupied directly by Western troops, that it is a choice of either of keeping those troops, and at the same time curing poverty or remaking, at horrific expense, the hopelessly backward unrepentant country of Afghanistan, or validate the terrorists.
We should not confuse the smooth Karzai, with his Western experience and connections, or a handful of others at the top, with the tribes of Afghanistan. And we should not avail the Afghan-Americans who are involved in "reconstruction" hopes and schemes and dreams who are similarly entirely unrepresentative of the real Afghanistan that Infidel countries must keep steadily in mind.
America should have as little to do directly with Muslim states as possible. No more messianism. No more spending of American or NATO funds. Let Saudi Arabia fight its own battles and be forced to share with the less fortunate Afghani Muslims, fellow members of the Umma. Let the Camp of Islam take care, if it so chooses, of its own. America should stop enouraging the Karzais of this world to talk wistfully of how they wish they could have that $300 billion spent in Iraq spent, rather, on themtell them to stop counting on the Americans or other infidels, and if they wish, to go hat in hand to fellow members of the Umma.
Long live Afghanistan, but there is little need to patrol the entire country on a fool's errand. In fact, the extreme mountainous terrain and fractured nature of its tribal peoples make these logistics an impossible task. Despite the recent resurgence of Taliban forces, the notion that somehow the place is indispensable to Al Qaeda is nonsense.
Al Qaeda operatives can train, and are training, in Pakistan, or for that matter, Al Qaeda sympathizers, those who have the same goals, prompted by the same texts, can train with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, or with Hamas in Gaza, or with Jemaah Islamiyya on this or that Indonesian isle, or with Gemaah Islmayyah in a village in Lower Egypt, or with Jaish-e-Muhammad almost anywhere they choose in huge Pakistan. The American government seems to believe that because Al Qaeda once had camps in Afghanistan, this is the only place it can have camps. And it further seems to believe that Al Qaeda is the only or main terrorist threat. But they are all threats, and furthermore, terrorism is not the most effective weapon in the Jihad.
All of this needs somehow to penetrate the seemingly impenetrable skulls of official Washington.
Fight From AfarTelemachyshould be the motto. Supply first this ruthless warlord, and then that. When necessary, enter the country intermittently, keeping enemies under surveillance and always off-guard. This has been America's foreign policy mistake over for fifty years. The US once backed Saddam Hussein, then turned on him. The US once backed Manuel Noreiga, a former strong ally who worked for the CIA, then turned on him. Yet the US has propped up many a dictator who agreed the do our bidding. No wonder theere is so much distrust of American motives across the globe.
"Bottle up the Camp of Islam, to the extent possible, and exploit, to the greatest extent possible, the sectarian, ethnic, and economic divisions that divide the Camp of Islam. And then turn the attention of Infidels to the instruments of Jihad other than Terror."
According to Kamram Memon a civil rights attorney writing for the "Muslims For A Safe America" website, "For decades, the U.S. government has provided economic and military aid to dictatorships in the Muslim world, on the theory that dictators would provide stability and protect American interests in the Muslim world. When Muslims tried to pick their own leaders, the U.S. government was unsympathetic. The CIA helped overthrow the democratically-elected president of Iran in 1953. President Bush’s father stood silently by as the Algerian military prevented democratically-elected leaders from taking power in the early 1990s."
Memon continues, "After 9/11 highlighted anti-American feeling in the Muslim world, President Bush declared in November 2003 that the U.S. would reverse its policy. “Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe — because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo. Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East.”
President Bush has partly justified the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq on the grounds of spreading “freedom and democracy. But of course these two wars are about oil, but this motive is always denied while democracy is touted as America's sole export. But make no mistake about this. I believe that there is a large very dangerous sector of the Muslim war that will NEVER be deterred from its jihad against the West, NEVER, unless it is soundly defeated. But this winning the hearts and minds approach is hogwash. According to one writer the US should:
"Bottle up the Camp of Islam, to the extent possible, and exploit, to the greatest extent possible, the sectarian, ethnic, and economic divisions that divide the Camp of Islam. And then turn the attention of Infidels to the instruments of Jihad other than Terror. Start with those campaigns of Da'wa, and the demogrpahic conquest that has already made the countries of Western Europe much more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous than they would be without a large-scale Muslim presence.
And then like any true eagle scout "be prepared" for the next jihadist move.
But speaking of the Boy Scouts of America, there is more nonsense everyday popping up in this country. According to "The Militant Islam Monitor" the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has signed a lease for up to 25 years with a group that wants to build a Muslim youth camp at Lake Coralville near North Liberty, Iowa. The lease allows the Cedar Rapids-based Muslim Youth Camps of America to build on 114 acres of federal land. Construction can start once the group works out details with county and state regulators, the corps reported in March, 2006.
While the ACLU feels it necessary to take action against symbols of the Christian faith, it seems they do not attribute the same set of standards to Islam.
Plans for the $934,000 camp north of North Liberty call for lodging up to 60 campers ages 10 to 17 in cabins and tents plus staffers during the summer and up to 40 per night in the offseason. When completed, the camp will include a 2,400 square-foot lodge, a beach, recreation trails, five cabins, five tent pods and a bathroom. The initial plan, submitted in 1999, called for a 17,500-square-foot lodge, 12 camping platforms, 10 cabins, bathrooms, trails and a beach. The scaled back plan was presented after an environmental assessment.
Do you think everyday Americans would be alarmed? Think again. Neighbors who had been opposed to the camp said they no longer were as concerned as they had been. Rick Hollis, whose property adjoins the land, said he could live with the scaled-down version. He said it is closer to the size of a Girl Scout camp there previously. "I like the quiet neighborhood the way it is, but if they really keep it the size of the Girl Scout camp, it should not be a big intrusion on the neighborhood," Hollis said.
In July of 2002, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) won a long fought battle to remove a cross from the Mohave Desert public preserve, as a Federal judge ruled that it was in breach of the "establishment" clause of the Constitution.
Of the case, Peter Eliasberg, an attorney at the ACLU stated, "The federal government should not offer public landowned collectively by people of every faith and of no faithas a site for the advertisement and promotion of Jesus Christ, Buddha, Pope John Paul II, or any other particular religious figure. Contrary to what some believe, it is not the role of the federal government to advance Christianity or any other sectarian belief." He further stated, "The courts have consistently held that a permanent religious fixture on federal land is a violation of the U.S. Constitution."
While the ACLU feels it necessary to take action against symbols of the Christian faith, it seems they do not attribute the same set of standards to Islam. The group that wants to use the Iowa site calls itself Muslim Youth Camps of America, Inc. (MYCA). Organizers of MYCA say they purposely chose the name so that it would resemble that of the YMCA, the well-known Christian nationwide health and fitness center. "It is not exclusively for Muslims, just like YMCA is not exclusive to Christians," states Manzoor Ali, the Chairman of MYCA. But this statement doesn't exactly jibe with some of the other statements made by the group. Read more.
And yet there have been several well-publicized cases where the Boy Scouts of America have been denied permits for a permanent camp or even a single event on public land. City officials in Norwalk, CN were recently considering denying a permit for the Boy Scouts to use a beach for a recruitment drive based on the parent organization's policy of barring homosexual members.
Norwalk's mayor has asked the law department to determine whether there is legal precedent to deny a Boy Scouts troop use of Shady Beach. He made his request after members of the Common Council's parks committee told the scoutmaster last week that they would vote against issuing her a permit for a three-hour campfire and recruitment program. The continuing controversy about Boy Scouts of America membership arose a few years ago after the organization expelled James Dale, an Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster in New Jersey for 10 years, because he is gay. Dale sued and won reinstatement but the Scouts took their case to the US Supreme Court and, in 2000, prevailed.
But there is still something wrong here, folks. Wake up!
MUSLIMS WANT REVENGE ON German who killed Muslim in self-defence — ‘This is a separate universe with its own laws. I recently reported about the 18-year-old Yusef Al-Abed, who was stabbed to death as he and twenty of his armed Turkish and Arab friends attacked a collapsed German man: “Berlin: ‘tense armed calm’ after German killed Muslim in self-defence“. The German, known as Sven N., is to be acquitted, since he clearly acted in self-defence against the twenty Muslims, who were armed with knives and daggers. While Sven N. is recovering from having his skull fractured during the attack, tensions rise in the neighbourhood of Neukölln, Berlin, as ‘anti-German insults’ and talk about ‘burning down the neighbourhood’ and ‘riots’ is spreading in the Muslim dominated area...
The news out of Germany is piecemeal since the media is throttled by political correctness. Read more here.
THE NEXT TIME A PROUD BUT CRIMINALLY impaired advocate of Mohammedanism lashes out at you, claiming his favorite prophet was not a mass murdering warlord, an enslaver of women and children, a serial rapist and pedophile who dictated a book on how to make war by terror, on how to infiltrate the non-Mohammedan enemy with the baby-making machine of polygamy, and whose doctrine of bold-faced lying in the name of religion, just remember who this person is:
An illiterate Muslim doing what an illiterate Muslim does, protecting his pernicious sorry self, projecting his sorry self onto others, and prospecting for new victims of his poisonous porridge with rancor, lies, ignorance, and other pernicious acts, undisturbed by Islam's own history or Western jurisprudence...
And also remember, this beast of a man known as Mohammed is also the perfect example of a human life for his followers to aspire. Those who call themselves Christians also claim the same distinction about Yahshua, or Jesus. Compare for yourself. Mohammed or Jesus? You don't have to be a follower of either of these figures to resolve this issue, unless of course, you already have an agenda which conflicts with the obvious.