Mission Europa Netzwerk Karl Martell

Archive for the ‘E.U.’ Category

Ethnische Europäer: Menschen zweiter Klasse

Posted by paulipoldie on February 8, 2010

Von Udo Ulfkotte

Überall in Europa behandeln Gerichte ethnische Europäer inzwischen ganz bewusst als Menschen zweiter Klasse. Es gibt ganz offen Verständnis für Zuwanderer, die der »Ehre« halber ihre Frauen und Töchter ermorden, europäische Frauen vergewaltigen oder Europäer mit Messern überfallen. Woher sollen sie denn auch wissen, dass das alles in Europa verboten ist? Auch wer einem ethnischen Europäer einfach so den Kiefer bricht, der wird vor Gericht als »Kulturbereicherer« gefeiert. Und wer auf dem Körper seiner Kinder glühende Zigarettenkippen ausdrückt, der muss Strafe in Europa nicht fürchten, solange er nur aus dem Orient kommt. Ein ethnischer Deutscher, der einige Gummibärchen geklaut hatte, muss dagegen für sechs Monate ins Gefängnis (Urteil vom Februar 2010). Auch wer sich als Europäer gegen die Messerangriffe von Zuwanderern wehrt, wird sofort ins Gefängnis gesteckt, während die Täter Bewährungsstrafen bekommen. Eine erschreckende Bestandsaufnahme aktueller Fälle. Stellen Sie sich bei jedem der nachfolgend dargestellten Beispiele einfach einmal vor, ein ethnischer Europäer wäre der Täter gewesen. Alle Fälle stammen aus den letzten Wochen.

Überall in Europa sind Europäer inzwischen Menschen zweiter Klasse. Zeitgleich sprechen immer mehr europäische Richter Urteile im Namen, aber ohne Rückendeckung des Volkes.

Da hat der 25 Jahre alte muslimische Mitbürger Shamso Miah in Großbritannien nicht in einer Schlange vor einem Bankschalter der Lloyds-Bank anstehen wollen, drängelte sich frech vor. Er kam gerade aus der Moschee und hatte es eilig. Einem Briten, der ihn höflich auf sein unkonventionelles und rücksichtsloses Verhalten ansprach, zertrümmerte er mit seiner Faust die Kieferknochen. Die Richterin, die vor wenigen Tagen über den Fall zu urteilen hatte, heißt Cherie Blair. Sie ist die Ehefrau des früheren britischen Premierministers Tony Blair. Und Cherie Blair ließ den Mann, der zu einer Gefängnisstrafe verurteilt worden war (!), mit einer Ermahnung laufen. Und zwar mit der ausdrücklichen Begründung, dass er ja ein religiöser Muslim sei. Religiöse Muslime, so die Richterin, genießen in Europa Sonderrechte. Cherie Blair sagte allen Ernstes bei der Urteilsverkündung: »You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.« (Etwa: »Sie sind ein Mensch mit religiösen Grundüberzeugungen und wissen auch so, dass Ihr Verhalten unakzeptabel ist.«) Das Opfer des brutalen Schlägers versteht unterdessen die Welt nicht mehr. Vier Wochen lang konnte der Mann nach dem Kieferbruch nur Suppe essen, sechs Wochen konnte er nicht zur Arbeit gehen. 200 Pfund Strafe muss der Täter nun an die Staatskasse zahlen – das sind umgerechnet 228 Euro. Stellen Sie sich einmal vor, ein ethnischer Brite würde einem zugewanderten Muslim mit Faustschlägen einfach so den Kiefer brechen. Glauben Sie allen Ernstes, der Täter würde dann mit 228 Euro Strafe davonkommen?

Nie zuvor hat man in Großbritannien einen straffällig gewordenen Gläubigen der anglikanischen Kirche unter Hervorhebung seines Glaubens wieder auf die Menschheit losgelassen. Und deshalb sorgt das Urteil – wie viele andere – in der ethnischen britischen Bevölkerung für Aufsehen.

Die von Muslimen ausgehende Kriminalität steigt nach offiziellen britischen Angaben rasend schnell: 1991 gab es in ganz Großbritannien nur 1.959 muslimische Häftlinge, acht Jahre später, also 1999, waren es mit 4.335 schon mehr als doppelt so viele – und heute sind es schon mehr als 10.000. Zwölf Prozent aller in Großbritannien Inhaftierten sind derzeit Muslime – mit steigender Tendenz (insgesamt gibt es derzeit 84.000 Häftlinge). Dabei machen Muslime gerade einmal drei Prozent der Bevölkerung des Landes aus. Nach offiziellen britischen Angaben sind viele dieser Kriminellen Vergewaltiger. Nun gibt es ein wachsendes Problem mit diesen islamischen Vergewaltigern: Eigentlich müssten alle inhaftierten Sexualstraftäter an Gesprächskreisen mit Psychologen teilnehmen und an einer Gruppentherapie. Immer mehr Moslems weigern sich aber im Gefängnis, sich therapieren zu lassen. Und zwar mit Berufung auf die Islam-Ideologie, weil Sexualstraftaten von Muslimen laut dem Koran angeblich nicht diskutiert werden dürfen. Das stimmt zwar nicht, aber dem Druck der Mitbürger wurde inzwischen nachgegeben.

Dabei haben viele kriminelle Muslime vor Gericht nur Hohn und Spott für unser Rechtssystem übrig. Schließlich anerkennt ein wachsender Teil von ihnen in Europa unser Rechtssystem nicht, will nur unter dem islamischen Rechtssystem (der Scharia) leben. Moslemische Kriminelle stehen in Großbritannien inzwischen immer öfter nicht einmal mehr auf, wenn sie sich vor Gericht verantworten müssen. Sie verachten uns und zeigen selbst vor Richtern keinen Respekt mehr, sind sogar noch stolz darauf. Wie die Londoner Zeitung Daily Mail berichtete, sind britische Richter ratlos und überfordert.

Auch dieses Urteil schockierte in den vergangenen Tagen viele Europäer: Der Iraker Mohammed Ibrahim, 32, ist laut Gericht ein Totschläger. Er hat mit seinem Auto die zwölf Jahre alte Britin Amy Houstion beim Rasen angefahren, keinen Krankenwagen gerufen und das schwer verletzte Kind einfach im Straßengraben elendig sterben lassen. Britische Gerichte ordneten daraufhin die Deportation des Irakers in sein Heimatland an. Doch der Iraker wusste Rat: Er zeugte zwei uneheliche Kinder, rief den Europäischen Menschenrechtsgerichtshof an. Und nun kam das Urteil: Es verstößt angeblich gegen die Menschenwürde des Totschlägers, den Asylbewerber aus Großbritannien zu werfen. Schließlich habe er ja noch schnell zwei Kinder gezeugt. Und deshalb müssen die Briten ihm nun sogar noch Asyl geben (!) und Sozialhilfe zahlen. Nur seine Fahrerlaubnis dürften sie für einige Monate einbehalten, wenn er denn eine hätte.

Wie lang geht ein ethnischer Europäer ins Gefängnis, der immer wieder ein zwölf Jahre altes Mädchen vergewaltigt, Tag für Tag? Drei Jahre, fünf Jahre, acht Jahre? Moslem Yusuf Mangera kann Ihnen sagen, wie lange er ins Gefängnis muss. Der Mann gab Koran-Unterricht in britischen Moslemfamilien. Und in diesem Unterricht vergewaltigte er immer wieder ein kleines Mädchen, während das Kind im Koran las. Immer wieder. Yusuf Mangera wurde zu zwei Jahren und sechs Monaten Haft verurteilt. Das wars. Unter Anrechnung seiner Untersuchungshaft ist er in wenigen Wochen schon wieder auf freiem Fuß.

Baha Uddin ist ein zugewanderter Moslem, der im Norden von London neben einer christlichen Kiche lebt.  Der Mann fordert beständig von den Christen in seiner neuen Heimat mehr Toleranz ein – nur selbst will der Moslem nicht tolerant gegenüber seinen Mitmenschen sein. So hat er sich bei der Gemeinde über die Kirche in seiner Nachbarschaft beschwert. In dieser singen an den Wochenenden Christen. Das hört der Moslem Baha Uddin. Und er fordert die Christen dazu auf, ihn und seine Tochter, die wegen der »schlimmen Christenlieder« angeblich nicht mehr im Garten spielen könne, nicht weiter so grausam zu quälen. Die Gemeinde hatte nun ein Einsehen: Dem Zuwanderer aus dem islamischen Kultutrkreis zuliebe wurden die Londoner Christen Ende 2009 dazu aufgefordert, in ihren Messen nicht mehr (oder wenn überhaupt noch, dann nur ganz leise!) zu singen. Nur noch maximal 20 Minuten dürfen die Christen jetzt pro Woche in der Kirche singen, bei Nichtbeachtung drohen 2.250 Pfund Strafe und Schließung. Die Kirche wird wohl geschlossen werden – damit Baha Uddin endlich seine verdiente Ruhe vor den intoleranten Christen hat.

Ähnlich Unfassbares passiert in Österreich: Als »allgemein begreiflich« hat das Gericht in Wien im Januar 2010 den Mordanschlag eines gebürtigen Türken auf seine Frau bezeichnet. Sie wollte sich scheiden lassen, der Mann stach mehrmals zu. Weil sich seine Ehefrau von ihm trennen wollte und ihm am 12. Oktober 2009 die Scheidungspapiere präsentierte, hatte der 46-jährige Familienvater zu einem Messer gegriffen. Er stach seiner Frau damit über ein Dutzend Mal in Kopf, Brust und Hals. Danach attackierte er die lebensgefährlich Verletzte noch mit einem 50 Zentimeter langen Stahlrohr, ehe sich einer seiner Söhne dazwischen warf. Die Justiz billigte dem Täter nun allen Ernstes zu, in einer »allgemein begreiflichen, heftigen Gemütsbewegung« gehandelt zu haben.

Auch wer als Türke in Österreich seine Kinder bestialisch quält, sogar glühende Zigarettenkippen auf ihren Körpern ausdrückt, stößt auf großes Wohlwollen der Richter – wenn man seine Tat nur mit der Islam-Ideologie begründet und darauf hinweist, dass man Zuwanderer ist. Vor Gericht in Österreich: Furcht, Gewalt, Drohungen und mittelalterliche Methoden begleiten zwei türkische Mädchen seit jeher in den eigenen vier Wänden. Der angeklagte Vater, ein kräftig gebauter türkischer Restaurantbesitzer, legt großen Wert auf Tradition und Religion. Der Islam steht im Zentrum. Von diesen Werten wollen die Schwestern aber nichts wissen. Im ethnisch und geschlechtlich gemischten Freundeskreis wurde stets auf die alten Werte »gepfiffen«: Die Mädchen rauchten, gingen auf Partys, trafen sich mit Burschen und genossen die westliche Welt. Der Vater brannte den Töchtern den Islam dann mit Zigaretten auf ihre Körper: Laut Aussagen soll er sogar Zigaretten an deren Schenkel ausgedrückt haben. Die Mutter sah tatenlos zu! »Ich wollte ihnen zu einem besseren Leben verhelfen«, sagte er. Dieser Plan beinhaltete eine Reise in die Türkei. »Dort bin ich zwangsweise verlobt worden«, so die 18-Jährige. Die Ehe kam nicht zustande. Das Urteil für den unzivilisierten Barbaren im Februar 2010: Zehn Monate auf Bewährung.

Islamische Vergewaltiger erhalten in Europa fast durchweg Bewährungsstrafen, Beispiel Schweiz: Migrantenbonus für einen Türken vor einem Gericht in Zürich: Die Tat ereignete sich in der Nacht auf den 12. Februar 2008. Ein bereits vorbestrafter Türke sprach in einem Restaurant an der Zürcher Langstraße eine 17-jährige Schweizerin an und folgte ihr auf die Toilette. Als die junge Frau seine 50 Franken für sexuelle Dienste ablehnte, drängte er sie in eine Toilettenkabine und vergewaltigte sie. Als die Frau kurz darauf die Polizei anrief, drohte der Täter damit, sie umzubringen. Weil der Angeklagte geständig war und sich bei seinem Opfer entschuldigt hatte, kam er beim Zürcher Bezirksgericht mit einer Bewährungstrafe davon.

Beispiel Schweden: In Linköping (Zentralschweden) haben zwei junge Mitbürger ein zehn Jahre altes Mädchen vergewaltigt. Die Tat ist unstrittig. Und dennoch passiert – nichts. Denn die jungen Mitbürger sind erst zwölf und 13 Jahre alt. Sie sind aber erst von 15 Jahren an in Schweden strafmündig. Und deshalb wird sie nicht einmal die Polizei verhören oder ermahnen, weil das angeblich ihrer weiteren Entwicklung schweren Schaden zufügen könnte. Die Schweden sind entsetzt darüber, wie weit es in ihrem Land, das inzwischen die höchste Vergewaltigungsrate in Europa hat (sechs Prozent der Schwedinnen wurden nach offiziellen Angaben 2008 vergewaltigt) schon gekommen ist.

Nicht anders ist es in Deutschland: Vergewaltiger werden in Deutschland mit Gefängnis bestraft. Und zwar auch im Falle versuchter Vergewaltigung, die nur wegen der Gegenwehr des Opfers nicht ausgeführt werden konnte. Nicht so bei Türken: In Neu-Ulm hat ein Gericht einen türkischen Taxifahrer, der nach einer Fahrt nächtlich in die Wohnung seines Fahrgastes eingedrungen war und die Frau zu vergewaltigen versuchte, im Januar 2010 nur zu einer Bewährungsstrafe verurteilt.

Zu einer milden Bewährungsstrafe wurde vom Gifhorner Amtsgericht Ende 2009 auch ein aus dem Nahen Osten zugewanderter, streng religiöser Vergewaltiger verurteilt. Der Mann habe sich – so die Richter – in einem »Verbotsirrtum« befunden. Wie sollte der Mann wissen, dass man Frauen hier in Deutschland nicht vergewaltigen darf, zumal, wenn man ihnen auch noch ein wenig Geld für Sex zusteckt … Das Urteil wurde von anderen Moslems mit wohlwollendem Interesse aufgenommen.

Migrantenbonus nennt man es, wenn ethnische Deutsche und Zuwanderer für eine Straftat vor Gericht völlig anders behandelt werden. Der Migrationsbonus, den 2009 ein Iraker im holsteinischen Neumünster bekommen hat, der könnte in die deutschen Geschichtsbücher eingehen: Er hat sich an einem zwölf Jahre alten Mädchen vergangen – und hat dafür vom Richter eine milde Bewährungsstrafe bekommen. Der Richter hielt dem Kinderschänder seine Jugend (19) Jahre zugute. Das Signal an andere zugewanderte Kinderschänder dürfte klar sein: Einmal darf man in Deutschland problemlos ein Mädchen vergewaltigen.

In Deutschland wird ein deutscher Gummibärchenklauer heute härter bestraft als ein zugewanderter Messerstecher oder Vergewaltiger, ein Urteil vom Februar 2010: Sechs Monate Gefängnis ohne Bewährung: Ein Düsseldorfer Versicherungsfachwirt (39) muss nun so lange ins Gefängnis, weil er Lakritz-Bonbons und Geburtstagskarten stahl. Seine Beute: eine Packung Lakritz-Dragees für 5,69 Euro. Er nahm sie am 19. April 2009 in einem Derendorfer Kaufhaus an sich, Geburtstagskarten für insgesamt 9,75 Euro steckte er am 8. Mai 2009 in einem City-Kaufhaus ein. Zu blöd, wenn man Daniel, Rüdiger oder Kevin heißt, der kleine Ali oder Mehmet wäre garantiert vor einem deutschen Gericht mit einem Freispruch davon gekommen!

In Bad Kissingen hat ein Türke versucht, einen Bundeswehrsoldaten zu ermorden. Das Opfer leidet noch heute unter den schweren Folgen der schweren Verletzungen. Der Türke bekam 2009 – wie bei diesen liebreizenden Mitbürgern meist üblich – vor Gericht natürlich nur eine geringe Bewährungsstrafe. Sein Opfer war ja »nur« ein Bundeswehrsoldat, der nach der Tat fast in seinem Blut ertrunken wäre …

Bei Zuwanderern gibt es fast immer Bewährung für Beinahe-Mode, Beispiel Mehmet B.: Der Türke ist ein Musterexemplar an Integrationsresistenz mit 38 Ermittlungsverfahren und vier Vorstrafen, hat als »harte Strafe« dafür, dass er einem Mann den Schädel zertrümmerte und ihn fast umbrachte, sechs Monate auf Bewährung erhalten. Das Opfer versteht seither die Welt nicht mehr: »Der Täter kommt frei, aber ich werde mein Leben lang unter den Folgen leiden.«

Gleichzeitig werden Menschen wie der Deutsche Sven G., die in Notwehr handeln und noch nie zuvor auffällig geworden sind, von deutschen Richtern gnadenlos ins Gefängnis geschickt. Es scheint so, als ob vielen Richtern in Deutschland jegliches gesundes Rechtsverständnis abhanden gekommen ist – und das, obwohl sie ihre Urteile angeblich im Namen des Volkes sprechen.

Ein brutaler 25-jähriger Algerier, den das Lindauer Amtsgericht bereits mehrfach wegen grundloser Prügel-Attacken auf deutsche Frauen verurteilt hat, wurde 2009 mit unglaublicher Milde vor Gericht behandelt und gleich wieder freigelassen. Sofort war er wieder auf Lindaus Straßen zum Verprügeln von Frauen unterwegs. Zuvor hatte es eine ganze Reihe von Anklagen und Strafen gegen ihn gegeben. Zwar hatte das Amtsgericht Lindau dennoch Haftbefehl beantragt (unter anderem wegen Fluchtgefahr), jedoch hat das Landgericht dem Amtsgericht in diesem Fall ein weiteres Mal widersprochen. Der Fall stellt sich wie folgt dar: Der Deutsch-Algerier hatte im Sommer 2007 ein 18-jähriges Mädchen grundlos krankenhausreif geprügelt. Deswegen hatte ihn das Amtsgericht Lindau im Frühjahr 2008 zu einer Haftstrafe von 25 Monaten ohne Bewährung verurteilt. Dagegen legte der Anwalt des jungen Mitbürgers aus dem islamischen Kulturkreis Berufung ein, weshalb der Fall im Spätsommer 2008 noch einmal vor dem Landgericht in Kempten verhandelt wurde. Die dritte Strafkammer dort milderte die Freiheitsstrafe zu einer 23-monatigen Bewährungsstrafe ab. Der Algerier läuft frei herum – und der Algerier schlägt weiterhin hemmungslos zu …, was soll den schon passieren?

Sie glauben immer noch nicht, dass es einen Migrationsbonus und mildere Strafen für Zuwanderer als für ethnische Deutsche gibt? Tag für Tag fällen deutsche Richter Urteile im Namen, aber ohne Rückendeckung des Volkes und behandeln selbst zugewanderte Vergewaltiger mit windelweichen Samthandschuhen, Beispiel Neuburg: Dort haben die Richter unlängst einen 28 Jahre alten türkischen Vergewaltiger wegen dessen »kulturell geprägter Erziehung« jetzt nur zu einer Bewährungsstrafe verurteilt. Der Mann hat seiner mit ihm zwangsverheirateten Frau (inzwischen geschieden), die keinen Geschlechtsverkehr wollte, bei der Vergewaltigung auch noch auf den Kopf geschlagen. Selbst die Staatsanwältin berücksichtigte, dass der Täter in einem türkischen Kulturkreis aufgewachsen war, in dem Vergewaltigung in der Ehe bis 2005 laut dortiger Rechtsprechung nicht strafbar war. Somit hätte der Angeklagte für seine Tat kein Schuldbewusstsein. Also das Signal an unsere Zuwanderer: In Deutschland gilt zwar der Rechtsgrundsatz »Unwissenheit schützt vor Strafe nicht«, aber wenn ihr Zuwanderer vor Gericht nachweisen könnt, dass ihr eine »kulturell geprägte Erziehung« in einem islamischen Land genossen habt, dann kriegt ihr den Migrationsbonus und könnt hier machen, was ihr wollt! Beispiel: Das Abhacken von Händen ist weder im Jemen noch in Saudi-Arabien bei Dieben verboten. Wenn also demnächst ein Jemenite oder Saudi in Deutschland einen Dieb erwischt, kann er ihm gleich eine Hand abhacken – und dafür in Deutschland nicht bestraft werden. So die offenkundige Logik der deutschen Richter, weil das ja im Herkunftsland nicht unter Strafe steht. Mehr noch: Jeder Moslem aus Iran darf demnach von sofort an in Deutschland alle Kreuze zerstören – auch das steht in seinem Herkunftsland Iran ja nicht unter Strafe.

Was passiert, wenn ein Glatzkopf mit Bomberjacke in Deutschland ein Hakenkreuz auf die Wand einer Synagoge schmiert? Der Haftrichter wird tätig, die Menschen bilden Lichterketten gegen Rechtsextremismus und die Medien sind erschüttert. Und was passiert, wenn ein Algerier eine Synagoge in Dresden angreift und Hakenkreuze auf die Wand einer Synagoge schmiert? Nichts – der 39 Jahre alte Algerier wurde vom Haftrichter laufen gelassen.

Stellen Sie sich einmal vor, ein deutscher Junge würde 14 Menschen bei verschiedenen Anlässen zusammenschlagen. Oder er würde 14 Mal bei verschiedenen Einbrüchen erwischt. Was würde mit so einem Intensiv-Straftäter wohl geschehen? Ein inzwischen 35 Jahre alter Türke hat schon 13 (!) Vorstrafen im Strafregister stehen und wurde dann mit einer multikulturellen Einbrecher-Gruppe erwischt, die mehr als 20 Einbrüche verübte. Und die Richter? Sie schickten den Türken im Januar 2010 wieder einmal mit einer Ermahnung nach Hause.

Ein anderer unglaublicher Fall: Rudolf Arning ist verzweifelt. Der Inhaber der Baufirma Holstein Gleis- und Tiefbau will sein Unternehmen jetzt verkaufen – weil ihn das Arbeitsgericht zwingt, Verbrecher wieder einzustellen. Erst hat ein Iraner nachweislich Firmengelder veruntreut, Arning spricht von rund 200.000 Euro. Dann hat ein Freund des Iraners Diesel für rund 20.000 Euro entwendet. Und jetzt soll Arning auf Anordnung eines deutschen Gerichts den Dieseldieb wieder einstellen. Das Arbeitsgericht urteilte: Die Verfehlungen des Mannes in der Vergangenheit seien ja kein Hinweis darauf, dass er auch in Zukunft weiter klaut. »Ein unfassbares Urteil!«, findet Arning. Vor allem weil der Bruder des geschassten Poliers den Betriebsleiter, der ihn überführte, noch an Leib und Leben bedrohte. »Wenn ich die Aussagen nicht zurückziehe, werde er mit seinem Bagger ein Loch graben und meine Leiche darin verscharren«, soll der Bruder gesagt haben.

Ausländer, die in Deutschland Straftaten verüben, müssen nach deutschen Gesetzen in ihr Heimatland abgeschoben werden, wenn sie zu einer Haftstrafe von mehr als 36 Monaten verurteilt werden. Dann geht es aus dem Knast direkt zurück in die Heimat. Doch der Verwaltungsgerichtshof Mannheim hat Ende 2009 der Klage eines 38-jährigen Türken, der wegen eines brutalen Mordes immerhin zu lebenslanger Haft verurteilt worden war, gegen seine Ausweisung stattgegeben. Beklagte war die Stadt Kornwestheim. Sie hatte – wie im Gesetz gefordert – die Ausweisungsverfügung erlassen. Der 1971 in der Türkei geborene Mann sollte nach dem Verbüßen seiner Haftstrafe in sein Geburtsland deportiert werden. Doch die gutmenschlichen Richter fanden, die Stadt müsse erst einmal nachweisen, dass der Mörder nach der Haftzeit wieder eine Gefahr für die Bürger werden könne.

Täterschutz ist in Deutschland eben viel wichtiger als Opferschutz. Das bekommen jetzt die Verwandten des 2003 von einem Türken ermordeten deutschen Elite-Polizisten Roland Krüger zu spüren. 2003 ermordete Yassin Ali K. den Berliner Roland Krüger. Eigentlich wurde Yassin Ali K. zu lebenslanger Haft verurteilt. Das findet man nun aber schon bei den multikulturellen Behörden wieder ungerecht und viel zu hart, denn der Migrationsbonus muss ja auch irgendwie berücksichtigt werden. Also »prüft« man, ob der jetzt 39-jährige Polizistenmörder nicht wieder das Gefängnis verlassen darf. Die Berliner Justiz findet das bei unserem ausländischen Mitbürger völlig »normal«. Man will dem Mitbürger »Erleichterung« durch Ausgang in die Freiheit gewähren – nach den Verwandten des Opfers fragt niemand mehr.

Und das Amtsgericht Heilbronn hat 2009 das Verfahren gegen zwei türkischstämmige Schüler wegen des Grölens judenfeindlicher Parolen eingestellt. Die beiden Jugendlichen hätten keine Ahnung von politischen Hintergründen gehabt, sagte die Richterin zur Begründung. Sie seien zwei nicht vorbestrafte »Kindsköpfe«.

Wenn Menschen in Deutschland ein Haus anzünden wollen, in dem türkische Mitbürger wollen, dann überbieten sich deutsche und türkische Medien sofort in der Berichterstattung. Wenn eine mehrfach vorbestrafte türkische Kriminelle ein Haus mitsamt Bewohnern anzünden will, dann interessiert das niemanden mehr – und die Frau darf nach Zahlung von 700 Euro vor Gericht gleich wieder nach Hause gehen. Dazu eine Randbemerkung vom Prozess aus der Ahlener Zeitung 2009: »Von Beginn der Verhandlung an wirkte die Angeklagten aus Rheine aggressiv und verlangte einen Dolmetscher. Der Strafrichter unterhielt sich mühelos mit ihr auf Deutsch und befragte sie nach dem Grund ihres Verlangens – sie lebt seit 1980 in Deutschland. ›Seit Jahren spreche ich deutsch, werde aber nicht verstanden, deswegen habe ich meine Kinder nicht bei mir.‹ Richter Langhans diktierte für das Protokoll: ›Das Gericht hat keine Probleme, sich mit der Angeklagten auf Deutsch zu unterhalten.‹«

Ein 43 Jahre alter türkischer Krimineller wurde 2009 vom Bochumer Schöffengericht zu einer milden Bewährungsstrafe verurteilt. Der Türke hatte für acht Menschen Pässe gefälscht. Die dienten dann betrügerischen Auto-Finanzierungen – Zweck des Ganzen waren bandenmäßige Betrügereien in Deutschland, auch in Bochum und Umgebung. Die Pass-Käufer hatten sich mit ihrer falschen Identität Kredite für die Finanzierung teurer Autos erschlichen und dann die fälligen Raten nicht bezahlt. Allein durch die gelieferten Pässe des jetzt verurteilten Türken konnten zwölf Pkw erbeutet werden. Geschätzter Schaden: zwischen 150.000 und 200.000 Euro. Alles nicht so schlimm – fanden die Richter. Schließlich gibts ja den Migrantenbonus.

Wenn Sie in Deutschland ein Fahrzeug ohne Führerschein fahren und von der Polizei angehalten werden, dann gibts Ärger – wenn Sie keinen Migrationshintergrund haben. Wenn Türke Ahmet Ö. (38), der derzeit Strafverfahren wegen Bedrohung, Beleidigung und wegen Betruges laufen hat, in Deutschland mit seinem protzigen Bentley ohne Führerschein geblitzt wird – dann schlucken deutsche Richter und lassen den Mann laufen. Nochmals: Türke Ahmet Ö. wurde ohne Führerschein erwischt und geblitzt – ohne Folgen! Freispruch! Unglaublich! Ein Urteil im Namen, aber ganz sicher ohne Rückendeckung des Volkes.

Über 10.000 Schnäppchenjäger, die zwischen April 2003 und September 2005 bei Ebay im Internet Markenartikel ersteigert haben, bekamen umgehend ein Paket aus Mainaschaff (Kreis Aschaffenburg). Von dort aus lief, weitgehend in türkischer Hand, ein schwunghafter Handel mit gefälschter Ware – Textilien, Schuhen, Handtaschen und Accessoires – unter dem Namen und mit Markenzeichen weltbekannter Hersteller. Für mehr als 3.000 nachgewiesene Betrugsfälle wurden die Türken Ende 2009 verurteilt – zu einer milden Bewährungsstrafe.

Wie überall in Europa gilt auch in den Niederlanden eigentlich das Recht für alle Bürger gleich, zumindest auf dem Papier. Und wie überall in Europa gibt es für Moslems auch in den Niederlanden Sonderrechte. 2009 berichtete das NRC Handelsblad, in den Niederlanden gelte für Moslems jetzt landesweit die Scharia (islamisches Recht). Ein Autor aus dem islamischen Kulturkreis hatte das für die Zeitung nachrecherchiert: Jede Woche werden danach minderjährige Mäödchen in den Niederlanden von Mohammedanern zwangsvergheiratet. Und die Polygamie unter Moslem-Männern wird zum Normalfall. Es gibt inzwischen auf allen Gebieten zwei parallele Rechtssysteme.

Offenbar im Zuge der »Liechtensteinaffäre« war das Nürnberger Hauptzollamt in den Besitz von Datenträgern gelangt, aus denen sich Geldflüsse zwischen hier lebenden Ausländern und Banken in ihren Heimatländern ergaben. Ein Datenabgleich führte die Ermittler zu 73 »Stütze-Empfängern« in Mittelfranken, gegen die auch die Staatsanwaltschaft wegen Betruges ermittelt. Es waren meist Türken. Ein Beispiel: Sechs Jahre lang zahlte eine in Nürnberg wohnende Türkin, die von 1998 bis 2004 von Arbeitslosengeld und -hilfe lebte, 49.000 Euro an ihre Verwandten in der Türkei. Als die Bundesagentur für Arbeit dahinterkam, verlangte die Behörde Teile des Geldes – 31.000 Euro – von der früheren Grundig-Mitarbeiterin zurück. Doch diese Rückforderung wollte die Mutter zweier Kinder nicht hinnehmen. Sie zog vor das Sozialgericht und bekam dort recht. Andere Türken verschoben bis zu 160.000 Euro, und zwar als Sozialhilfeempfänger. Das Gericht entschied nun: Das alles sei als »kulturelle Besonderheit« der Türken zu »respektieren« und voll in Ordnung.

Muslime genießen überall Sonderrechte – vor Gericht bekommen sie in westlichen Ländern etwa den Mogrationsbonus und die westliche Politik hofiert diese Menschengruppe wie keine andere. Mitbürger dieses Kulturkreises werden auch von Banken hofiert. In Deutschland etwa hat die Deutsche Bank eigene Filialen für türkische Mitbürger, in denen türkisch gesprochen wird und wo die Mitbürger gesüßten Tee bekommen. Vor allem gibt es dort Sonderrechte für türkische Kunden, die deutsche Kunden nicht bekommen – kostenlose Überweisungen in die Türkei etwa. Solche Sonderrechte genießen Bankkunden auch in Großbritannien. Weil Moslems gemäß ihrer Ideologie ja angeblich keine Zinsen bezahlen dürfen, bezahlen Moslems keine Überziehungszinsen – die bürdet man den Nicht-Moslems auf, die für Muslime mitzahlen dürfen. Beispiel Lloyds Bank: Da zahlen Mohammedaner beim Überziehen des Kontos nur 15 Pfund, Nicht-Mohammedaner aber 200. Allah-uh Akhbar!

Kennen Sie den alten Spruch »Verbrechen lohnt sich nicht«? Bevor Sie die nachfolgenden Zeilen lesen, sollten Sie vielleicht erst einmal Ihren Arzt oder Apotheker danach fragen, ob Sie auch wirklich ganz gesund sind. Wenn Sie sich leicht aufregen, dann lesen Sie jetzt bitte NICHT weiter. Straßenräuber, Vergewaltiger und Mörder bekommen nämlich in Europa von Gerichten sogenannte Prepaid-Kreditkarten mit Guthaben. Finanziert wird das aus Steuermitteln. In den Genuss der Steuergelder – pro Person bis zu 5.550 Euro – kommen in Europa allerdings nur kriminelle Zuwanderer. Da gibt es einen ganz sicheren Geheimtipp. Nein, Sie müssen nicht etwa arbeiten. Jedenfalls keinesfalls ehrliche Arbeit verrichten. Aber haben Sie vielleicht schon einmal einen Menschen getötet? Oder könnten Sie zumindest als Straßenräuber oder Einbrecher tätig werden? Oder als Vergewaltiger? Das wird nämlich ganz offiziell aus Steuergeldern mit mit zu 5.550 Euro belohnt. Nochmals: Das alles gibt es vom Staat nur für zugewanderte Kriminelle! Cash für zugewanderte Verbrecher! Je schlimmer das Verbrechen, desto mehr Kohle gibt es … Sie glauben das nicht? Wo gibts das Geld in Europa? Und wie funktioniert das alles? HIER weiterlesen …

Den Preis für diese verfehlte Politik zahlen – wieder einmal – die Bürger und nicht verachtenswerte Politiker, die dank Leibwächtern, Fahrdienst und Wohnorten weit ab von den Brennpunkten der Großstädte die Folgen ihrer Politik nie selber tragen müssen. Europa ist ein Staatenverbund, der die Sicherheit seiner Bürger nicht mehr gewährleisten kann. Und in Europa wird die Ungleichheit von ethnischen Europäern und Zuwanderern immer weiter zementiert. Ethnische Europäer sind Menschen zweiter Klasse. Irgendwann werden sie es merken und aufwachen.

http://info.kopp-verlag.de/news/ethnische-europaeer-menschen-zweiter-klasse.html

Advertisements

Posted in E.U., Islamisierung | Leave a Comment »

the radical left so despises europe that it intends to destroy it by muslim immigration …. and i have the source documents from the euro union and the euro-med “association agreements” to prove it ..

Posted by paulipoldie on January 14, 2010

sit down.  read.  think.  and quit your damn bitching about how how hard this is, and the state of the world.  just sit down.  read.  and, think.

what is the source of the radical left’s infatuation and courtship of islam?  or, do you remember socrates “allegory of the caves?”  or, who controls the dance?

introduction.

the radical left i speak of resides in the united states and in europe, a species of radicals unlike any other found in the world.  for the most part they suffer few material wants or privations and certainly not the imposition of any personal injustice, being if not born into privilege having attained it; they tend to be well educated and professional, and very much leaning to the public sector; and if they are outraged about the injustice and privations of this world and its systems, it is certainly not because they have suffered any of them, in any direct or personal manner.  in short, they are not radicals or leftist who have grown up in squalor or who have fought against actual injustice, or protested anything that required actual physical want, hardship or risk.  their suffering is the suffering of sympathy for those they posit as downtrodden.

they are those persons of whom malcom muggeridge once so acidly observed of an english royal of some degree or another, “that he was a revolutionary his entire life, and it had cost him nary a sunday chop.”  they drive volvos.  they eat yogurt.  and they are tight with all the peeps, even those they would never invite into their homes or to their parties, especially those peeps, …. , the guilts make the bonds of understanding tighter, don’t you know.  the more “unwashed,” the better.

and, it may be said of these leftists, euros or yanks, that the peeps of the world with whom they are tightest are islamic arabs, most particularly “palestinian” muslims.  you would no doubt not be surprised that almost to a dead soul they condemn israel and sing paeans to the palestinians with regard to the peace process.

you might be surprised, however, to learn that euro and yank alike, they want you and i to live amongst the arabs and too of course acculturate with them, and to integrate with them into a broader cultural awareness.  you might also be surprised that they want arab muslims to live among us, and that both communities of leftists, euro and yank, are promoting very dramatically increased muslim immigration into north america and europe in order to achieve that goal.

and, indeed, that the process has been ongoing, active, and more extensive than you might imagine for some time.

the european situation.

how would you feel if your government planned the immigration of 50 million north african muslim workers into your country, and neglected to tell you about it?

muslim immigration into europe raises concerns much larger than mere numbers at this point might suggest, though long term forecasts suggest that as much as 25% of europe’s population might be muslim by year 2100.  indigenous europeans are to be forgiven if they feel their politicians have made accommodations to muslims that infringe upon traditional rights of free speech and political expression, as the euro parliament and national parliaments have passed legislation that limits critical opinion of the muslim religion, and has given individual muslims the right to sue if they feel the religion has been maligned.  in like manner, public institutions have come under increasing pressure to accommodate and expand muslim practices while concomitantly curtailing those same services paid for by indigenous taxpayers: municipal swimming pools all over europe have curtailed services to the general public to allow muslim woman their own bathing schedules.  muslim cab drivers the world over insist upon and get public footbaths to soak their weary feet, while other weary feet go weary.  and, the issue of dress, particularly the wearing of traditional muslim garb has raised considerable friction, as female muslim police officers in britain, for instance, insisted on wearing muslim scarves and uniforms consistent with traditional muslim dress.  and, all over europe, the presence of islam is attendant to rising crime rates, particularly violent assault, rape, and crimes of property damage: this new year’s eve in france alone, more than 1,000 cars were put to the torch by islamic thugs.

such matters have aroused increased interest, concern and opposition to further or increased muslim immigration into europe.

and, of even greater concern to europeans, is the fact that the leftist political leadership of europe works assiduously to effect increased muslim immigration, largely in ignorance of the europeans, and absent any effort to win their assent: instead, they are to be “educated” when policies are placed into effect.  this is very greatly resented, as you might imagine.

the short and the sweet of it is, that the euro union has entered into a compact with a number of north african states to make operable a governmental entity called euro-med, and that a chief feature of its raison d’être and operation is a vast migration of peoples from north africa and the mediterranean basin into europe proper, and a great number of them will be muslim.  pamela geller of atlasshrugs2000 has written extensively of this, here, here and here, and is a recognized authority on the subject.

her articles have told how the euro-med councils were formed and established, and that they were active, and then focused on the assertion that the euro union intends to admit nearly 50 million muslim/north african workers into the euro union by the years 2050-2060.

she does not view that prospect with enthusiasm.

and, neither do i.  my concerns are several about this issue.  one, is that most europeans are ignorant that this is happening.  and, two, those who do know what is happening seem inclined to try and discredit these assertions by questioning the sources of pamela’s figures, to back up her claims in the posts linked above.

I thought, what better source and authority for these assertions that the horse’s mouth, that is, the official documents and statements of the euro union on such matters.  as it turns out, i can demonstrate the authenticity of the figures and the scope of the european union immigration scheme, by recourse to official euro union documents.

the paris convention.  on 13 july 2008, ministers of the european union and heads of other states met in paris, france and ratified a far reaching scheme,  the paris summit for the mediterranean, to integrate not only the economies, but the cultures and politics of states “bordering” on the mediterranean sea along with those of the euro union.  those minister agreed, as pertains to the issue of muslim immigration into europe, the following:

euro-mediterranean heads of states and government meeting in paris on 13 july 2008, … agree to adopt the following joint declaration:

they share the conviction that this initiative can play an important role in addressing common challenges facing the euro-mediterranean region, such as … ; migration; terrorism and extremism; as well as promoting dialogue between cultures.

11. the barcelona process:

the five-year work programme adopted by the 10th anniversary euro-mediterranean summit held in barcelona in 2005 (including the fourth chapter of cooperation on “migration, social integration, justice and security” introduced at that stage) and the conclusions of all ministerial meetings will remain in force. … .”

the barcelona process. the european union delegates and heads of state specifically decided that the 4th paragraph of the work programme adopted at the barcelona summit in 2005 was to remain in force and effect.

this 4th paragraph, as it is referred to in euro union documents, has far reaching language on the scale and nature of immigration sponsored into the european states by the european union: you may or may not be surprised to know that this is not very well known in europe, and you might be even more surprised to know that the euro-med organization, comprised of the euro union & north african,  middle eastern and some balkan nations, is not widely known in europe.  at any rate, the euro union members and the heads of the mediterranean states agreed, as to the issue of immigration into europe:

migration, social integration, justice and security

11. acknowledging that migration, social integration, justice and security are issues of common interest in the partnership, and should be addressed through a comprehensive and integrated approach, the euro-mediterranean partnership will enhance co-operation in these fields to:

(a) promote legal migration opportunities, work towards the facilitation of the legal movement of individuals, recognising that these constitute an opportunity for economic growth and a mean of improving links between countries, fair treatment and integration policies for legal migrants, and facilitate the flow of remittance transfers and address ‘brain drain’;

………….

12. …

(a) hold a ministerial meeting to discuss all issues pertinent to migration. and hold an expert senior officials meeting to prepare the ministerial and discuss other issues of relevance.

(b) develop mechanisms for practical co-operation and sharing experience on managing migration flows humanely, deepen dialogue with countries of origin and transit and explore options for providing assistance for countries of origin and transit.

(c) promote schemes for safer, easier, less expensive channels for the efficient transfer of migrants’ remittances, encourage active contacts with expatriate communities to maintain their participation in the development process in their country of origin,

.

(e) promote legal migration opportunities and integration of migrants;

(f) enhance cooperation to fight illegal migration. this cooperation should involve all aspects of illegal migration, such as the negotiation of different kinds of readmission agreements, the fight against human trafficking and related networks as well as other forms of illegal migration, and capacity building in border management and migration.

(g) the euromed partners welcome the convening of a euro-african conference on migration.

pamela geller has stated in her articles the euro-med disaster: floodgates to ruin“ and euro-med: no, it’s not a drug, but it might kill you” that as many as 56 million legal migrant workers might be brought into europe by years 2050-2060.  may this figure and the scope of such migration be confirmed via recourse to european union publications, or must it necessarily be a matter of conjecture?  well, whatever level of speculation may be involved in the derivation of the figure, there is absolutely no doubt about the fact that this is a figure being reported by the euro union commission to the european union parliament, by official publication.  there is no guess work or conjecture about it, pamela geller’s figures are rock solid, and it will take a hardy soul to convince informed opinion otherwise.  in an official report dated 10.06.2009 to the euro parliament, the euro union commission said:

commission of the european communities

brussels, 10.6.2009

com (2009) 262 final

communication from the commission to the european parliament and council

an area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen

the foundations have been laid for a common policy on immigration. in particular,

there are rules that make legal immigration fairer and easier to understand, a

common agenda has been agreed for facilitating integration into european societies,

and stronger action is being taken against illegal immigration and human trafficking.

partnerships have also been established with non-union countries so that questions associated with migration can be managed in a concerted fashion.  page 2-3

in 2006 there were 18.5 million non-eu nationals registered in the union, which is

about 3.8% of the total population. migratory pressures can be expected to grow

further. this is due to population growth and poverty in many of the countries of

origin, and to the ageing of the population of europe: between 2008 and 2060 the

number of people of working age is expected to fall by 15%, or about 50 million.  page 4.

according to estimates there are about eight million illegal immigrants living in the

union, many of whom work in the informal economy. tackling the factors that

attract clandestine immigration and ensuring that policies for combating illegal

immigration are effective are major tasks for the years to come.  page 4.

there it is.  right in front of your eyes.

(oh, by the way, it may be interesting for you to notice that the “barroso” in the hyperlink to the above document, if you go to look at the original, is the “mr. barroso” who is the president of the european union commission.  friends, communique’s don’t get any more authentic than this.)

the euro union is going to lose 50 million persons of working age in that period between now and 2060: not 50 million in population, but 50 million workers.  and, those job slots are to be filled by immigrants from areas suffering from excess populations and poverty: not too many physics professors coming in.

and there is a word in the texts that i began to notice a couple of days into this, but that i haven’t mentioned yet, and that is the word “integration.”  my friends, the euro union does not expect the majority of these people to go home.  how do you put them back on the farm, once they’ve seen paris, indeed?

update:  correction on population figures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe

the wikipedia article deals with the history and evolution of the islamic religion in europe. according to the german Central Institute Islam Archive, the total number of muslims in europe in 2007 was about 53 million, including 16 million in the European Union.[1]

no less an authority that geert wilders has been quoted as saying that by his calculation, there are no less than 50 million muslims in europe.  it would appear that by focusing only on those muslims he believes to be in the euro union, that president barroso of the euro union commission “low balls” the figure in order to try and minimize the impact that further muslim immigration into europe will have.  i will go with wilders, thank you.  wilders also has said that europe will be 25% muslim by the year 2050, and not by year 2100 as the euro union maintains.

european leftists and american leftists: marching to the beat of the same damned drum.

1.)”changing course: a new direction for u.s. relations with the muslim world,” published by the u.s.—muslim engagement group.

how would you feel if the american left planned the immigration of millions of muslims into the united states without telling you about it?

as i researched the documents for this piece, I began to notice certain things eerily reminiscent, and very much similar, to a pamphlet i wrote about not too long ago.  that document was twice published by an organization called the u.s.—muslim engagement group,” and called for the united states to completely change its policies toward the muslim and arab world.  i have done everything i can to promote knowledge of this article, and pamela geller has done as much as she can as well, linking the article twice at atlasshrugs, here and here.

in my initial reporting on this pamphlet entitled “changing course: a new direction for u.s. relations with the muslim world” i wrote a piece called obama’s vision —  a muslim compatible america  …  the abandonment of israel” offered the following observations, which are worth repeating:

indeed, so enthusiastic are the report’s authors on “engagement” with islam, that they go so far as to suggest a significant cross acculturalization between american and muslim institutions, and a significant intermarriage, if you will, between those comprising the leadership strata in government, education, the academe, and leaders in the arts & entertainment, the sciences, and faith based and religious institutions, in both america and the muslim world.

.  so, i suppose there is only to turn to the text of the pamphlet i am discussing, and to see what it has to say about various things and why i think what is says.

the authors of “changing course” propose a radical integration of american and muslim societies, via a number of diplomatic effort that are more than just vaguely reminiscent of the community organizing done by various leftist groups in the united states since the 1960’s.  the authors of “changing course” propose to initiate this integration of societies by:

4. improve mutual respect and understanding between americans and muslims around the world

· use public diplomacy to reinforce changes in politics and actions

· dramatically expand cross-cultural education, people-to-people and interfaith    exchange

· promote greater depth and accuracy in news coverage and programming

· invest in cultural diplomacy through arts and entertainment programs, to deepen mutual understanding and challenge stereotypes

· involve the muslim-american community as a bridge

report, “executive summary”

a not unintended consequence of such an exchange, socially and politically among societies, would be to elevate the political and social role and status of muslim american communities and individuals within american society: the use of the “muslim-american community” as a bridge between societies surely elevates the role of those people involved in the bridging, … , indeed, such a role would make such people indispensible within the content of such cross acculturalizaiton.

the goals asserted in “changing course” are not the goals associated with the conduct of traditional diplomacy between nations and governments, which while they may ameliorate conflict at that level of reality, do not really change the nature of the societies represented by governments: in some sense the attitudes in this pamphlet represent a repudiation of the limitations of classical state to state diplomacy.  the reach of the diplomacy in “changing course” is to supersede the limitations of the nation state.  i put it this way in my previous analysis of “changing course,” and it is a pretty clear expression of what the leftists who wrote “changing course” are up to:

heretofore, diplomacy has been conducted by governments, who marshaled the forces of their societies to advance their positions on the international stages, and whose diplomacy was conducted by ambassadors and generals, and when the common man had a role, it was subordinate, … , it was to fight and die adhering to his beliefs.

in short, what the young leftists community organizers of the 1960’s propose to do in “changing course” is to in effect bypass the role of governments in diplomacy, and to achieve a far more intimate exchange of learning and association between muslims and americans on a person to person basis.

i wrote earlier:

the exposition of these ideas begins in chapter v. of the report, sub-chapter 4., to “improve mutual respect and understanding between americans and muslims around the world,” beginning page 74 and running through page 91.  … asserting the true aim of this report, the authors posit an integration of muslim and american societies:

“…  given the perceptual and psychological barriers that have built up in many muslim countries and communities during the last decade or more, promoting effective, two-way communications with key muslim constituencies should be a major focus of u.s. public diplomacy and strategic communications.

it is equally important to promote education, dialogue, and creative collaboration at the societal level, both as an end in itself and as a way to create more political opportunities for u.s. and muslim leaders who want to improve relations.    …..  however, the u.s. government and the government of muslim majority countries need not only to increase funding, but also to change policies and regulations to make it far easier for americans and muslims in other countries to meet, talk, learn and work together. philanthropic, religious, and media organizations also need to make significant new investments to ensure that there is deep civic engagement to complement government-sponsored initiatives.”

report, page 75.

this is an open and bald faced statement of the purpose of the report.  [and, as noted, it is a repudiation of the classic notion held amongst nation states that only nation states conduct diplomacy. jjjay]

this is not the cooperation and exchange between diplomats and emissaries; this is an exchange and acculturation between people’s and societies.  In the end, it is, to coin a phrase, i suppose, extra-diplomatic, in that the exchanges and loyalties developed thereby transcend the interests of governments, and become the interests of peoples.  it is, in short, the community organizers end run dash around institutions, really in an effort to thwart institutions, just as pan-islam is not really curtailed nor controlled by the arab nation states.

the recommended and anticipated scope of such societal interchange and acculturalization, as it is termed by the “changing course” report writers is simply astounding, quite staggering in its own way.  what it recommends, taken to its fullest extension, is the integration of american society and muslim society at their highest levels, the emphasis always being upon the exchange between elites and opinion makers and reporters: you will find no recommendation for like exchanges between construction workers and mechanics, for instance.  now, upon first utterance or reading, this seems a silly point, but due reflection suggests otherwise: this is a report that suggests the integration of opinion and policy makers, the movers and shakers of society, with the rest of both societies to follow along dutifully, it would be assumed.  but, let the report’s paragraphs speak for themselves, as set out by my commentary supplying some context:

we find these remarks with regard to educational reform in both the united states and in muslim nations:

the u.s. government, together with educational, philanthropic, and business organizations, should substantially expand present commitments to academic and professional education on muslim history, religion, and culture, and on issues in u.s.–muslim relations.”

report, page 79

it is equally important for the u.s. to expand its commitment to fund basic education (literacy and numeracy) in muslim countries, and to support teaching and learning about other cultures as part of the curriculum.  the u.s. should not impose it view of what should be taught about other cultures in muslim countries’ schools.  nonetheless, the u.s. should use dialogue and advocacy to promote balanced presentation of historical, political, and cultural issues, and to put an end to teaching the advocates of violence.”

report, page 81

we find these remarks about international exchanges to build understanding, which sounds strangely like subsidized education for muslim students in the united states, but again, these are things to “build bridges,” in the vernacular, at all levels of u.s. and muslim societies around the world.  says the report:

there are also strategic, cultural, and economic gains for the u.s. when bright young muslims, who will someday be leaders in their own countries, come to the u.s. for their education.

organizations involved in cross-cultural student, cultural, professional, or community exchanges, and u.s. businesses with operation in muslim countries, should substantially scale up their efforts to promote direct contact among citizens and leaders from the u.s. and muslim countries.  for example, the brookings institution has proposed a $50 million fund to support 10,000 global service fellowships per year. exchanges should target education, media, labor, military, religious, and community leaders, because of their potential impact as opinion makers. exchanges should also include musicians, artists, and others who can have a major effect on public perceptions and opinions.”

report, page 81.

what we see here, purportedly, is no less an effort than to tie entire generations of muslims to our view point.  we should do well, however, to remember that most of the arabs who run o.p.e.c. organizations in the arab world were educated at english and american graduate institutions, and this has made them no less inclined to adopt economic and trade policies quite harmful to the united states: we should ask, why would we be any more successful this time around, in “turning” such people to our views.

nonetheless, the report continues, with particular and continuing emphasis upon “engagement” in areas dealing with the control and content of broadcasting in the mass media, … , e.g., television and radio.  the report focus upon the mechanics of the dissemination of such viewpoints over public airways, as it might be influenced by arab/muslim news media, broadcasters and producers for u.s. broadcasts, and as it might be influenced by americans for muslim majority nations, and how this might be shaped and directed by this interchange.  i suppose it not unmindful at this juncture, to remember that in most nations of the world, and decidedly arab & muslim nations fall into this category, the content and broadcast of ideas over the air is of such importance that governments control most of it, and it is strictly a monopoly of government agencies.  even in the so called social democracies of western europe, such as in france and germany, the content of public broadcast is of such importance that it is not left to chance, or chaos, and is tightly supervised and controlled.  only in the united states, and canada, and great britain, are private entities given absolute discretion in what they print and broadcast.  (anyone given any thought to the “fairness doctrine,” and our good friend rush, lately?)  does any of this sound like control of a propaganda agency?  and, just how realistic is the caveat in the last sentence quoted, that no broadcasts in a muslim nation involving this sort of american cross-acculturalization are to be censored by muslim societies and governments:

without adding substantially to the cost of coverage, news media could provide more diverse perspectives on breaking news and ongoing stories.

in particular, u.s. news web sites could provide more extensive links to commentators based in muslim countries, and muslim media web sites could provide more links to commentators based in the u.s.  discussion between the production and editorial staffs of major u.s. news media and counterparts in muslim national and regional markets about diversity and depth of coverage could also be productive.  in the u.s., news media could expand their coverage of muslims in non-conflictual contexts, including charitable and civic organizations, fund-raising events and cultural activities, while simultaneously giving more publicity to muslim condemnation of terrorism and extremism.

whatever initiatives are taken by news media to provide more innovative coverage, it is important that they be voluntary and clearly separate from governmental public diplomacy, and from soft or hard censorship.”

report, pages 85-86.

this report suggests nothing less than the total integration of american and muslims societies at the highest level of leadership and opinion making, as a way to decrease conflicts & tension between the societies resulting from failures of communication and knowledge.  (“what we have here, is a failure to communicate,” a classic observation from “cool hand luke.”)

in some sense the recommendations from “changing course” sound democratic and egalitarian, but it is not until a more sober assessment is made do we realize that the “interchange” and understandings realized above are accomplished by societal elite talking to his societal co-equal on the other side, and that it is elites and opinion and policy makers who achieve these broader understandings, for the most part.

2.)the european union and the euro-med integration.

pamela geller has brought the issue of muslim immigration into europe in the coming years into very shrap focus and into the forefront of public discussion, both in terms of the numbers involved, and in terms of the social consequences that will impact european life, and european civilization.

but, as we began to explore the documents and basis of the euro-med agreements, and other diplomatic texts common in the euro union scheme of things called “association agreements,” which are diplomatic accords between the union and other nations (some of which are being prepared & groomed for accession into membership in the union), it became readily apparent that most if not all of the goals enunciated for america and the arab world are also stated as goals in the associations between the euro union and other nations, and especially in the euro-med partnerships.

the goals for societal interchange and integration are no different in the euro-med “association agreements,” and i hope to be able to demonstrate that with requisite clarity in the passages to follow.  one must assume that similar language in these areas of diplomacy have similar import: indeed, it should be no surprise that “changing course” celebrates the euro union diplomacy, as the lineage runs for nearly 20 years in politically leftist circles around the world.  and, it might be added, seems to find its origins in euro union aspirations to dominate international politics and diplomacy: while the u.s. used military muscle to impose a peace, the europeans have been scurrying around making diplomatic relationships, securing the “spoils” of our “wars,” as it were.

if my assumptions are correct on the matter, this has tremendous import to european citizens, the citizens of the various nation states. because it reveals to them for the first time what the leaders of the european union have in mind for them, in ways that they could not have considered before, because a great deal of this has been kept from them.  it seems to me, and has for a while, that the european left intends that no european nationalism be left in the union when they are done with it: the european left seems intent to destroy the last vestiges of european nationhood, the last underpinnings of the nation state, and the last loyalty of any european citizens to any political entities other than the european unity.

if i am correct, if the documents reveal what i think they reveal, the european left means to subsume and submerge european nationalism by inundating it in a sea of islamic immigration, and by integrating pan muslim and pan arabic culture into eurpean culture wholly erasing the later.

I think that I am correct in this, and that this represents fundamental insight into the motives and future operations of the european leftist governing elites.  phew!!

not without some difficulty, I have found the original text of an association agreement” signed between the european union and egypt on 25 june 2001 and ratified by the entire member states of the union and effective 06 january 2004: the euro-med has been up and running for some time folks, as very ably documented by robert spencer.  the “egyptian association agreement” is 355 pages long in pdf format,  and, for the most part, as you might expect, it is concerned with regulating and promoting commerce between the european union and egypt.  the european union did start out as a trade association, and this remains an important function of the union, but that function has been somewhat relegated to reduced status given the drive to world government.

you will also find exact parallels between the goals and missions of the euro-med “association agreement” and those goals and missions advanced in the tract of the u.s.—muslim engagement group’s pamphlet, “changing course,” suggesting beyond reasonable doubt that the america’s leftist vision if not inspired by the euro left’s is tracking almost exactly parallel to it.  and, you will not be surprised to find that the “association agreement” follows exactly on point with those principles related in the organic documents of the euro union discussed above in this paper.

what are some of the parallels?

one of the more striking parallels in the euro-med agreements with the american left’s views on people to people diplomacy finds expression in the “association agreements” provisions on integration of european and muslim news and public broadcasting, reflecting the overwhelming importance of television as an informational and propaganda device in the modern state, which seeks to govern and regulate the dissemination of knowledge.  the “association agreement” between the euro-med partners and egypt, and it is well to remember that it is governments talking about shaping media policies in this agreement, reads as follows:

article 52

information society and telecommunications

the parties recognise that information and communication technologies constitute a key element of modern society, vital to economic and social development and a cornerstone of the emerging information society.

the cooperation activities between the parties in this field shall aim at :

a dialogue on issues related to the different aspects of the information society, including telecommunications policies;

the exchanges of information and eventual technical assistance with regulatory matters, standardisation, conformity testing and certification in relation to information technologies and telecommunications;

the diffusion of new information and communications technologies and the refinement of new applications in these fields;

the implementation of joint projects for research, technical development or industrial

applications in information technologies, communications, telematics and information

society;

the participation of egyptian organisations in pilot projects and european programmes within the established frameworks;

interconnection between networks and the interoperability of telematic services in the community and egypt. ce/eg/en_40-41.

just as the american left, the european left view television as something too important to be left to amateurs, and too important not to go unregulated by government.  the statements of these policies are very frank assessments on the part of government ministers and bureaucrats alike, that the dissemination of information to the public is something of very grave concern to government, and something that the partnership governments in the euro-med should monitor and shape carefully to properly educate their citizens.

like their american counterparts, and no doubt inspiring them, the european ministers are very much concerned about educational matters, and exchanging world views with their muslim neighbors in north africa.  again, these are ministers and bureaucrats of governments, setting joint policies on the educational policies of the heretofore world’s great democracies, with north african societies and economies barely emerging into modernity, in some respects:

article 42

education and training

the parties shall cooperate with the objective of identifying and employing the most effective means to improve significantly education and vocational training, in particular with regard to public and private enterprises, trade-related services, public administrations and authorities, technical agencies, standardisation and certification bodies and other relevant organisations. in this context, the access of women to higher education and training will receive special attention.

and, in like fashion, the european politicians and bureaucrats are concerned that their efforts result in cultural understanding and dialogue, and not just that, but cross aculturalization, in other words the attainment of understanding that transcends mere familiarity and rises to a level of appreciation and affinity.  again, we quote from the euro-med association agreement signed with egypt on 25 june 2001:

article 71

1. the parties agree to promote cultural cooperation in fields of mutual interest and in a spirit of respect for each other’s cultures. they shall establish a sustainable cultural dialogue. this cooperation shall promote in particular:

conservation and restoration of historic and cultural heritage (such as monuments, sites, artefacts, rare books and manuscripts);

exchange of art exhibitions, troupes of performing arts, artists, men of letters, intellectuals and cultural events;

translations;

training of persons working in the cultural field.

2. cooperation in the field of audiovisual media shall seek to encourage cooperation in such areas as co-production and training. the parties shall seek ways to encourage egyptian participation in community initiatives in this sector.

3. the parties agree that existing cultural programmes of the community and of one or more of the member states and further activities of interest to both sides can be extended to egypt.

4. the parties shall, in addition, work to promote cultural cooperation of a commercial nature, particularly through joint projects (production, investment and marketing), training and exchange of information.

5. the parties shall, in identifying cooperation projects, programmes and joint activities, give special attention to young people, self-expression, heritage conservation issues, the dissemination of culture, and communication skills using written and audiovisual media.

6. cooperation shall be implemented in particular through:

a regular dialogue between the parties;

regular exchange of information and ideas in every sector of cooperation including meetings of officials and experts;

transfer of advice, expertise and training;

implementation of joint actions such as seminars and workshops;

technical, administrative and regulatory assistance;

dissemination of information on cooperation initiatives.

again, as with the american left’s vision in “changing course” there is an emphasis on a diplomacy that transcends relationships between states, to an effort to engage entire societies and culture in a mutual exchange of information, and, presumably, good will.  and, please notice again, that such interchange and mutual planning and development is not taking place between garage mechanics grocery store managers, but between those that we might describe as societal elites, politicians and governmental bureaucrats: this looks superficially like democracy, but, in reality, is handmaiden to a far different and more centralized governmental control.  there is a reason why these matters are not widely disseminated in europe and england.

we haven’t set out all the parallels, as such would be very daunting in a paper of this brevity, and i say that full realizing the length required to set this all out even briefly.  but, we think that it should be obvious to even the most partisan observer, that in this matter of people to people diplomacy the american left and the europen left are moving on parallel tracks.

and, that the american left and the european left have decided to court islam and the muslim countries most assiduously as they follow this path.  why have the arabs and muslims of the world, or even of the 3rd world for that matter, been singled out for this?  are there no people less quarrelsome, less warlike, less prone to international and national terrorism, who might have been found more suitable persons with whom to build relationships?  less prickly?  less murderous?

we have seen how the organic documents of the european union and the euro-med agreements suggest that a proper methodology of integrating the societies of the mediterranean basis is by promoting islamic immigration into europe on a massive scale.  the euro-med and egyptian “association agreement” signed  06 june 2001 shows precisely how this is to be implemented, by a massive integration of economies and trade practices, by lowering restrictive trade barriers, and by an insinuation of cross cultural values into both european and muslim societies by joint management of the news, and exchange of entertainers and educators and the like.  and now, a reminder of how the real work of this exchange and change is to be done, as made explicit in the following paragraphs from the euro-med document:  we quote these relevant passages, and inquire of you, if you have ever witnessed diplomacy that was concerned with a dialogue and cooperation on social matters of citizens of different states?  this is not the diplomacy of states, this is a diplomacy that seeks integration of society and government, that seeks to change and regulate the relationships of persons in heretofore separate societies, and not just of their respective governments:

title vi

chapter 1

dialogue and cooperation on social matters

article 62

the parties reaffirm the importance they attach to the fair treatment of their workers legally residing and employed in the territory of the other party. the member states and egypt, at the request of any of them, agree to initiate talks on reciprocal bilateral agreements related to the working conditions and social security rights of egyptian and member state workers legally resident and employed in their respective territory.

article 63

1. the parties shall conduct regular dialogue on social matters which are of interest to them.

2. this dialogue shall be used to find ways to achieve progress in the field of movement of workers and equal treatment and social integration of egyptian and community nationals legally residing in the territories of their host countries. [do you really think 50 million europeans are going to immigrate to north africa in the next 50 years?: jjjay.]

3. the dialogue shall notably cover all issues related to:

(a) migrant communities’ living and working conditions;

(b) migration;

(c) illegal migration;

(d) actions to encourage equal treatment between egyptian and community nationals, mutual knowledge of cultures and civilizations, the furthering of tolerance and the removal of discrimination.

article 64

dialogue on social matters shall be conducted in accordance with the same procedures as those provided for in title i of this agreement.

article 65

with a view to consolidating cooperation between the parties in the social field, projects and programmes shall be carried out in any area of interest to them.

priority will be given to:

(a) reducing migratory pressures, notably by improving living conditions, creating jobs, and income generating activities and developing training in areas from which emigrants come;

(b) promoting the role of women in economic and social development;

(c) bolstering and developing egyptian family planning and mother and child protection

programmes;

(d) improving the social protection system;

(e) improving the health care system;

(f) improving living conditions in poor areas;

(g) implementing and financing exchange and leisure programmes for mixed groups of egyptian and european young people residing in the member states, with a view to promoting mutual knowledge of their respective cultures and fostering tolerance.

ce/eg//en 47-48.

and, finally, our favorite portion of the document, and a treat for those of you who like lists and pomp and ceremony as much as i do:

final act:

the plenipotentiaries of:

the kingdom of belgium,

the kingdom of denmark,

the federal republic of germany,

the hellenic republic,

the kingdom of spain,

the french republic,

ireland,

the italian republic,

the grand ducky of luxembourg,

the kingdom of the netherlands,

the republic of austria,

the portuguese republic,

the republic of finland,

the kingdom of sweden,

the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland,

contracting parties to the treaty establishing the european … , hereinafter referred to as the “member states”, and of the european community, hereinafter referred to as “the community”, of the one part,

and

the plenipotentiaries of the arab republic of egypt, hereinafter referred to as “egypt”,

of the other part,

meeting at luxembourg on 25 june 2001 for the signature of the euro-mediterranean agreement establishing an association between the european communities and their member states,

of the one part,

and the arab republic of egypt,

of the other part,

hereinafter referred to as

“euro-mediterranean agreement”, have adopted the following texts:

the euro-mediterranean agreement, the annexes thereto and the following protocols: … .

in preparing this paper i have talked to some who thought the euro-mediterranean agreement moribund.  the euro-med sure does not act moribund, does it/do they?  they act like they are up and running with a vengeance, these entities that act as member states and as union.

I am not going to tell you the status of the various agreements extent.  you may google that and find out for yourselves.  but, the euro-med is viable, and it is stumbling & bumbling along its way to full status.

it foretells a conquest of a civilization that genghis khan could not muster.  and, every bit of it has been accomplished by a european left inimically hostile to the concept of european nation hood and nationality: europe is not being destroyed from without, it is being destroyed purposefully by those acting from within, and by those who hold firmly as yet to the reins of power.  this all portends a betrayal from with unprecedented, truly in history.

why the left courts islam.

at this juncture a certain intellectual schism emerges, and it relates to trying to understand just why it is that the world’s left is so enamored of islam, and why our culture both on this side of the pond and the other seeks “engagement” with a religion and culture that in so many ways seems to to me hidebound, barbaric, repressive and forever systematically appositional to ever acquiring or even wanting to acquire western knowledge and values.  let alone trying to arrive at some sort of institutional peace between civilizations.  understand something here.  i am not a cultural relativist in any sense of the word.  i believe western civilization, religion, culture and political heritage superior to islam in every respect, and far superior to islam in aiding the individual to lead a cultured, civil, ethical, moral and happy life.  i would gladly pound medina into dust if it meant securing the primacy and survival of the west over the entirety of islam: in a short heartbeat.

i see very little worth in the basic religion, which seems more an instrument of political administration and conquest, than a religion.  in some respects islam seems more about the repression of women than anything else, and the religion exercises rigid control over their behavior and status by any number of regimens.  they suffer violence which is endemic to religious values, and occupy a position is most Islamic cultures which is stultifying and demeaning: women bear the burden of sexual disfigurement when their clitorises are removed, by such precision instruments as broken glass, and suffer other ignominy straight from the middle ages.  yet leftist feminism murmurs nary a sound of dissent.  islam in europe calls for democracy and the rule of law in relation to their own treatment, yet calls for the death of european political leaders, to include the queen of england, former prime minister tony blair, geert wilders in the netherlands who may very well be the next dutch prime minister, … , and yet leftist politicians, prosecutors and public officials intimidate and suppress any european complaint about this by a ferocious and implacable application of “hate speech” rules when europeans have the temerity to point out the social consequences of such behavior: it is a contradiction that defies imagination, yet the european left seems content with it.  and, islamic thugs harass and beat anglican and catholic clerics the length and breadth of europe and england, and the leftist clerics continue to find excuse for such loutish behavior.  the crime rate soars in the presence of islamic males of adolescent and early adulthood, including violent assault and especially the rape of european women, yet such is excused or ignored in the european media.  and, let us not forget, the annual performance upon new year’s eve of the massive burning of french automobiles by muslim “youth,” a new year’s revelry as described in press releases from french ministeries and as reported on french television.

and, there is the matter of culture, and legalism.

europeans are required to exercise tolerance to islamic culture.  yet, islam has entirely no requirement to tolerate european culture, and indeed, european governments and the european union legislate and attempt to stamp out every last vestige of nationalistic sentiment in the european populations whenever it finds expression.  as has been remarked, odd that:  the euro union decries racism yet it imposes a vicious reverse racism on its own subjects in favor of an immigrant class whose “importation” the euro union sponsors, and culturally favors the interlopers when inevitable tensions arise.

it is hard to comprehend intellectually, why this is so.  why does european politics and legal authority suppress european nationalism, even while it champions the right of muslims to express their nationalism, ethnicity and religious ethos while condoning the clear breach of european law and ethos by muslim immigrants?

some suggest there need be no search for obscure explanations, that the reason is obvious, and it lies in the fact that arab nations have the lion’s share of the world’s oil reserves while europe has almost none, and find in those facts ready and reliable explanation as to why the euro leftist who administer the euro union are willing to sell their countrymen down the toilet in favor of arab muslim immigration.  they are of the opinion that europe is hostage to this energy disparity, and that the europeans will do anything to gain access to the middle east’s oil reserves, including political union with them, and accepting the presence their excess populations as immigrants, this burden partially set off by their cheap labor.

i do not agree with this assessment, and confessedly do not find this a ready explanation.

there is no doubt about the disparity in energy reserves between europe and the middle east.  but, to my mind the fact of energy reserves do not begin to explain the european union’s adventures with the “euro-med political partnerships.”  and the key reason to my mind is that the euro-med does not really reach the middle eastern oil fields that one might expect to be the aim of a geo-political thrust to obtain access to arab oil, nor does it really even give the euro union the launching off point to try and gain dominance over the middle eastern fields.  to state it as succinctly as possible, the “euro-med” is an insufficient lever by which to move the middle eastern oil fields into and under europe’s sway.

the reasons are geo-political.

and here, we have a little exercise.

i would like to introduce you to captain john, and his wonderful map of the world’s reserves: this map is by far the cleverest such that i have ever seen, lending at once a graphic understanding of who has the oil and who uses it in the world.  you must follow the link to the map, but it is well worth it, and quite entertaining.

the next thing to do is to go to “google maps,” and pop up the mediterranean sea and the middle east/gulf of arabia in one view, and split your screen, putting captain john’s marvelous map and google maps side by side, and just look at them.

and, finally, do one other thing.  well, you don’t have to do it, we will simply tell you something.  libya is not part of the euro-med organization, and libya has the largest oil reserves in africa.  but, and here is the clue to what i am getting at: africa is not the middle east, and in this instance, it does not look to me that it would give europe the geo-political clout to reach the middle east, even were it a part of the euro-med, and it is not.

look at captain john’s oil map.

saudi arabia is the biggest country in the world, in terms of oil reserves.  and, it become obvious, that though france and germany are amongst the world’s largest consumers of oil, being the same hideous olive as russia, canada, mexico and brazil, that they are laughably lacking in any kind of oil reserves at all.  and, if you go to the map of the world’s coal reserves at the world coal institute, you will find the same situation obtains as to coal and natural gas: europe has none to speak of, or, more precisely, the euro union has bupkis for coal reserves.  the euro union has no energy reserves of its own: it has to buy all of its energy, as a practicle matter,  at retail upon open world markets.  it has a petroleum paucity and an anthracite anomaly, put simply.  ironic, isn’t it, that the euro union should have no carbon of its own.  (does the motive of cheating european scientists to fabricate “global warming” statistics, in order to obtain control over carbon harvesting, distribution and consumption, become clearer, mean anything to you now?  it wasn’t bad science, it was patriotism.)

now that you have absorbed all that, it is back to google map.  and here the sorry state of europe’s geo-political reach is revealed, and it is revealed why the euro-med scheme is not going to give europe access to the middle east’s oil reserves.  europe and euro-med are too far away from the middle east, and euro-med does not put it any closer, in any practicable sense.

since europe is so tiny and saudi arabia so large on captain john’s map, the two look close together.  they are not, in a geo-political sense, and, they are not, in the sense of real politik, and again, euro-med does nothing to put europe any closer to the oil.  the same things that prevent europe from exercising hegemony over the middle east exist even in the presence of an expanded and functioning euro-med partnership.  euro-med, in the strictest sense, changes nothing.  amazingly enough.

in the realities of geo-politics, there are the little matters of syria, jordan, israel and egypt & the suez canal separating europe from the middle east.  they separate europe from the middle east now, and they do not put it any close w/ euro-med.

france and germany and italy and england cannot surmount this reality because they, and the euro union, have no military or diplomatic reach likely to be able to exert any influence on middle eastern oil and energy policy: euro-med will not change this.  neither the euro-med nor the euro union have blue water or strategic navies, and hence no leverage of an immediate presence in the region to influence o.p.e.c. policies on oil supply and production.  if they had navies they do not have the infantry to put ashore such as might constitute a legitimate threat to capture and hold middle eastern oil fields.

and here is a determinative factor geo-politically.

it might be legitimately said that the united states  of america possesses all of those tools and assets, and in an overwhelming fashion.  and it may be legitimately observed that the middle eastern world is acutely aware of u.s. power in this regard, having watched the u.s. forces in action twice in iraq and now in afghanistan, and it escapes no one’s notice that afghanistan is a very long ways away from anywhere, but there we are.  and, moreover, that the u.s. not only has this power, but the ability to marshall sufficient diplomatic and military unity to muster support from the world’s other “powers,” whether it really needs them or not, but it does look good diplomatically, doesn’t it.  (and the united states has not the political will to enforce favorable gas and oil prices on middle eastern suppliers, and so the united state suffers the same geo-political penalty in this sense that the euro-union does.  retail.)

the u.s. cannot force a more favorable price with its power and assets than, … , retail.   and, most assuredly, the euro union without this naked power and asset, is not going to be able to force a more favorable price from the middle east for its oil, either.  and, the eventual materialization of the euro-med is not going to change that geo-political fact one little bit.

the u.s. and the euro union pay the same spot prices for oil that everybody else in the world does.   if they are not willing, or in the case of the europeans, not able to take the resource by brute force, the middle eastern oil barons will reward such ethical propensity by charging retail.

retail is a reality.  and not even a european presence in egypt, and a short pipeline across a short stretch of the red sea below the suez is going to change that.  retail remains the governing fact, in the world of real politik.  any additional costs of delivery of the oil resource to europe associated with changing the location of method of delivery of oil at the terminus belonging to the saudis, will be absorbed by the buyer.  at retail.

oddly enough, if you google the topic of “oil pipelines + saudia arabia” you will not find very much, except a couple of sites which note that several existing pipelines have been closed down by regional conflict. a pretty good site run by pbs explains why more pipelines do not exist carrying crude oil from saudi arabia to europe, and the fact is simple.  pipelines across saudi arabia cost the saudi’s money in production and delivery costs, a cost which they are not willing to absorb:

much of the [saudi arabia’s] oil resources and infrastructure are located in the east, close to the conflict prone persian gulf, necessitating passage through the straits of hormuz, a two mile wide shipping bottleneck at the gulf’s outlet to the sea. of the eight largest oil and gas fields that contain more than half of saudi oil reserves, the two biggest ghawar (the world’s largest oil field) and safaniya (the world’s largest offshore oilfield) are near or in the persian gulf itself. two-thirds of saudi arabia’s crude oil is exported from the gulf via the abqaiq processing facility. saudi arabia’s two primary oil export terminals are located at ras tanura (the world’s largest offshore oil transfer facility) and ras al-ju’aymah, both in the gulf, as well. another terminal lies in yanbu, a port city on the red sea. in an effort to rely less on the gulf route through the straits, the saudis have constructed the east-west crude oil pipeline (petroline) to transport crude nearly 750 miles from the ghawar oil field to yanbu. however, this route is not as efficient as the straits of hormuz, adding five days shipping time to asia. thus far, economic concerns have kept the pipeline operating at only half capacity. the abqaiq-yanbu natural gas liquids pipeline, which runs parallel to the petroline, serves yanbu’s petrochemical plants. two additional pipleines: the trans-arabian pipeline to lebanon and the 48-inch iraqi pipeline have been closed indefinitely due to regional conflicts.

the euro-med adventure does not alter this.

the euros have nothing that they can offer to the middle eastern countries, saudi arabia in particular, that serve as inducements similar to those they are capable of offering their partners in the mediterranean basin.  the saudi’s do not have any excess population that they need siphoned off, so there is not value in reducing oil prices to get rid of excess number by sending them off to europe.  the middle eastern countries do not lack access to educational opportunities for their elites, such as suffered historically by the north africans:  the saudi and the Iraqis have no problems placing students in western universities, nor do they lack the funds to pay for their educational needs.

the situation as to immigration may be a little different for iraq and iran, which do not share in the societal and governmental and ruling class riches enjoyed by saudi and the emirates.  but here, another limiting factor on the utility of trading accommodation for excess muslim populations for access to oil takes over: at some point there has to be a finite limit in an economic sense for the utility of acquiring the benefit of geo-political gain in exchange for the burden of societal damage and expense associated with the importation of marginal people: let’s face it, the euros are going to want to acquire trained persons of economic value, and the muslims are going to want to give away worthless duds.  it is a classic horse trade.

the euros can only absord so many immigrants.

and, it still get them, in my estimation, one overriding reality.

retail prices at the middle eastern production terminuses.  as a cautionary note, please remember that none of these things that brought her mediterranean colleagues into euro-med have induced libya to sign up.

the middle east speaks money.

and, saudi arabia has all the money in the world, almost literally, and it has no excess population to support: and, its per capita income more or less guarantees that no one will leave saudi arabia for menial labor in europe.  and, note one other thing.  it costs money and time and efficiency for saudi arabia to pipeline oil from one side of the country to the other, even if avoiding transit of oil past the straits of hormuz: that is the reason the pipe line to yanbu runs only part time, and i can guarantee you that is only when oil demand is very high, and when high spot prices justify shipment of the oil by pipeline.

the united states has military bases in saudi arabia, and we have defended them twice from iraqi aggressions.  we are their largest customer in the world. for this we get wahiddi terrorism, and retail. europe simply does not have the geo-political nor military muscle to demand otherwise, and the euro-med will not change that situation one iota.  with regard to middle eastern oil, the situation remains for the euro union what it has always been.

no, the saudis will not change.  and the situation for the europeans will not change.–the european union can pick up its oil where everybody else picks up theirs, at the ocean side terminals.  i do not understand how the euro-med partnership(s) will change that calculus one bit.  and, for the house of saud, the oil business is a simple business: you extract the stuff out of the ground and put it in the boats for around a $1 to $2 bill, take the $50 to $70 to $90 @ barrel the guy on the ship pays, and the rest of it, the shipping costs and the manufacturing costs and distribution and sales, why, that’s his dime and his problem.  they simply don’t care.  and, you know something, that’s just the way it ought to be: nobody is putting a gun to our heads to buy the stuff, now, are they?

if i am right, the smart guys at the european union ought to be able to figure that out as well.

if they can figure out that the euro-med’s importation of muslim immigrants will neither secure them guaranteed access to oil, nor reduced prices for the same, then what is the motive for the euro-union to admit 50-100 million muslims (workers + families) into its confines in the next 50 years.  surely, for them to do so, especially in light of the fact that no present labor shortages are demonstrable over the euro union, then there must be some other compelling reason to do so, given the social discord the relatively few number of muslims in europe causes already.

i think i know, and that i understand the thought process of the european left in all of this.

first, the euro lefties think that they are noble to help their third world brothers.  o.k., so much for that bullshit.

second,  the european leftists want to crush the remaining vestiges of nationalism within the european union, and that muslims are just the ones to do it for them, via european union immigration and legal policies.

the raison d’être for muslim europe, or at least a europe sufficiently Islamized that it has destroyed the european national, the flemish, the walloons, the normans, the saxons, the prussians, the hessians, the britons, along with the germans and the english?

it is the new european man.

it is nothing new with ideologues, in fact the crafting of a “new” man to fit the needs of the “new” regime is relatively standard fare for marxist-leninist pap this past 150 years of so.  marxist-leninist theorists under lenin and stalin postulated a new “soviet” man, and they killed thousands of the old model to make way for taking deliveries, so to speak, on  the new models.  we wouldn’t be too surprised that if one searched the archives of the german national socialists one would come up with some sort of reference to the new man most suitable for the visionaries of the party, in charge of such matters.  a man unsurprisingly to look just exactly like the idealization of the aryan soldier found in german political posters and other art works.  and, indeed, if you go to the writings harold lasswell, a 1930’s professor of law at yale law school, and close intellectual colleague of harold laski of london school of economics fame, and a chief intellectual exponent of the british labour party, e.g., anglo-saxon-norman branch of the russian communist party, you will find in both a fervor for the  new “socialist” man, a man especially adapted and fitted for contributing to the regime.

lasswell and laski had been horrified by world war one, and both sought the sinecure of social stability as a way to avoid social upheaval and the violence of open conflict, and both sought in modern social science a way to produce a populace less inclined to such committing such waste. writes dennis smith, democracy on trial, quoted at some length in an earlier article of mine, of the views of these two men:

it was not for lack of effort on harold lasswells’ part.  he wanted very much to psychologically prepare america for fundamental political, and collectivist, change.—

lasswell was a proponent of making the population “psychologically fit” to be citizens, and measuring them to try and determine their proclivities, e.g., what they might do:

like laski, [lasswell] focused upon the dimension of political power.  however, as the title of his book power and personality (1948) implied, the other dimension of his analysis was not economic, but psychological.  in order to make democracy work, the key issue was not to put the economic structure right but to get personality right.  scientists paid considerable attention to shifts in the physical environment, but:

our self-observatories are in a less-advanced state… .  we need a never-ending inventory of the character-personality structure (with special reference to the requirements of democracy) of our one-year olds, our two-year olds and so on up.  these annual cross-sectional patterns can be chosen by proper sampling methods throughout all accessible cultures, all strata in society, and hence during all crisis and intercrisis situations.’  (lasswell 1948: 169).

lasswell proposed that cross-section reports on ‘environmental and predispositional factors’ should be made.  this would permit experiments to be carried out for the sake of determining the relative usefulness of different ways of changing the environment to help in ‘the formation of the democratic personality.’  (lasswell 1948: 169).”  dennis smith, democracy on trial, pages 120-121.

in short, lasswell proposed fitting and crafting the person for suitability in the political scheme, and not crafting the political scheme to fit the needs, aspirations, dreams and desires of the person comprising it.  so much, as they say, for the pursuit of happiness.  lasswell’s motivation was the pursuit of suitability.

lasswell and laski were proponents of rule by societal elites, social scientists and politicians and those in the know, and favored such rule over societies in which the passions and contentions of man led to disorder.  this passage setting forth their views, sets this perspective off nicely.  is there any one reading this who does not find the sentiments of these marxist social scientists of the 1930’s reflected in the structures of the modern british government, or of the euro union, and does not any american reading this see the impetus towards this in his governance.  again, this passage comments on the dennis smith book, democracy on trial:

lasswell and laski formulated many of their criticism of democracy and capitalism, which of course nurtured them both in the comfort, privilege and prestige of professorial endeavor, in the 20’s and 30’s following the horrors of world war i.  it may be said, and has been, that the carnage and waste of that  war, which destroyed the flower of european and english youth and topped empires of long standing, also destroyed western civilization’s faith in itself.  this, i think something of an oversimplification, as the common man persevered and functioned as ever before, (as is the common man’s wont), but it is true to say that wwi destroyed the intellectual classes’ faith in democracy and capitalism.  as noted of lasswell and laski:

both men rejected theories based upon the supposed preferences and actions of rational individuals and a sovereign state.  their immediate intellectual predecessors had defined the ‘task of the hour.’  in lasswell’s words, this task was

the development of a realistic analysis of the political in relation to the social process, and this depends upon the invention of abstract conceptions and upon the prosecution of empirical research.  it is precisely this missing body of theory and practice which … undertook to supply in england and which … has been most foremost in encouraging in the united states.  (lasswell 1951a: 46)’”  dennis smith, democracy on trial, page 109.

in short, lasswell argued for the development of a view of man not premised upon his rationality nor ability to decide what is in his best interests, but to develop a scheme of politics which would somehow inhibit the mischief that indulgence in this belief had caused, wwi bearing eloquent witness.  lasswell would protect us from ourselves, and from our pernicious thoughts.

lasswell and laski were to bring science to bear upon the issues of politics and rule, and science would brook no tolerance of outmoded conceptualizations which had proved impotent to prevent the irrational war to end all wars.  adherence to the old 19th century views of politics were deemed “unscientific,” and those who held to such views were not abreast of the times.  or, as one professor put it, the view to be accepted was “… that the non-rational side of human nature should be accepted as a datum and built into the theories of political science.”  dennis smith, democracy on trial, pages 109-110.  science, (and by direct implication, scientists) should rule the day, with a view towards inhibiting man’s irrationality.

both men were proponents of shaped social discussion, that is, discussion led by scientists and elites, and which constituted, quite frankly, propaganda as shaped and manipulated by societal elites, the media, and others in control of its contents.  this was premised upon their mutual distrust of the passions of men, and their belief that individuals were often the poorest judges of “what was good for them:”

this passage from wikipedia with regard to lasswell is a convenient thumbnail sketch of his views, and should give substantial insight into the manipulation of image and language would forms the language and content of political speech in this day and age:

along with other influential liberals of the period, such as walter lippman, he argued that democracies needed propaganda to keep the uninformed citizenry in agreement with what the specialized class had determined was in their best interests. as he wrote in his entry on propaganda for the encyclopaedia of the social sciences, we must put aside “democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests” since “men are often poor judges of their own interests, flitting from one alternative to the next without solid reason”. [footnote 3, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/harold_lasswell]

lasswell construed the specialized classes as ruling elites, the academics, the socially & economically well positioned, and politicians & political bureaucrats who knew best what was in the interests of the people that they ruled over, and from lasswell’s position, those who occupied those positions if not doing so by virtue, at least had earned the privilege by guile and craft.

this last on harold lasswell and propaganda:

mr. lasswell was not simply interested in passively measuring attitudes, but in actively manipulating attitudes, beliefs, and “normative standards of conduct,” if you will, in order to make a society more tractable and governable.

his first efforts at the study of attitude and belief manipulation involved measuring the efforts of the various propagandists at work in world war one to see how they went about their manipulations.  writes smith :

tocqueville and mill had feared the irrationality of public opinion.  through its agency, prejudice was liable to challenge the rule of the rational.  lasswell demonstrated that nearly a century later the tables had been turned.  the rational procedures of science and bureaucracy were fully equipped to create fantasy and strengthen prejudice within public opinion.  in his study of propaganda during the first world war he showed that this function was systematically organized by the state.  by directing a flow of signs and symbols for the attention of the target audience at home or abroad, the propagandist sought the ‘instigation of animosity toward the enemy, the preservation of friendship between allies and neutrals, and the demoralization of the enemy.’  (1971: 46)

lasswell concluded that propaganda by print, screen and so on was the modern substitute for the tribal tom-tom: ‘print must supplant the dance.’ (221).

………………………..

“….  The propagandist concerned with stirring passions in wartime typically wanted to put a match to the bonfire.  the peacetime politician was usually more interested in pouring water over the danger area.  this was a central theme in psychopathology and politics (1951a).

in this book lasswell dismissed the idea that politics was about rational discussion and democratic consultation.  in a passage which took a point of view diametrically opposed to the line adopted by laski in the grammar of politics, lasswell complained about the ‘vast diversion of energy towards the study of the formal etiquette of government.’  he added:

in some vague way, the problem of politics is the advancement of the good life, but this is a once assumed to depend upon the modification of the mechanisms of government.  democratic theorists in particular have hastily assumed that social harmony depends upon discussion, and that discussion depends upon the formal consultation of all those affected by social problems. the time has come to abandon the assumption that the problem of politics is the problem of promoting discussion among all the interests concerned in a given problem.  discussion frequently complicates social difficulties, for the discussion by far-flung interests arouses a psychology of conflict which produces obstructive, fictitious, and irrelevant values.’  (lasswell 1951a: 196-7)

in lasswell’s view, the problem of politics was less to solve conflicts than to prevent them occurring. political activity should direct society’s energy at ‘the abolition of recurrent sources of strain in society…’  the tension level should be reduced as far as possible through ‘preventive politics.’” [1][5] dennis smith, democracy on trial, pages 122-123.

this should be guided by ‘the truth about the conditions of harmonious human relations, and the discovery of the truth is an object of specialized research; it is no monopoly of people as people, or ruler as ruler.’ (197)”  dennis smith, democracy on trial, page 123.

in short, the art of politics is to get everybody’s head right, to prevent the social discord present when everybody doesn’t have their heads right.  this is an extraordinary passage, and an extraordinary insight into the ideologue’s mind, as it reveals that “truth” is known, and is in conformity with the ideologue’s notion of how things should be, and that the discovery and verification of that truth is to be the object of research, … , by, … , well, who else, the social scientist.

conclusion.

the simple fact is that europe does not have to bring islam and muslims to europe in order to secure its economic productivity, especially if we consider that through euro-med the european union could have utilized the north african/mediterranean basin labor pool in its home countries, via outsourcing, as the united states has done on the north american continent.

it is widely recognized that the united states is an economic colossus.  but what is not so widely known is that canada and mexico also have very strong, and very large economies, ranking among the largest in the world: the size of the north american economy easily outstrips that of the euro union.  the integration of the mexican and canadian economies with that of the united states is responsible for this.

the euro union could have done the same, moving industry to the labor pool in the mediterranean basin.

yet the european union has decided to move the labor pool to the industrial sites, and to move a massive number of north african muslims immigrants into their midst, with all the social problems, crime, and the conflict of religious beliefs, cultural values, and the clash of civilizations.

why?

and, why islam?

why did the leaders of the euro union, and it sure as hell wasn’t the general populace who promoted and adopted these schemes, not simply turn to south america for a populace far more compatible with european norms, given that south america is populated by large groups of european heritage and background, holding similar values and faiths common to their homelands?

there may be contrary explanations for why this was done.

some may contend that it was to secure cheap access to energy, and to achieve control over the region of the world with the largest oil reserves.

i believe this not a persuasive explanation, perhaps not even plausible, and i am convinced that in no wise does it even come close to serving as a complete explanation, because i do not think that europe can achieve such goals as to secure cheaper energy needs via the euro-med project, for the reasons stated above.

i believe that more fundamentally, the social planners and schemers at the euro-med and the european union think that muslims immigrants & muslim immigration are the precise mechanism excusing the imposition of those social controls that finally destroy the last vestiges of european nationalism, of european statehood, those things that stand in the way of the european masses/society from having their ultimate loyalties lie with the european union.

the european elites and leftist politicians intend to bring in enough muslim immigrants to give rise to a sufficient level of social discord and even racial and ethnic and religious values in order to justify the imposition of those societal controls and norms (necessary to prevent the conflict between europeans and the muslims perhaps giving rise to the violence or civil war fomented by the left) which will give rise to the full implementation of the socialist marxist euro union state.  they intend to manage the conflict in such a way as to eliminate any continuing nationalist loyalty, and to instill loyalty political loyalty in the european union as a source of social stability and order.  along the way there will arise the opportunity to achieve and create the “euro man” by this forging of a new demos, a new body politic: the euro man will be slightly browner than his predecessors, he will probably be profoundly anti-catholic and slightly islamic, but, in the end, the euro man will emerge still adhering to european values, if only in a more passive and acquiescent manner than before.

and, he will emerge from this fomented travail, a firm adherent to his protector and benefactor, the state of the euro union.

and, if all goes well, completely ignorant of his manufacture.  and, completely ignorant to that which he is forfeit.

i believe that this vision and this process, using the advent of the most sophisticated communication techniques available, and absolute control of the media and news dissemination with a view towards shaping social policy, represents the ultimate triumph of the school of thought led by the law professor harold lasswell of yale and the social philosopher and avowed marxist harold laski of the london school of economics.  i do not know who, if there is an eternity, has the more smug look on his face at this moment, whether it be carl marx, or vladimir lenin, or harold laski or harold lasswell or joseph goebbels, but i am very sure that it is not montesqieu, or locke or abraham lincoln.

look, if you will, to the provisions in “changing course” and in the “association agreement” between euro-med and egypt regarding the management of the media relations between islam and the united states, and islam and europe.  ostensibly a tactic to create people to people diplomacy in order to build common paths to understanding and tolerance, and ostensibly to bypass and transcend the nation state, it is in fact a process controlled, shaped and manipulated by governmental agencies and bureaucrats to carefully control the dissemination of news, and to mold and shape public perceptions & attitudes with regard to what is thought about the news of the day.

in the end, people end up being just like modeling clay, resistant and stiff to manipulation when cold, but when warmed and massaged, easily formed into a myriad of shapes.  the social planners will never move people past the early stages of outrage, but will continually massage and mold them through control of image and thought until they assume the desired shape, and political posture.  i am betting goebbels has the biggest smile on his face, and see the realization of his thoughts and dreams.

no, this latter thought does not portend well to israel.

the same observations may be made of all levels of the “engagement” and “social interchange” envisioned by the left.  while the exchange of educational opportunity and the like is promoted as a way to help people know each other more intimately as persons, these interchanges and engagements are also to be carefully orchestrated by government agency and bureaucrat, and the frequency and type of such exchanges are to be carefully massaged by the same, with a view towards management.

this is propaganda and management by highly educated social scientists, politicians and bureaucrats with a view toward achieving laski and lasswell’s dreams of societies that are free from conflict and damaging war.  free from the cause of war.  free from the obstreperous speech and conduct which rouses the passions and provides the portent for war.

free of passion.  freed from aspiration.  freed from the burden of thought, and comforted by widely held opinion.  in numbers, truth, in truth, numbers.

such societies are, of course, also free from any burdens associated with thinking for themselves, and free from any serious decisions about with whom they associate, or what they might think of those with whom they are thrust into intimate association by forces other then themselves.

the thoughts, the passions, the upheavals of populations in whom nationalistic sentiments reside are entirely antithetical to the docile, passive and shaped populations envisioned by lasswell & laski, and envisioned by the authors of “changing course” and the shapers of the “association agreements” guiding the formation of the euro-med: make no mistake about it, the motives behind all of these things are shaped by the same visions.

and ultimately, by the same mistrusts.

lasswell & laski, george soros and madeline albright, the architects behind the curtain if you will of “changing course,” and the social planners of the euro union do not think that you and are capable of making up our own minds as to how we wish to live in the “complex world,” nor how we wish government to govern us in such a “complex world:” they think such decisions beyond us.

oddly enough, they do not think such decisions beyond them.  they think themselves quite capable of deciding such matters, and, if you will recall lasswell and laski, deciding such matters without a whole lot of worthless discussion with us.  simply put.

if you think this nonsense conjecture, please reflect for a moment on the recent debacle involving the conference on climate recently held in copenhagen, denmark.  mere weeks before the convening the convention, the advocates of the global warming treaty were prepared to waltz into copenhagen and pass the treaty, a done deal, and this treaty would have created a massive edifice giving atmosphere science and state bureaucrats the authority to manage and determine global industrial production, pollution policies, and would have given other bureaucrats you have never met, never seen and never even heard of, the ability to impose personal income taxes and to have taken the revenues from the same and distributed it to the 3rd world in a massive scheme of income redistribution.

and this magnificent edifice would have been governed by rules and procedures you would never have known about and quite beyond your reach to influence or control.

and, every bit of it was built on lie.

or, as harold lasswell and harold laski would have said, truth found by scientist and social policy experts beyond our ken, and shaped in such a manner as to have guided us toward proper social action.  or, in short, the entirety of global warming science appears to have been nothing less than a massive propaganda scheme to have conferred our governance upon unseen and inaccessible experts.

you think trying to get something out of microsoft relative to your computer is difficult, you try and find out something about the european union: friends, every bit of information in this post was obtained by dint of concerted effort, digging up documents that are hidden and secreted.  does that reassure you, that the eurpean union which wants to reshape europe, doesn’t want to talk about it very damned much.

and, in a fashion that lasswell and laski would have applauded, they don’t want you worrying your pretty little heads very much about it either, and they sure as hell don’t want any europeans talking about the immigration policies they are shaping, nor talking about the muslims they intend to bring into europe.

in fact, to do so is against the law of the european union, and is a criminal defense.  ask geert wilders, or lars hedegaard, or mark steyn in canada, what it is to come afoul of the european and canadian “hate speech” laws.

it turns out that the “new” socialist man, just as the old “soviet man,” and just as the docile fellow envisioned by laswell and laski, is one who keeps his mouth shut.

this much is clear.  i believe that it is more than likely that this is entirely the reason that muslim labor is being brought into europe by european politicians, to give them precisely the rationale they need to impose the social controls that help them achieve the societies envisioned by those two great champions of leftist thought, harold lasswell and harold laski.

it is, of course, entirely obvious that lasswell and laski would have viewed the expression of my individual and individualistic views as counterproductive to an orderly society, as consuming worthless effort to accommodate, and, ultimately as uninformed and not relevant, because i am not one of the philosopher kings authorized by education, title, rank and bureaucratic grade to issue such pronouncements.

joseph stalin shot people in the back of the head to impose his views of the “soviet man.”

the only question is, how much will the european leftist unleash the hounds of war under their “control” against their fellow europeans to achieve the level of social control they seek.  oh, yes, the create the crime and the unrest, so that they may control it, and, not coincidentally, so that they may control their fellow citizens by the repressive measures they will feel authorized to impose.

theo van gogh suggests that they are not hesitant to use violence, and the attack on kurt westergaard in denmark the other day confirms that islam will be a hound of war that will have no hesitancy to attack the more vocal elements in the population, when commanded by the leftist planners and bureaucrats.

they remind me so much of hitler’s minions, or stalin’s henchmen, take your pick.  vicious mollusks in control of islamic pit bulls.

the only question remains, is who will deal with the muslims, when their “usefulness” has run its course?

john jay @ 01.04.2009

p.s.  let me ask you.  did you see anything in any of these publications from the left, … , anything at all, about values, or ethics or religious beliefs or moral conviction convictions, or about right and upholding truth?  no, i don’t believe you did.

surely, harold lasswell is as contented as joseph goebbles, though i don’t believe he was given to smiling very much.

http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2010/01/the-radical-left-so-despises-europe-that-it-intends-to-destroy-it-by-muslim-immigration-and-i-have-t.html

Posted in E.U., Islamization | Leave a Comment »

Here comes EuroMed: 14 days left to protest!

Posted by paulipoldie on January 13, 2010

By Henrik R Clausen 13 January 2010

The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, also known as EuroMed, has been pretty much under the radar for 15 years. When it caused some public discussion in 2008, it was renamed ”Union for the Mediterranean”, and quietly permitted to proceed. Not much was heard of it, but now

EuropeNews has the scoop: It is being established now – and we have a window of merely 14 days to protest it.

The news is tucked away in this discreet ANSAmed news item:

MED UNION: JORDANIAN MASADEH APPOINTED AS SECRETARY

Quote:

Ahmad Khalaf Masadeh, Jordanian ambassador to Brussels, has today been appointed as secretary general of the Mediterranean Union.

It is remarkable that an ambassador of a non-democratic nation has been appointed to head the Union. Now, it should not be assumed that the European Union, run by a non-elected Commission and having a non-elected President, should care too much about such details.

But since the 16 non-EU states of the Mediterranean Union does include decent democracies (Israel, Croatia) as well as more dubious ones (Albania, Bosnia, Turkey), it would seem appropriate to appoint a representative from a democratic country to head the Union.

There are more remarkable passages in that piece. Quote:
A statement will be circulated tomorrow amongst the 42 Foreign ministers of the countries which make up the Mediterranean Union, with any comments to be made within 15 days. With the exception of surprise opposition, today’s appointment will be definitively approved by a process of tacit consent.

There we have it – full stealth mode. Unless someone protests loudly, this will proceed. Now, in order to field a reasonable protest, one needs to know what goes on, and politicians in democracies need to know if they have public support for the protest or not. Since neither of these are the case, no protests can be expected, and the project will continue.

What is the project about?
From the EuroMed web site:

  • Political and Security Dialogue, aimed at creating a common area of peace and stability underpinned by sustainable development, rule of law, democracy and human rights.
  • Economic and Financial Partnership, including the gradual establishment of a free-trade area aimed at promoting shared economic opportunity through sustainable and balanced socio-economic development.
  • Social, Cultural and Human Partnership, aimed at promoting understanding and intercultural dialogue between cultures, religions and people, and facilitating exchanges between civil society and ordinary citizens, particularly women and young people.

Sounds sweet, doesn’t it? But it also suffers from the kind of abstraction where you can tuck in just about anything. To figure out what goes on and what the perspectives are, one should perhaps consult the EuroMed University in Slovenia.

One could also ask the Anna Lindh Foundation or study their Strategy Paper to find out.

Or solicit the opinion of the Alliance of Civilizations.

The AoC home page currently features a photo of the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, recent recepient of the ”King Faisal International Prize”, explicitly given for ”his services to Islam”. Report at JihadWatch.

The participation of persons and governments like these, who also openly maintain warm relations to the brutal Iranian regime, is in itself sufficient reason to suspend EuroMed indefinitely.

All of this, apart from the King Faisal International Prize, is paid for by our tax money, yet far removed from public scrutiny and debate. We should not accept our leaders to engage in a project like this, developed behind closed doors, with lofty and unclear perspectives. A project left naïvely open to exploitation by non-democratic member states and religious fanatics alike.

What is the difference between EuroMed and the Union for the Mediterranean?
Quote:

While maintaining the acquis of its predecessor, the Barcelona Process http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/euromed/barcelona_en.htm offers more balanced governance, increased visibility to its citizens and a commitment to tangible, regional and trans-national projects.

In other words, nothing major.

The change of name hostensibly serves to increase visibility, but in reality this is mere window dressing to confuse the press and the public.

There was an implicit assumption that when French President Sarkozy launched his Union for the Mediterranean, Sarkozy’s proposal for Mediterranean bloc makes waves it was a different initiative, that the concerns about the original EuroMed had been taken seriously, causing it to be replaced by a less ambitious and less dangerous ‘Club Med’. This is documentably false.

The confusion, however, worked quite well. It became unclear to journalists and citizens alike what was the nature of Sarkozy’s project, what kind of progress would take place, and if this made sense at all. The last significant press reports assume that the project was now faltering Sarkozy’s Union of the Mediterranean falters, thus nothing to worry about. In reality his “Club Med” has served to cover the fact that EuroMed proceeds apace.

Thus, we have been subject to several acts of deception. This is not in itself illegal or punishable under the law, it is merely disrespect for the spirit of democracy. We should not be all too surprised, for Sarkozy performed a similar sleight of hand for the Constitutional Treaty, now renamed the Lisbon Treaty, after it had been rejected in French and Dutch referendums.

Sarkozy had originally promised the electorate that the Constitutional Treaty would be replaced by a ‘Mini-treaty’, a concept that lead journalists and citizens alike to assume that the concerns that led to the rejection by the people had been addresssed.

The new Treaty, however, turned out to be wordier than the rejected one. Sarkozy kept his promise with a simple trick: Setting the revised version with a smaller type, that it could be printed on fewer pages. Such behaviour from our most trusted politicians leave us lost for words, damaging democracy itself by means of contempt from our very own leaders. More on that (a very interesting subject unto itself) in From Constitution to Lisbon.

This practice of deception alone is sufficient reason for the citizens of Europe to reject EuroMed, now renamed Union for the Mediterranean. It is a project not subjected to public scrutiny, conceived before it was understood that Islamism is a threat to the free world, and based on blind and naïve assumptions on the goodwill of all involved parties. This is unworkable and dangerous in the current political situation.

Much more needs to be researched and discussed about EuroMed, its implications for Europe, for immigration and the development of Euroabia. The latter was for a long time considered almost a conspiracist theory created by historian Bat Ye’or. Yet, if one connects the dots and follows the news, its implementation is well underway, formally as well as informally. She was right from the very first day.

Right now we need to pull the brake on establishing the EuroMed institutions. You can help to do that, by writing to the newspapers or even going directly to the Foreign minister of your contry, requesting an immediate halt to this stealth project. The time is now. We have 14 days.

UPDATE – Bat Ye’or comments:

I commend you for warning Europeans about the political decisions taken by their leaders without consulting their public opinions on matters that would change totally their future, and not for their advantage. Europeans should request to be consulted on Foreign policy and immigration issues.They should not allow a small group of people to conduct their affairs behind their back, as it has been for the whole immigration and Mediterranean policy since 1973 as European, Arab, and American sources confirm it. The media should be open to debates and should not be controlled by networks subjected to the Organization of the Islamic Conference fatwas. This is going on now. More and more international policy is conducted through international networks linked to the UN bodies weakening democratic institutions.

http://europenews.dk/en/node/28957

Posted in E.U., Islamization, Must Read, News | 1 Comment »

Euro-Med Partnership: 50 Million More Muslims Into Europe

Posted by paulipoldie on January 6, 2010

…ultimately reaching the EU’s four fundamental freedoms: free movement of goods, services, capital and people (more here)

Last week I ran a column in The Washington Times, The American Thinker and Newsmax on the Euro-Med partnership (more like a suicide pact).

My colleague, legal eagle John Jay, has been studying the documents relating to Euro-Med. The findings from his research are staggering. The Euro union will import an almost incomprehensible number of Muslims into Europe.

50 million laborers with families. By year 2050 the Islamic population will be 25-30% of the Euro population. Perhaps over 100 million Muslims in Europe.

Association agreements,” parse out how the E.U. and countries involved in the Euro-Med are going delineate what the concrete relations are. This link at wikipedia explains what “association agreements” are: in effect, they are individualized “changing courses” negotiated between the Euro Union and the countries.

Here is a very good synopsis of Euro Union documents, a digest.

The US Muslim engagement document, the blueprint for the Obama administration and a charter for our dhimmitude, parallels these plans. It’s the same “cross-culturalization” plans discussed and recommended in the Euro-Med partnership. (More on the US Muslim engagement here and here.)

Take, for example, a look at the association agreement with Egypt. It talks of the same things as “changing course”. Links galore, except they have all been suspended, and are routed into a new site for the European Union, and you cannot find anything in there. They have hidden everything having to do with this. I am surprised this page is up, which is why I have taken a screen shot of it while it’s still up:

Association Agreement with Egypt
[..]
– training of persons working in the cultural field.
Promote cultural cooperation of a commercial nature, production, investment and marketing, training and exchange of information. Cooperation in the field of audiovisual media shall seek to encourage cooperation in such areas as co-production and training. The Union shall seek ways to encourage Egyptian participation in Community initiatives in this sector. See article 71.

The “association agreements” with Egypt, Jordan, etc. — that’s where the rubber meets the road on fleshing out agreements on culture, immigration, leadership exchanges …

Association Agreements between the European Union and the Mediterranean Partners The bilateral track of The Barcelona Process foresees a bilateral section governed by a series of bilateral Association Agreements. There are certain common aspects to all of them: political dialogue, respect for human rights and democracy, establishment of WTO-compatible free trade over a transitional period of up to 12 years, provisions relating to intellectual property, services, public procurement, competition rules, state aids and monopolies, economic cooperation, cooperation relating to social affairs and migration and cultural cooperation. To come into into force, the Agreements must be ratified by the European Parliament, the Parliaments of the EU member states and the partner country. This procedure is long. The Agreements foresees reduction of the custom rights for industrial and agricultural products.

A new Euro-Med University was formally launched on 9 June, 2008 in Slovenia. Based in Piran, on the Adriatic coastline, the University will initially be developed by the Centre for Euro-Med Studies. (more here)

Universities and research insitutes are invited to become partner insitutions [sic].  So far , from the UK, the Universities of Westminister, Cambridge and Bristol have expressed interest.

Cross culturization among universities and colleges. Institutional fascism and historical revisionism. Education and history though an Islamic prism.

If you go to the EMUNI (Euromed University) site, it gives you a clear indication of what they are up to. Front and Center is the Organization ofIslamic Conference (OIC’)’s Alliance of Civilizations:

Cairo, Egypt, 15 – 16 Dec. EMUNI representatives were part of the accompanying delegation of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Slovenia at his official visit to the Arab Republic of Egypt. In the frame of the visit Prof. Dr. Joseph Mifsud and Ambassador Mohamed Rifaah (Assistant Foreign Minister, head of the Institute for Diplomatic Studies) signed a Memorandum of Understanding. More…

Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The first Alliance of Civilizations’ South-East European Conference was held in Sarajevo. It was attended also by Prof. Dr. Joseph Mifsud, who was a panelist at a session dedicated to intercultural dialogue and opened by Hans D’Orville, Deputy Director General of UNESCO. More…

Bat Ye’or said the following of the Alliance of Civilizations in a speech given at the Counter Jihad conference in Brussels in 2007: The Alliance of Civilizations, created to oppose the clash of civilizations, that is jihad, has also added pressure. On 13 November 2006, the High-Level Group of the Alliance of Civilizations presented its report. which sums up the request of the OIC at its Mecca Summit in 2005, after the Cartoons affair. First, it adopts the Islamic view of history and politics by claiming that everything was fine between the three monotheistic religions until the 19thcentury, when the evil of European colonialism and Zionism destroyed this harmony. Then it affirms that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the main source of Christian-Muslim antagonism, not the jihadist war and ideology that deny for others the right to exist. It proclaims that this conflict “remains one of the gravest threats to international stability” and formulates recommendations that again echo the OIC requests. Such views mirror Hitler accusing the Jews of fomenting World War II, or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, praised in the Hamas charter, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood which denies Israel’s right to exist.

Why would Europe undertake such a diabolical and disastrous immigration bomb? And that’s what this is. Geert Wilders said in a speech at Columbia University in October 2009:

Make no mistake: Islam has always attempted to conquer Europe. Spain fell in the 8th century. Constantinople fell in the 15th century. Vienna and Poland were threatened, and now, in the 21st century, Islam is trying again. This time not with military armies, but through migration and demography.

For the first time in world history there are dozens of millions of Muslims living outside the Dar al-Islam, the Islamic world. Europe now has more than 50 million Muslims. It is expected that one fifth of the population of the European Union will be Muslim within 40 years.

In 1974 no one took the Algerian President Boumédienne all too serious when he said to the UN general assembly: “One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one. But not as friends. Because they will burst in to conquer, and they will conquer by populating it with their children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women”. End of quote.

And Libyan dictator Gaddafi said: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent and the number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted to Islam. Europe will one day be a Muslim continent”. End of quote.

Indeed Gaddafi is telling the truth here, through the Islamic concept of migration – called Al Hijra – Europe is in the process of becoming Eurabia.

The final nail in the lid of the coffin, the notes from the Euro Commission to the underlings at the Euro parliament…

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 10.6.2009

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen

In particular, there are rules that make legal immigration fairer and easier to understand, a common agenda has been agreed for facilitating integration into European societies, and stronger action is being taken against illegal immigration and human trafficking. Partnerships have also been established with non-Union countries so that questions associated with migration can be managed in a concerted fashion. page 2-3

In 2006 there were 18.5 million non-EU nationals registered in the Union, which is about 3.8% of the total population. Migratory pressures can be expected to grow further. This is due to population growth and poverty in many of the countries of origin, and to the ageing of the population of Europe: between 2008 and 2060 the number of people of working age is expected to fall by 15%, or about 50 million.

Why? Why cause that social strain, expose the union to the inevitable violence? John Jay believes:

it is because the left does it on purpose to cause precisely that violence and upheaval. so that they may use islam as storm troopers to attack opposition to euro union politics amongst the population, kill or drive out nationalists, and so that the euro union may then step in and assert itself over a population that will have no other entity with whom to cast its lot.

it will then be “loyal” to its “protector,” the euro union, having no more allegiance to the nation states.

well, it worked for tito, and it worked for stalin, for a time. didn’t it. didn’t think of it just in that way, did you.

Read the essay.

The source notes:

this llink is to a whole host of research materials i read and gathered to do the main essay. it contains text from and a link to the paris convention of the euro union which announced a policy of immigration to meet anticipated domestic labor shortages; it contains text from and a link to the entire 355 page pdf document of a euro-med (part of the eu) “association agreement” with europe in which chapters 64-67 describe the workings of such an immigration accore; and, it contains a text from and a link to a nov./dec. communique from the president of the euro union commission to the euro union parliament with an estimate that the labor shortage which this immigration to replace will require replacing 50 million european workers by year 2060.

UPDATE: Atlas reader anti-jihadist found this story: Sahara Sun to “help Power Europe”. He opined, “A recent development to have 15% of Europe’s electricity supply coming from concentrated solar power plants in North Africa. This in a contract worth $400 billion! If the plan is realized, could the future Colonel Ghadaffis not end-up controlling Europe’s electricity supply – and economy – at the click of a switch? To have 15% of electricity lost in a split second could result in power cuts, blackouts and chaos on an extreme scale…

And what could this make careerist politicians of the future willing to agree to, to avoid such a scenario?” Euromed.

Qaddafi tried to hold off on Euromed. He refused any involvement of Israel  – perhaps they bought him off.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/01/euromed-partnership-forecast-50-million-muslims-into-europe.html#more

Posted in E.U., Islamization | 8 Comments »

Surviving the Coming Crash

Posted by paulipoldie on December 3, 2009

by Baron Bodissey

The Fjordman Report
The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

As I have stated my essay The Coming Crash, I think we need to realize that the current ideological order is broken and beyond repair. There will probably some sort of pan-Western economic and social collapse in the not-too-distant future; I fear this is too late to avoid by now. The people who support the ruling paradigm are too powerful, and the paradigm itself contains so many flaws, that it cannot be fixed. It needs to crash. Instead of wasting time and energy on attempting to fix what cannot be fixed we need to prepare as best as we can for the coming crash and hopefully regroup to create a stronger and healthier culture afterward.

White GuiltWe are currently in the middle of the White Guilt Gold Rush. If you are a white Westerner you may not have fully realized this, but I can assure you that the rest of the world knows this. The trick is to keep the white man on the defensive and vaguely guilty at all times so that he can be squeezed for money. The climate quotas for carbon dioxide constitute a thinly disguised form of global Socialism through the UN-sponsored redistribution of wealth.

The recent scientific scandal about fake data regarding man-made global warming is just the tip of the iceberg. There are currently so many different layers of lies from “gender equality” via IQ differences to climate that it is virtually impossible to deal with all of them. Our entire society has essentially become one big lie. Our media, our schools and our political leaders repeat these lies every single day; those daring to question them are immediately ostracized.

EU Skull Dragon
Since the EU has forced through the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty and in essence abolished not just popular influence on EU policies but dissolved dozens of nation states, the self-appointed European elites have in effect banned any legal opposition to their rule. It is no longer possible to formally oppose their policies within the regular political channels. Given that the same elites appear hell-bent on running the entire continent into the ground, this leaves the options of rebellion or a structural collapse. I don’t think we will see open rebellion just yet, although this could change if the economy deteriorates further. This means that the most likely way out now is a structural collapse, and I fear that’s exactly what we are going to get.
– – – – – – – –
Didn’t the Obama Administration with international aid “save” the world from a looming financial crisis? Of course they didn’t. The main problem for the USA is that the national debt keeps rising while the national IQ keeps falling. This hasn’t changed one bit in the past year. On the contrary, it is worse now than it was before, and it looks like it will be worse still next year and the year after that. As long as this situation remains unchanged, my bet is that the price of gold will continue to rise as people seek safe harbor from the collapsing US dollar.

Although other industrialized countries have heavy debt loads, too, the case of the United States is especially serious because of its sheer size. Had the USA been a private person he would probably have been declared bankrupt a long time ago. But the United States is not a private person; it is still the world’s largest economy and has the world’s largest armed forces. As writer Takuan Seiyo states in the latest installment of his brilliant From Meccania to Atlantis series: “The strongest, most admired country in the world until just a few years ago is now a cautionary tale of the wages of sin and stupidity told to Chinese schoolchildren.”

I don’t know what the future holds for the USA. It could split apart along ethic and ideological lines in a Second American Civil War, or it could become just another Latin American country along with Canada, in which case all of America will be Latin America.

I could add that I don’t hate Latin America. If we do end up with a series of nasty Multicultural civil wars in Western Europe it is possible that some areas of South America could be better places to live than Birmingham or Marseilles. However, Latin America never has been and probably never will be a major force in world politics. If the United States declines this will shift global power back to Eurasia, where it has been throughout most of human history. China will in all likelihood be a leading player and perhaps the dominant one.

I am increasingly convinced that some of the developments we are witnessing are deliberate and that there is a long-term goal among certain powerful groups of breaking down Western nations to facilitate the creation of a global oligarchy. The lies we are being served are virtually identical in every single Western country. I’ve had discussions about this with my Chinese friend Ohmyrus who thinks this is caused by a structural flaw in our democratic system. I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but there are other forces at work here as well.

According to Herman Van Rompuy, the newly-installed President of the European Union, the climate conference in Copenhagen is a step towards the “global management” of our planet. As author Bat Ye’or has demonstrated and as I have confirmed in my own book Defeating Eurabia, the EU is actively collaborating with Islamic countries to rewrite the textbooks in European countries to make them more “Islam-friendly.”

Euro MedIt is well-documented that there are detailed long-term plans to expand the EU to include Muslim North Africa and the Middle East. This has been publicly confirmed by several high-ranking officials, including the British Foreign Minister in 2007. One newspaper leaked EU plans to import 50 million (!) more Africans to Europe in the coming decades, although urban communities across Western Europe are already in the process of breaking down due to mass immigration. A high-ranking official from Tony Blair’s Labour Government in Britain openly confirmed that they promoted mass immigration to import voters and alter the ethnic composition of the country. Similar policies are undoubtedly being promoted in countries from Germany to Australia.

In June 2009, only a few years after a group of Arabs killed thousands of Americans in a Jihadist attack, former US President Bill Clinton told an Arab American audience that soon the USA will no longer have a majority of people with a European heritage. He believed that “this is a very positive thing.” It wasn’t that first time that Mr. Clinton expressed such views.

Jens Orback, Democracy Minister in the then Social Democratic Swedish government, during a radio debate stated that “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.” He took it for granted that the natives will become a minority in their own country and that they have no right to oppose this.

I could add that Sweden has no colonial history. Neither have Finland or Norway, which gained their independence as late as the twentieth century, yet both countries are still force-fed mass immigration of alien peoples. The “colonial guilt” argument used against the natives in Britain, France and other Western European countries is bogus. The real issue is that we white Westerners should not have any countries to call our own. Our countries should be giant Multicultural theme parks for everybody else, financed by brainwashed white taxpayers.

Arguably the leading academic Multiculturalist in my country, Professor Thomas Hylland Eriksen of the University in Oslo, who has received millions in government funding for his projects, in an interview stated frankly that “The most important blank spot exists now in deconstructing the majority so thoroughly that it can never be called the majority again.” This is the ultimate goal of Western Multiculturalists. Make no mistake about it. Needless to say, this agenda is only pushed in white majority Western countries. All other countries are allowed to retain their demographic profile; only the West is required to commit suicide.

Law and order is rapidly breaking down in major cities across Western Europe, and indeed the Western world, as immigrant gangs rule the streets. The law is only upheld against the “racist” white majority population to ensure that they keep on paying ridiculously high taxes to authorities that do nothing but lie to them, insult them and aid their national destruction.

As the eminent English writer El Inglés says, “The nature and severity of the problems we face are now sufficiently clear for European patriots to start asking themselves what actions they and others like them will eventually be called upon to take when the failure of the state reaches a critical point, and what sort of battlefield they will be arrayed upon at that moment.”

Karl MarxOne thing we absolutely need to do is to break the stranglehold that Marxist and Leftist groups have successfully established over the media and the education system in Western countries. These people need to be squashed. Maybe some readers think this sounds too harsh, but I firmly believe that we cannot deal effectively with our external enemies as long as our internal enemies control the information flow. We must reject those who promote a Globalist world, including multinational corporations that desire unlimited access to cheap labor.

Imagine if you have a person jumping off a plane without a parachute because he is convinced that he has “moved beyond gravity.” If works for a little while, until it suddenly doesn’t. That sounds too crazy to be true until you realize that this is what the entire Western world is doing right now when we pretend that we have “moved beyond ethnic divisions.” It is hardwired into the human brain to look after your people and “tribe” first. The only ones who are not currently doing this are whites. If, or rather when, white Westerners start behaving like everybody else our countries will quickly become Balkanized nightmares of competing tribes.

We must switch from a “save the world” to a “save ourselves” mode. In the early twentieth century, people of European origins made up one third of the global population, maybe as much as 40%. In the not-too-distant future this figure will be down to less than 10% and falling. This sharp reduction has not been caused by a plague but by a massive population increase in Third World countries, ironically facilitated by the global technological civilization created by European advances. We have given alien peoples the technological ability to multiply, move to our countries and colonize us. This cannot be allowed to continue.

We must start looking after our own interests just like everybody else. Self-preservation is a natural instinct for all living things down to plants and bacteria. The first thing we must do is to bury the entire notion of “racism,” which is anti-scientific nonsense exclusively designed to intimidate whites. It is perfectly conceivable, indeed highly likely, that there is a major genetic component to culture. This would imply that the preservation of the European cultural heritage can only be accomplished through the preservation of our genetic heritage.

It is becoming more or less mandatory for teachers in many Western countries to disparage European peoples, their culture and their heritage. We don’t need to have special reeducation camps because the media and the education system ensure that our society is virtually one large reeducation camp. Unfortunately, that’s not much of an exaggeration. In Hollywood films such as the disaster movie 2012, which I had the misfortune of seeing, all whites are portrayed either as evil and selfish or as losers whereas the non-white characters are portrayed as selfless and heroic. In reality, whites are today among the most selfless and least ethnocentric groups on the planet, and we are being punished heavily for this trait.

The truth is that whites create superior societies. Not only are others not capable of creating what we do, most of them are not even capable of maintaining it. The one major exception would be Northeast Asians, the only other large group of people on this planet apart from Europeans capable of sustaining a technologically sophisticated society. If anybody replaces us as the world’s leading civilization it will be them, for the simple reason that they are the only ones who possess a genetic intelligence to match ours, and they are not suicidal.

ImmigrantsBecause we create attractive societies other peoples want to move to our countries, but in displacing us they will gradually destroy what made our countries desirable places to live in the first place. They both hate and secretly envy us, and our children suffer needlessly from the violence and verbal abuse caused by this. If whites put up a colony on the planet Mars, I am sure others would hitchhike there on our space ships and demand that we let them in. Once there they would not exhibit any trace of gratitude. On the contrary, they would constantly whine and complain about how evil and racist and oppressive the white man is.

Muslims would demand respect because we owe all our scientific and technological advances to medieval Muslim scholars and because the Martian colony is the 63rd holiest place in Islam. In case you thought the latter sentence was intended as a joke, think again. In 1997 three Arab Muslim gentlemen from the Yemen sued NASA for trespassing on Mars, which they claimed that they owned because they inherited the planet from their ancestors 3,000 years ago.

Novelist Virginia Woolf famously wrote that women need “a room of their own.” In the twenty-first century it is whites who need a room of our own, and if we cannot have that in Europe, which is our cradle, then I don’t see where else we can have it. The alternative is that we maintain a continuing cycle where whites create dynamic societies that are overrun by people incapable of sustaining them. This cycle will finally end when the existence of white communities itself ends. The only viable long-term solution to this dilemma is physical separation. If you force very different peoples to share the same geographic space, conflict is inevitable. This insight was once considered common sense. Now it’s “hate speech.”

Will such a policy not be denounced as “hate” and “Fascism”? Possibly, but I don’t see why we should care about that. We, too, have a right to shape our destiny. Besides, we could always use the arguments of our critics against them. If whites truly are uniquely evil and oppressive, as some people seem to think, is it then not an act of mercy to keep non-whites away from us? That way they don’t have to become exposed to our racism, our hatred and our Islamophobia, but can retain their diverse, authentic and colorful tribal violence undisturbed.

One change that could conceivably take place is that people of European origins develop a stronger identity as “whites” on top of their national identities. I tried to explain to a hostile and now luckily discredited American blogger a while ago that the term “white nationalist” is meaningless in a European context. Maybe it carries some meaning in North America or Australia where most whites are of a mixed heritage, but over here it does not. Englishmen and Germans look fairly similar, but that hasn’t prevented them from slaughtering each other by the millions. Ditto for the French and the Spanish, the Poles and the Russians etc.

I don’t know if there ever will be a “white” identity. Perhaps we are just too different. What I do know is that if such an identity ever comes into being it will to a large extent have been created and forced upon us by our enemies. I have watched a number of disturbing videos, filmed by the attackers, of gangs of blacks or Arabs attacking what appears to be completely random whites. This happens from Sweden via Germany, Britain and France to the United States. This escalating wave of anti-white violence is one of the least-reported major news stories today as Western mainstream media almost uniformly try to cover these things up.

What strikes my about these attacks is that they are based on skin color; nobody asks the victims whether they are Russian Orthodox, Polish Catholics, English atheists, German Lutherans or Dutch Calvinists. These distinctions matter a great deal to us — we have fought many bloody wars because of them — yet they do not seem to matter to those who hate us. If people feel that they are attacked as whites they may start defending themselves as such, too.

The coming pan-Western crash will at the very least lead to an ideological-political paradigm shift and the rise of a new mythology to replace the post-WWII “suicide paradigm” of misunderstood anti-Nazism. At worst, the discontinuity will be so long and severe that what emerges on the other side will be a completely new civilization, the third generation of European civilization, just like what emerged during the Middle Ages was a different civilization from that of Greco-Roman Antiquity. The transition between the first and second generations of European civilization took centuries. History generally moves faster now than it did back then, but I suspect such a transition will nevertheless take several generations.

How a new civilization would look like I do not know. Medieval Europeans used different elements of the Greco-Roman legacy creatively and added new innovations on top of this. Generation Two of European civilization contained within itself aspects of Generation One, but also contained elements of sharp discontinuity. This will probably be the case next time, too.

All of this does admittedly sound a bit gloomy, yet I truthfully remain convinced that we have the necessary cultural and genetic resources to regroup and regenerate at some point, although it is conceivable that whites will in the future come from fewer bloodlines than we do today.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/12/surviving-coming-crash.html#readfurther

Posted in E.U., Fjordman, Islamization | Leave a Comment »

Meet the President of Europe

Posted by paulipoldie on November 21, 2009

Herman Van Rompuy. Get used to the name. He is the first President of the European Union, which with the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon by all the 27 EU member states in early November was transformed into a genuine United States of Europe.

The President of Europe has not been elected; he was appointed in a secret meeting of the heads of government of the 27 EU member states. They chose one of their own. Herman Van Rompuy was the Prime Minister of Belgium. I knew him when he was just setting out, reluctantly, on his political career.

To understand Herman, one must know something about Belgium, a tiny country in Western Europe, and the prototype of the EU. Belgians do not exist as a nation. Belgium is an artificial state, constructed by the international powers in 1830 as a political compromise and experiment. The country consists of 6 million Dutch, living in Flanders, the northern half of the country, and 4 million French, living in Wallonia, the southern half. The Belgian Dutch, called Flemings, would have preferred to stay part of the Netherlands, as they were until 1830, while the Belgian French, called Walloons, would have preferred to join France. Instead, they were forced to live together in one state.

Belgians do not like their state. They despise it. They say it represents nothing. There are no Belgian patriots, because no-one is willing to die for a flag which does not represent anything. Because Belgium represents nothing, multicultural ideologues love Belgium. They say that without patriotism, there would be no wars and the world would be a better place. As John Lennon sang “Imagine there’s no countries, it isn’t hard to do, nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too.”

In 1957, Belgian politicians stood at the cradle of the European Union. Their aim was to turn the whole of Europe into a Greater Belgium, so that wars between the nations of Europe would no longer be possible as there would no longer be nations, the latter all having been incorporated into an artificial superstate.

A closer look at Belgium, the laboratory of Europe, shows, however, that the country lacks more than patriotism. It also lacks democracy, respect for the rule of law, and political morality. In 1985, in his book De Afwezige Meerderheid (The Absent Majority) the late Flemish philosopher Lode Claes (1913-1997) argued that without identity and a sense of genuine nationhood, there can also be no democracy and no morality.

One of the people who were deeply influenced by Dr. Claes’s thesis was a young politician named Herman Van Rompuy. In the mid-1980s, Van Rompuy, a conservative Catholic, born in 1947, was active in the youth section of the Flemish Christian-Democrat Party. He wrote books and articles about the importance of traditional values, the role of religion, the protection of the unborn life, the Christian roots of Europe and the need to preserve them. The undemocratic and immoral nature of Belgian politics repulsed him and led to a sort of crisis of conscience. Lode Claes, who was near to retiring, offered Herman the opportunity of succeeding him as the director of Trends, a Belgian financial-economic weekly magazine. It is in this context that I made Herman’s acquaintance. He invited me for lunch one day to ask whether, if he accepted the offer to enter journalism, I would be willing to join him. It was then that he told me that he was considering leaving politics and was weighing the options for the professional life he would pursue.

I am not sure what happened next, however. Maybe word had reached the leadership of the Christian Democrat Party that Herman, a brilliant economist and intellectual, was considering leaving politics; perhaps they made him an offer he could not refuse. Herman remained in politics. He was made a Senator and entered government as a junior minister. In 1988, he became the party leader of the governing Christian-Democrats.

Our paths crossed at intervals until 1990, when the Belgian Parliament voted a very liberal abortion bill. The Belgian King Baudouin (1930-1993), a devout Catholic who suffered from the fact that he and his wife could not have any children, had told friends that he would “rather abdicate than sign the bill.” The Belgian politicians, convinced that the King was bluffing, did not want the Belgian people to know about the King’s objections to the bill. I wrote about this on the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal and was subsequently reprimanded by the Belgian newspaper I worked for, following an angry telephone call from the then Belgian Prime Minister, a Christian-Democrat, to my editor, who was this Prime Minister’s former spokesman. I was no longer allowed to write about Belgian affairs for foreign newspapers.

In April 1990, the King did in fact abdicate over the abortion issue, and the Christian-Democrat Party, led by Herman Van Rompuy, who had always prided himself on being a good Catholic, had one of Europe’s most liberal abortion bills signed by the college of ministers, a procedure provided by the Belgian Constitution for situations when there is no King. Then they had the King voted back on the throne the following day. I wrote about the whole affair in a critical follow-up article for The Wall Street Journal and was subsequently fired by my newspaper “for grievous misconduct”. A few weeks later, I met Herman at the wedding of a mutual friend. I approached him for a chat. I could see he felt very uncomfortable. He avoided eye contact and broke off the conversation as soon as he could. We have not spoken since.

Herman’s political career continued. He became Belgium’s Budget Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Speaker of the Chamber of Representatives and finally Prime Minister. He kept publishing intellectual and intelligent books, but instead of defending the concept of the good, he now defended the concept of “the lesser evil.” And he began to write haiku.

Two years ago, Belgium faced its deepest political crisis ever. The country was on the verge of collapse following a 2003 ruling by its Supreme Court that the existing electoral district of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde (BHV), encompassing both the bilingual capital Brussels and the surrounding Dutch-speaking countryside of Halle-Vilvoorde, was unconstitutional and that Parliament should remedy the situation. The ruling came in response to a complaint that the BHV district was unconstitutional and should be divided into a bilingual electoral district Brussels and a Dutch-language electoral district Halle-Vilvoorde. This complaint had been lodged by… Herman Van Rompuy, a Flemish inhabitant of the Halle-Vilvoorde district.

In 2003, however, the Christian-Democrats were not in government and Herman was a leader of the opposition. His complaint was intended to cause political problems for Belgium’s Liberal government, which refused to divide the BHV district because the French-speaking parties in the government refused to accept the verdict of the Supreme Court. The Flemish Christian-Democrats went to the June 2007 general elections with as their major theme the promise that, once in government, they would split BHV. Herman campaigned on the issue, his party won the elections and became Flanders’ largest party.

Belgium’s political crisis dragged on from June until December 2007 because it proved impossible to put together a government consisting of sufficient Dutch-speaking (Flemish) and French-speaking (Walloon) politicians. The Flemings demanded that BHV be split, as instructed by the Supreme Court; the Walloons refused to do so. Ultimately, the Flemish Christian-Democrats gave in, reneged on their promise to their voters, and agreed to join a government without BHV being split. Worse still, the new government has more French-speaking than Dutch-speaking ministers, and does not have the support of the majority of the Flemings in Parliament, although the Flemings make up a 60% majority of the Belgian population. Herman became the Speaker of the Parliament. In this position he had to prevent Parliament, and the Flemish representatives there, from voting a bill to split BHV. He succeeded in this, by using all kinds of tricks. One day he even had the locks of the plenary meeting room changed so that Parliament could not convene to vote on the issue. On another occasion, he did not show up in his office for a whole week to avoid opening a letter demanding him to table the matter. His tactics worked. In December 2008, when the Belgian Prime Minister had to resign in the wake of a financial scandal, Herman became the new leader of the predominantly French-speaking government which does not represent the majority of Belgium’s ethnic majority group. During the past 11 months, he has skillfully managed to postpone any parliamentary vote on the BHV matter, thereby prolonging a situation which the Supreme Court, responding to Herman’s own complaint in 2003, has ruled to be unconstitutional.

Now, Herman has moved on to lead Europe. Like Belgium, the European Union is an undemocratic institution, which needs shrewd leaders who are capable of renouncing everything they once believed in and who know how to impose decisions on the people against the will of the people. Never mind democracy, morality or the rule of law, our betters know what is good for us more than we do. And Herman is now one of our betters. He has come a long way since the days when he was disgusted with Belgian-style politics.

Herman is like Saruman, the wise wizard in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, who went over to the other side. He used to care about the things we cared about. But no longer. He has built himself a high tower from where he rules over all of us.

Paul Belien is the author of A Throne in Brussels – Britain, the Saxe-Coburgs and the Belgianisation of Europe, Imprint Academic, Exeter (UK), Charlottesville, VA (US).

 

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4181

Posted in E.U. | Leave a Comment »

The end of the great deception

Posted by paulipoldie on November 11, 2009

The EU has achieved the goal it has worked stealthily towards for so long – a supra-national government which is now beyond our recall, writes Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker
Published: 5:49PM GMT 07 Nov 2009, The Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6521187/The-end-of-the-great-deception.html

So the trap has snapped shut. It was somehow apt that the politician who finally let the EU get the constitution it has craved so long should have been President Vaclav Klaus, the veteran anti-Communist who predicted, just before the Czech Republic joined the EU in 2004, that it would mean the end of his country as “an independent sovereign state”. And what a delightful irony that Pravda, of all newspapers, greeted the news last week with the headline: “Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the EU is now a reincarnation of the Soviet Union”.

Tomorrow, as the EU’s leaders gather in Berlin to celebrate the end of that wall, they will also celebrate the rise of a new one – a wall they have built around themselves, that separates Europe’s politicians from all their subject peoples. From December 1, the Lisbon Treaty comes into force. (How long before they give it back its original name, “A Constitution for Europe”?) The EU will at last have the supreme government it has wanted so long – unelected, unaccountable and, as even its own polls show, less popular with those it rules over than ever before. But what do the politicians care? They have the power, and we now have a government we can never dismiss.

Of course David Cameron never wanted a referendum, which would have been a huge embarrassment to him. His promise of one was a cynical gimmick to curry favour with Euro-sceptic voters – a trick he is now repeating with a promise to work for the repatriation of powers which he must know he will never get. To do so would require a new treaty and the agreement of 27 governments to something which, as they are already making abundantly clear, is simply not on offer.

Where Mr Cameron is entirely at one with his Labour and Lib Dem counterparts is that they must never admit or explain just how much of Britain’s governance has already been given away, leaving Westminster with little more power than a rather grand local council. None of them will ever discuss this because they all belong to that new Europe-wide political class that governs us from behind its wall, without ever having to ask us for our consent.

In a wistful way it has been amusing to see that former Foreign Office mandarin Sir Christopher Meyer much in evidence of late, bemoaning the way Foreign Office morale has sunk so low because so much of its old power and influence has passed to “other departments in Whitehall”. What he means, of course, is that its power has departed not elsewhere in Whitehall but to this amorphous new entity which is even now constructing its own foreign ministry and diplomatic service, with embassies around the world, to replace almost everything of significance our Foreign Office once stood for. This is why the child we now have as our Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, can’t wait to be part of it.

Three years ago, when I was in the beautiful city of Prague to assist President Klaus in launching a Czech edition of my history of the “European project”, The Great Deception, I was intrigued to note that outside every Czech ministry there hung two flags, one Czech, the other the EU’s ring of stars. It was an honest recognition of how their country was governed, a practice I suggested the British Government should follow.

The only difference now is that our ministries should cease to fly the Union Jack and hoist instead what is officially known in Brussels as “the Union Flag”, that same ring of stars which, from December 1, will symbolise the true government we live under.

As a final thought, since the EU is to become a government with “legal personality” in its own right, how long will it be before its President, under the constitution, is accorded international precedence over the Queen as our head of state? Like much else in this sorry story, our new rulers will start by denying that they are even thinking of such a thing. But now they have their constitution, I bet it can’t be long.

 

Posted in E.U., Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit | Leave a Comment »

It’s Showtime!

Posted by paulipoldie on November 3, 2009

EU Skull Dragon
It seems that Kent Ekeroth’s mission to Prague last weekend was a futile effort.

President Václav Klaus, after months of political and financial arm-twisting — including the ominous spectacle of Don Corleone Nicolas Sarkozy casually slapping a baseball bat into his palm next to Mr. Klaus’ head — has finally caved in and signed the Lisbon Treaty on behalf of the Czech Republic.

I’m amazed that he held out as long as he did. The blatant and egregious threats issued by the leading lights of Europe’s political class made it obvious that Mr. Klaus would have to give in eventually. Too many blood vessels feeding the European carcinoma have become intertwined with the Czech circulatory system — there was no way for the Czechs to excise the EU cancer without killing the patient, at least financially.

Here’s the report from The Washington Post:

Czech President Klaus Signs EU Treaty

PRAGUE (Reuters) — Czech President Vaclav Klaus signed the EU’s Lisbon Treaty on Tuesday, bringing into force the EU’s plan to overhaul its institutions and win a greater role on the world stage.

Klaus was the last EU leader to ratify the treaty and his signature means the bloc of nearly half a billion people can pick its first president and a more powerful foreign representative to speak for it in global affairs.

The treaty is aimed at giving the EU a bigger clout on the world scene and making it more flexible. This is intended to match the rise of emerging powers such as China.

The comparison is apt. Lisbon is also designed to make Europe more like China politically. The New Europe faces suppression of dissent, state control of everything (including the internet), and a permanent ruling oligarchy whose only goal is the maintenance and enhancement of its own power.

The staunchly eurosceptic Czech president signed the pact after the country’s Constitutional Court threw out a complaint against the treaty earlier on Tuesday.

“I had expected the court ruling and I respect it, although I fundamentally disagree with its content and justification,” Klaus told reporters. “I signed the Lisbon Treaty today at 1500 (local time),” he said.

Klaus had been banned by law from signing the treaty until the court had ruled on a complaint by his allies in the Czech upper house of parliament, the Senate, who argued the treaty would erode national sovereignty.

Well, of course it will erode sovereignty — that’s what the treaty is explicitly designed to do, for crying out loud! Only a half-wit or someone who takes diplo-babble seriously could believe otherwise.

“An ever-closer union” — that’s what the Treaty of Rome, the Treaty of Maastricht, and Lisbon Treaty have all been intended to produce. How can you achieve an ever-closer union without giving up the right to decide how thick the rind on your cheese may be? Not to mention your taxation and immigration policy.

The article continues:
– – – – – – – –

The court rejected the arguments. “The judgment was unanimous; none of the judges filed a dissenting opinion to either the judgment or its reasoning,” the court said in a written verdict.

The Czech parliament has approved the pact but Klaus long argued against it, saying it would turn the EU into a superstate with little democratic control.

“With the Lisbon Treaty taking effect, the Czech Republic will cease to be a sovereign state, despite the political opinion of the Constitutional Court,” Klaus said.

President Klaus has hit the nail on the head. He is now presiding over the final period of sovereignty for his own nation. All those European countries who gained freedom from Tsarist and then Soviet domination have just elected to submerge themselves in a far more insidious tyranny. The EU hands out soma rather than a neck-shot, but it is none the less totalitarian for it.

After Klaus’s signature, the treaty will come into force probably in December, turning attention to who will be the EU’s first president.

EU leaders failed to agree at a summit last week in Brussels on who should take the job, whose powers are still somewhat unclear, and a special summit may be needed to reach a deal.

The latest word is that Merkel and Sarkozy have maneuvered to keep Tony Blair off the throne, and there are hints that Dutch prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende may be able to leap into it just before the Wilders steamroller flattens his political career in the Netherlands:

The chances of the once-favored candidate, former British prime minister Tony Blair, seem doomed after he failed to win an endorsement from the European Socialists, his Labour Party’s allies.

No front-runner has emerged, but possible contenders include Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, former Finnish prime minister Paavo Lipponen and Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker.

Now the fun begins.

Come the first of December, the New Europe will begin to take shape. Nations will be replaced by “regions”, yoking the Danes to the Scots and the English to the Walloons. In the erstwhile states that make up the EU, time-hallowed national political institutions — parliaments, presidents, monarchs, and the like — will become quaint atavisms, powerless entities reduced to the status of tourist attractions or comfortable backwaters where cronies who have fallen out of favor may be granted sinecures to keep them out of trouble.

Real power will be wielded from Brussels and Frankfurt. There will still be elections to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, but its members are unable to initiate legislation, which may only emerge from the unelected European Commission. The Parliament will a provide lucrative stop for the aspiring Eurocrat, and a talk-shop for the disgruntled. If its members are so tactless as to say anything controversial, no problem! Their indiscretions will simply never appear in the compliant organs of the press.

The State is already electronically listening in on its citizens in Sweden and the UK. Expect that capacity to expand and spread across the whole of the EU, further incapacitating the already-damaged right of Europeans to think and speak freely. By such methods the European populace will be kept anesthetized and docile while its successors are imported from Turkey, Algeria, Libya, Palestine, Iraq, Pakistan, and Somalia.

To our American readers: don’t get complacent! As Ralph pointed out, this is our future, too.

In the European example we have been granted the privilege of a peek at what’s to come here in the USA. It’s not just Obama and the Democrats who will be responsible for it — George Bush and the Republicans were equally indifferent to the idea of a sovereign national border.

Obama will hand over control to the UN sooner than would the Republicans, but that’s simply because he’s in the front car of the train and will get there first.

The entire political class is packed into the club cars and sleepers on the same train, and they’re all headed for the same destination.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/11/its-showtime.html#readfurther

Posted in E.U. | Leave a Comment »

Paul Belien: Wenn du in Europa bist, pass auf was du sagst !

Posted by paulipoldie on November 3, 2009

Versuche der EU zur Einschränkung der Redefreiheit. Medien im Kampf verschollen.

Wenn alles klappt wie geplant, werden die 27 Mitgliedsstaaten der Europäischen Union bald eine gemeinsame Rechtsvorschrift haben für Hassverbrechen verabschieden, die die Ablehnung islamischer Praktiken oder eines homosexuellen Lebensstils kriminalisieren wird. Die christlichen Kirchen versuchen zwar, diesen Plan des europäischen politischen Establishments zu stoppen, aber es ist unklar, ob sie erfolgreich sein werden. Die Medien schweigen zu diesem Thema.

Im vergangenen April hat das Europäische Parlament der Gleichbehandlungsrichtlinie der Europäischen Union zugestimmt. Eine Richtlinie ist die Bezeichnung für ein EU-Gesetz.. Da Richtlinien nationales Recht außer Kraft setzen, müssen sie vom EU-Ministerrat vor ihrem Inkrafttreten genehmigt werden. Im nächsten Monat wird der Rat über die Richtlinie entscheiden, die die 27 EU-Mitgliedsstaaten unter eine gemeinsame Anti-Diskriminierungs-Gesetzgebung stellt.. Die Definition dieser Richtlinie über diskriminierende Belästigung ist so breit, dass jeder Einwand gegen Muslime oder homosexuelle Praktiken als rechtswidrig gelten wird.

Am 2. April hat das Europäische Parlament die “Richtlinie zur Verwirklichung des Grundsatzes der Gleichbehandlung von Personen unabhängig von Religion oder Weltanschauung, einer Behinderung, des Alters oder der sexuellen Ausrichtung”, mit 363 zu 226 Stimmen angenommen. Die Richtlinie gilt dem sozialen Schutz und der medizinischen Versorgung, sozialen Vergünstigungen, Bildung sowie dem Zugang zu Gütern und Dienstleistungen, einschließlich des Wohnraums. US-Bürger und Unternehmen, die Geschäfte in Europa betreiben sind auch verpflichtet, sich daran zu halten.

Ursprünglich war die Gleichbehandlungsrichtlinie gedacht für Menschen mit Behinderungen, die durch das Verbot der Diskriminierung, beim Zugang zu “Waren und Dienstleistungen, einschließlich Wohnraum,” nicht benachteiligt werden durften, europäische Politaktivisten und Regierungen haben den Anwendungsbereich der Richtlinie erweitert, um eine Diskriminierung aufgrund von Religion, des Alters oder der sexuellen Ausrichtung mit einzuschließen.

Nach dieser Richtlinie wird Bedrohung – als ein Verhalten definiert, „mit dem Zweck oder der Auswirkung, die Würde der betreffenden Person zu verletzen in einem von Einschüchterungen, Anfeindungen, Erniedrigungen, Entwürdigungen oder Beleidigungen gekennzeichneten Umfeld” – und gilt als eine Form der Diskriminierung.

Bedrohungen, wie sie vage in der Richtlinie definiert werden, erlauben einem Individuum, jemanden der Diskriminierung zu beschuldigen, der lediglich etwas zum Ausdruck bringt, was der einzelne angeblich wahrnimmt, als die Schaffung eines “beleidigenden Umfelds“. Diese Definition ist so weit gefasst, dass jeder, der sich eingeschüchtert oder beleidigt fühlt, leicht rechtliche Schritte gegen diejenigen einbringen kann, die er als verantwortlich ansieht. Darüber hinaus, verlagert die Richtlinie die Beweislast auf den Angeklagten, der das Gegenteil nachweisen muss, nämlich dass er oder sie keine feindselige Umgebung geschaffen hat, die den Beschwerdeführer verletzt oder eingeschüchtert haben könnte. Wenn der Angeklagte dies nicht schafft, kann er oder sie zur Zahlung einer Entschädigung in unbegrenzte Höhe wegen “Bedrohung“ verurteilt werden.

Die europäische Presse hat sich zu dem Thema bisher ausgeschwiegen, aber die christlichen Gemeinden sind sehr besorgt. Im August vergangenen Jahres, veröffentlichte Monsignore Andrew Summersgill eine Erklärung im Namen der katholischen Bischöfe von England, Wales und Schottland, die die Richtlinie ablehnten, weil sie Menschen und Organisationen nötigen würde, gegen ihre Überzeugungen zu handeln. “Homosexuelle Gruppen, die sich für die gleichgeschlechtliche Ehe einsetzen, könnten erklären, dass sie sich durch die Vorlage der moralischen Lehre der katholischen Kirche über die Ehe verletzt sehen würden, ein Atheist kann sich von religiösen Bildern in einer Galerie angegriffen fühlen oder ein Muslim kann sich beleidigt fühlen von jedem Bild, das die menschliche Gestalt darstellt, “sagte Monsignore Summersgill .
“Wenn man in der EU eine Dienstleistung (wie z.B. ein Hotelzimmer) anbietet, oder Waren verkauft (wie z.B. Bücher), dann müssen Unternehmen und ihre Mitarbeiter diese jedem anbieten oder das Risiko eingehen, verklagt zu werden, unabhängig davon, ob sie dadurch eine Sexualethik unterstützen, die im Widerspruch zu ihren religiösen Überzeugungen steht oder hilft eine andere Religion zu unterstützen“, sagen die Juristen der britischen Organisationen ‚ Christian Concern for Our Nation’ (CCFON) und ‚Christian Legal Centre’. Veranstalter einer christlichen Konferenz zum Beispiel, werden gesetzlich dazu verpflichtet werden, Doppelzimmer zur Verfügung zu stellen für Homosexuelle und unverheiratete Paare wie auch für normal verheiratete Paare.

Die Richtlinie wird derzeit von Schweden, das die Präsidentschaft des Europäischen Rates in der zweiten Hälfte des Jahres 2009 hatte, abgeändert, im Hinblick auf die endgültige Abstimmung, die vom Rat im nächsten Monat getroffen werden wird.. Politaktivisten versuchen, die Begriffe Diskriminierung und Belästigung in der Richtlinie auszuweiten, um auch etwaige Annahmen abzudecken. Länder, in denen die katholische Kirche noch immer einen großen Einfluss hat, wie z. B. Malta und Polen haben jedoch Einwände gegen diesen Versuch. Da die Richtlinie eine einstimmige Zustimmung aller 27 EU-Mitgliedstaaten haben muss, ist es noch nicht sicher, wie weit reichend ihre endgültige Fassung sein wird.

Dennoch ist das fast völlige Schweigen der europäischen Medien und der öffentlichen Meinung auf diese wichtigen Fragen, die auf dem Spiel stehen, Besorgnis erregend. Europa riskiert den Verlust wichtiger Grundfreiheiten, wie die Meinungsfreiheit und die Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung, scheint aber nicht bereit zu sein, dafür zu kämpfen und diese Freiheiten zu erhalten. Vielleicht ist das mangelnde Interesse der Einwohner von Europa an der Gesetzgebung auf supranationaler Ebene ein abgekartetes Spiel, was das mangelnde Interesse in dieser Angelegenheit erklären würde.

Das gleiche Phänomen, nämlich ein Mangel an Interesse seitens der europäischen und der amerikanischen Öffentlichkeit, zeigt sich im Hinblick auf die halblegalen Initiativen, die auf der Ebene der Vereinten Nationen beschlossen werden. Am 2. Oktober hat der UN-Menschenrechtsrat einer Entschließung zur freien Meinungsäußerung zugestimmt, die von den USA und Ägypten unterstützt wurde und die ” die Förderung negativer rassistischer und religiöser Vorurteile“ kritisiert. Amerikanische Diplomaten sagten, dass die Entscheidung diese Entschließung zu unterstützen, ein Teil der Bemühungen Amerikas war, um “die muslimischen Länder” zu erreichen. Die Resolution wurde einstimmig verabschiedet, mit der Unterstützung aller westlichen Länder. Obwohl die Resolution keine unmittelbare rechtliche Wirkung hat, bietet es den muslimischen Extremisten moralische Munition, wenn sie das nächste Mal das Gefühl haben, dass die zentralen Lehren des Islam respektlos behandelt werden, indem sie etwas schaffen, was sie als ein durch “Beleidigungen gekennzeichnetes Umfeld“ ansehen.

 

Paul Belien ist ein außerordentlicher Mitarbeiter des Hudson Institute. Dieser Artikel wurde zuerst auf der Hudson NY Website veröffentlicht.

Übersetzung: LIZ/die-gruene-pest.com

Originaltext: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4136 __________________

http://die-gruene-pest.com/showthread.php?t=21769

Posted in E.U., Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit | Leave a Comment »

Endlich geht die EU gegen fundamentalistische Muslime und ihre Organisationen vor.

Posted by paulipoldie on November 1, 2009

http://www.eussner.net/artikel_2007-12-19_18-02-08.html

Dokumentation

Rahmenbeschluss zur Bekämpfung von Rassismus und Fremdenfeindlichkeit

von Dr. Gudrun Eussner

Der Rahmenbeschluss soll auf alle Straftaten anwendbar sein, die

  • im Gebiet der Europäischen Union begangen werden;
  • von einem Angehörigen eines Mitgliedstaates oder einer juristischen Person mit Sitz in einem Mitgliedstaat begangen werden. In dem Rahmenbeschluss werden diesbezüglich Kriterien für die Feststellung der Verantwortlichkeit einer juristischen Person vorgeschlagen.

Der Rahmenbeschluss definiert Rassismus und Fremdenfeindlichkeit als jedwede Überzeugung, der zufolge Rasse, Hautfarbe, Abstammung, Religion oder Weltanschauung nationale oder ethnische Herkunft ein bestimmender Faktor für die Ablehnung von Einzelpersonen oder Gruppen ist.

Folgende Verhaltensweisen sollen künftig als Strafdelikte gelten, sofern sie in rassistischer oder fremdenfeindlicher Absicht begangen werden:

  • Aufstachelung zu Hass und Gewalt;
  • öffentliche Beleidigungen oder Drohungen;
  • öffentliche Duldung von Völkermord und Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit nach dem Statut des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs;
  • öffentliche Verbreitung oder Verteilung von Schriften, Bild- oder sonstigem Material mit rassistischen oder fremdenfeindlichen Inhalten;
  • Leitung einer rassistischen oder fremdenfeindlichen Gruppe (definiert als ein auf längere Dauer angelegter Zusammenschluss von mehr als zwei Personen, die in Verabredung handeln, um rassistische oder fremdenfeindliche Straftaten zu begehen).

Auch die Anstiftung, Beihilfe, Mittäterschaft und der Versuch der Begehung derartiger Straftaten sollen künftig als strafbar eingestuft werden.

Bezüglich derartiger Straftaten sollen die Mitgliedstaaten künftig dafür Sorge tragen müssen, dass

  • diese Delikte mit wirksamen, angemessenen und abschreckenden Strafen geahndet werden;
  • die Aufstachelung zu rassistischer Gewalt und Fremdenhass sowie die Leitung einer rassistischen oder fremdenfeindlichen Gruppe mit Freiheitsstrafen im Höchstmaß von mindestens zwei Jahren und sonstige derartige Straftaten mit Freiheitsstrafen geahndet werden können;
  • alternative Sanktionen (z. B. Gemeinschaftsarbeit oder Teilnahme an Schulungsmaßnahmen) verhängt werden können;
  • Geldbußen bzw. Geldstrafen vorgesehen werden;
  • die Einziehung und Beschlagnahme aller zur Begehung derartiger Straftaten eingesetzten Materialien und Instrumente vorgesehen wird;
  • auch gegen juristische Personen entsprechende Sanktionen verhängt werden können (vorübergehendes oder ständiges Tätigkeitsverbot, richterlich angeordnete Auflösung, Ausschluss von öffentlichen Zuwendungen oder Hilfen usw.).

Koran

1. Aufruf zu Mord, Totschlag, Körperverletzung, Krieg

  • Sure 2,178 Pa: Ihr Gläubigen! Bei Totschlag ist euch die Wiedervergeltung vorgeschrieben: ein Freier für einen Freien, ein Sklave für einen Sklaven und ein weibliches Wesen für ein weibliches Wesen.
  • Sure 2,191 Pa: Und tötet sie (d.h. die heidnischen Gegner), wo (immer) ihr sie zu fassen bekommt, und vertreibt sie, von wo sie euch vertrieben haben!
  • Sure 2,193 Pa: Und kämpft gegen sie, bis niemand (mehr) versucht, (Gläubige zum Abfall vom Islam) zu verführen, und bis nur noch Allah verehrt wird!
  • Sure 2,216 Pa: Euch ist vorgeschrieben, (gegen die Ungläubigen) zu kämpfen, obwohl es euch zuwider ist.
  • Sure 2,244 Pa: Und kämpft um Allahs willen!
  • Sure 4,74 Pa: Und wenn einer um Allahs willen kämpft, und er wird getötet – oder er siegt -, werden wir ihm (im Jenseits) gewaltigen Lohn geben.
  • Sure 4,76 Pa: Diejenigen, die gläubig sind, kämpfen um Allahs willen, diejenigen, die ungläubig sind, um der Götzen willen. Kämpft nun gegen die Freunde des Satans!
  • Sure 4,104 Pa: Und lasst nicht nach in eurer Bereitschaft, den Feind aufzusuchen und zum Kampf zu stellen.
  • Sure 5,35 Pa: Ihr Gläubigen! Fürchtet Allah und trachtet danach, ihm nahe zu kommen, und führet um seinetwillen Krieg.
  • Sure 8,12 Pa: Haut (ihnen [ den Ungläubigen ] mit dem Schwert) auf den Nacken und schlagt zu auf jeden Finger von ihnen!
  • Sure 8,39 [textgleich mit Sure 2,193] Pa: Und kämpft gegen sie, bis niemand (mehr) versucht, (Gläubige zum Abfall vom Islam) zu verführen, und bis nur noch Allah verehrt wird!
  • Sure 9,5 Pa: Und wenn die heiligen Monate abgelaufen sind, dann tötet die Heiden, wo ihr sie findet, greift sie, umzingelt sie und lauert ihnen überall auf.
  • Sure 9,36 Pa: Und kämpft allesamt gegen die Heiden, so wie sie allesamt gegen euch kämpfen.
  • Sure 9,111 Pa: Nun müssen sie (die Gläubigen) um Allahs willen kämpfen und dabei töten oder den Tod erleiden.
  • Sure 9,123 Pa: Ihr Gläubigen! Kämpft gegen diejenigen von den Ungläubigen, die euch nahe sind! Sie sollen merken, dass ihr hart sein könnt.
  • Sure 47,35 Pa: Lasst nun (in eurem Kampfeswillen) nicht nach und ruft (die Gegner) nicht (vorzeitig) zum Frieden, wo ihr doch (letzten Endes) die Oberhand haben werdet!

2. Volksverhetzung, Beschimpfung von Bekenntnissen

  • 8, 55 Pa: Als die schlimmsten Tiere gelten bei Allah diejenigen, die ungläubig sind und (auch) nicht glauben werden (?).
  • 47, 12 Pa: Die Ungläubigen aber genießen (ihr kurz befristetes Dasein) und verleiben sich (gedankenlos) ihre Nahrung ein (wörtlich: essen), wie das Vieh es tut. Sie werden ihr Quartier im Höllenfeuer haben.
  • 63,4 Pa: Sie [die zuerst gläubig waren, dann aber wieder abgefallen sind] sind die (wahren) Feinde. Darum nimm dich vor ihnen in acht! Diese allahverfluchten (Leute) (wörtlich: Allah bekämpfe sie)!

3. Aufforderung zu Verstümmelungen und Züchtigungen

  • Sure 5,38 Pa: Wenn ein Mann oder eine Frau einen Diebstahl begangen hat, dann haut ihnen die Hand ab.
  • Sure 24,2 Pa: Wenn eine Frau und ein Mann Unzucht begehen, dann verabreicht jedem von ihnen 100 Hiebe!
  • Sure 24,4 Pa: Und wenn welche ehrbare Frauen in Verruf bringen und hierauf keine vier Zeugen beibringen, dann verabreicht ihnen 80 Hiebe …
  • Sure 4,34 Pa: Die Männer stehen über den Frauen … Und wenn ihr fürchtet, dass Frauen sich auflehnen, dann vermahnt sie, meidet sie im Ehebett und schlagt sie.

4. Billigung von Hausfriedensbruch und Diebstahl

  • Sure 24,29 Pa: Es ist (aber) keine Sünde für euch, Häuser zu betreten, die nicht (eigentlich) bewohnt sind, und in denen etwas ist, das ihr benötigt.

5. Verstoß gegen den Gleichheitssatz

  • Sure 2,228 Pa: Und die Männer stehen (bei alledem) eine Stufe über ihnen [den Frauen]
  • Sure 4,11 Pa: Auf (ein Kind) männlichen Geschlechts kommt (bei der Erbteilung) gleichviel wie auf zwei weiblichen Geschlechts.
  • Sure 9,29 Pa: Kämpft gegen diejenigen, die nicht an Allah und den jüngsten Tag glauben und nicht verbieten (oder: für verboten erklären), was Allah und sein Gesandter verboten haben, und nicht der wahren Religion angehören – von denen, die die Schrift erhalten haben – (kämpft gegen sie), bis sie kleinlaut aus der Hand (?) Tribut entrichten!

6. Verstoß gegen allgemeine Persönlichkeitsrechte

  • Sure 2,223 Pa: Eure Frauen sind euch ein Saatfeld. Geht zu (diesem) eurem Saatfeld, wo immer ihr wollt.
  • Sure 4,15 Pa: Und wenn welche von euren Frauen etwas Abscheuliches begehen, so verlangt, daß vier von euch (Männern) gegen sie zeugen! Wenn sie (tatsächlich) zeugen, dann haltet sie im Haus fest, bis der Tod sie abberuft oder Allah ihnen eine Möglichkeit schafft, (ins normale Leben zurückzukehren)!
  • Sure 33,36 Pa: Und weder ein gläubiger Mann noch eine gläubige Frau dürfen, wenn Allah und sein Gesandter eine Angelegenheit (die sie betrifft) entschieden haben, in (dieser) ihrer Angelegenheit (frei) wählen.
  • Sure 33,50 Pa: Prophet! Wir haben dir zur Ehe erlaubt: deine Gattinnen, denen du ihren Lohn gegeben hast; was du (an Sklavinnen) besitzt, (ein Besitz, der) dir von Allah (als Beute) zugewiesen (worden ist); die Töchter deines Onkels und deiner Tanten väterlicherseits und deines Onkels und deiner Tanten mütterlicherseits, die mit dir ausgewandert sind; (weiter) eine (jede) gläubige Frau, wenn sie sich dem Propheten schenkt und er (seinerseits) sie heiraten will. Das (letztere?) gilt in Sonderheit für dich im Gegensatz zu den (anderen) Gläubigen.
  • Sure 60,10 Pa: Die gläubigen Frauen (wörtlich: Sie) sind diesen (wörtlich: ihnen, d.h.den ungläubigen Männern) nicht (zur Ehe) erlaubt, und umgekehrt.

7. Verweigern der Glaubensfreiheit

  • Sure 2,191 Pa: Der Versuch (Gläubige zum Abfall vom Islam) zu verführen, ist schlimmer als Töten.
  • Sure 2,217 Pa: Und der Versuch (Gläubige zum Abfall vom Islam) zu verführen, wiegt schwerer als Töten.
  • Sure 47,8 Pa: Diejenigen aber, die ungläubig sind, – nieder mit ihnen!

8. Pflicht zur Wahrheit

  • Sure 5,89 Pa: Allah belangt euch (beim Gericht?) nicht wegen des (leeren) Geredes in euren Eiden. Er belangt euch vielmehr, wenn ihr eine (regelrechte) eidliche Bindung eingeht (und diese dann nicht haltet). Die Sühne dafür besteht darin, daß man zehn Arme beköstigt, so wie ihr gewöhnlich (wörtlich: im Durchschnitt) eure (eigenen) Angehörigen beköstigt, oder sie kleidet oder einen Sklaven in Freiheit setzt. Und wenn einer keine Möglichkeit (zu derartigen Sühneleistungen) findet, hat er (dafür) drei Tage zu fasten. Das ist die Sühne für eure Eide, wenn ihr schwört (und hierauf eidbrüchig werdet).
  • Sure 66,2 Pa: Allah hat für euch angeordnet, ihr sollt eure (unbedachten?) Eide (durch eine Sühneleistung?) annullieren (wörtlich: lösen).

9. Diverse Suren

  • Sure 47, 4-5: “Und wenn ihr die Ungläubigen trefft, dann herunter mit dem Haupt, bis ihr ein Gemetzel unter ihnen angerichtet habt; dann schnüret die Bande!”
  • Sure 48, 28: “Er ist es, der seinen Gesandten (Mohammed) geschickt hat mit der Führung und der Religion der Wahrheit, daß er sie siegreich mache über jede andere Religion. Und Allah genügt als Bezeuger.” (siehe auch 5.34)
  • Sure 66, 9: “Prophet! Führe Krieg gegen die Ungläubigen und die Heuchler (munaafiqien) und sei hart gegen sie! Die Hölle wird sie (dereinst) aufnehmen – ein schlimmes Ende!”
  • Sure 9, 123: “O die ihr glaubt, kämpfet wider jene der Ungläubigen, die euch benachbart sind, und laßt sie in euch Härte finden; und wisset, daß Allah mit den Gottesfürchtigen ist.”
  • Sure 8, 39: “Und kämpfet wider sie, bis kein Bürgerkrieg mehr ist und bis alles an Allah glaubt..”
  • Sure 98, 6: “Siehe die Ungläubigen vom Volk der Schrift (d.h. Juden und Christen) … Sie sind die schlechtesten der Geschöpfe.”
  • Sure 61 “Die Schlachtordnung”, Vers 3 u. 4 :”Großen Hass erzeugt es bei Allah, dass ihr sprecht, was ihr nicht tut. Siehe Allah liebt die, welche in seinem Weg in Schlachtordnung kämpfen, als wären sie ein gefestigter Bau.”
  • Sure 4, 89: “Sie wünschen, daß ihr ungläubig werdet, wie sie ungläubig sind, so daß ihr alle gleich seiet. Nehmet euch daher keinen von ihnen zum Freund, ehe sie nicht auswandern auf Allahs Weg. Und wenn sie sich abkehren (vom Glauben), dann ergreifet sie und tötet sie, wo immer ihr sie auffindet; und nehmet euch keinen von ihnen zum Freunde oder zum Helfer.”
  • Sure 2, 216: “Vorgeschrieben ist euch der Kampf, doch ist er euch ein Abscheu. Aber vielleicht verabscheut ihr ein Ding, das gut für euch ist, und vielleicht liebt ihr ein Ding, das schlecht für euch ist; und Allah weiß, ihr aber wisset nicht.” Gemeint ist der Kampf mit Waffen.”
  • Sure 4, 74: “Und so soll kämpfen in Allahs Weg, wer das irdische Leben verkauft für das Jenseits. Und wer da kämpft in Allahs Weg, falle er oder siege er, wahrlich dem geben wir gewaltigen Lohn.”
  • Hadit 14, Von ibn Mas´ud: “Allahs Gesandter salla Allah u alihi wa sallamhat gesagt: Das Blut eines Moslim ist nicht erlaubt, außer in einem dieser drei Fälle: der verheiratete Ehebrecher, Leben um Leben (Blutrache), und der seinen Glauben Verlassende, von seiner Gemeinschaft Getrennte. Dies berichteten Buhari und Moslim.”
  • Sure 9, 5: “Sind aber die heiligen Monate verflossen, so erschlaget die Götzendiener, wo ihr sie findet, und packet sie und belagert sie und lauert ihnen in jedem Hinterhalt auf. So sie jedoch bereuen und das Gebet verrichten und die Armensteuer zahlen, so lasst sie ihres Weges ziehen. Siehe, Allah ist verzeihend und barmherzig.”
  • Sure 9: “Und wenn nun die heiligen Monate abgelaufen sind, dann tötet die Heiden, wo (immer) ihr sie findet, greift sie, umzingelt sie und lauert ihnen überall auf! …”
  • Sure 9, 52: “Erwartet ihr (die Ungläubigen) etwa, dass uns nicht eins der beiden schönsten Dinge treffen wird (Sieg oder Märtyrertod)?´ Und wir erwarten von euch (den Ungläubigen), dass euch Allah mit einer Strafe treffen wird, sei es von Ihm oder durch unsere Hand. Und so wartet; siehe wir warten mit euch.”
  • Sure 2,193: ´Und bekämpfet sie, bis die Verführung [zum Unglauben] aufgehört hat, und der Glaube an Allah da ist….´
  • Sure 9, 111: “Siehe, Allah hat von den Gläubigen ihr Leben und ihr Gut für das Paradies erkauft. Sie sollen kämpfen in Allahs Weg und töten und getötet werden. … Freut euch daher des Geschäfts, das ihr abgeschlossen habt; und das ist die große Glückseligkeit.”
  • Sure 4, 76: “Wer da glaubt, kämpft in Allahs Weg, und wer da nicht glaubt, kämpft im Weg des Tagut. So bekämpfet des Satans Freunde. Siehe, des Satans List ist schwach.”
  • Sure 4, 84: “So kämpfe in Allahs Weg; nur du sollst (dazu) gezwungen werden; und sporne die Gläubigen an. …”
  • Sure 5,17: “Ungläubig sind gewiß diejenigen, die sagen: Christus, der Sohn Marias, ist Gott!”
  • Sure 9, 41: ´Ziehet aus, leicht und schwer (bewaffnet), und eifert mit Gut und Blut in Allahs Weg.´
  • Sure 4, 104: “Und erlahmet nicht in der Verfolgung des Volkes (der Ungläubigen); leidet ihr, so leiden sie, wie ihr leidet. …”
  • Sure 47, 35: “Werdet daher nicht matt und ladet (sie) nicht ein zum Frieden, während ihr die Oberhand habt; …”
  • Sure 5, 38 (42): “Und der Dieb und die Diebin, schneidet ihnen ihre Hände ab als Lohn für ihre Taten. (Dies ist) ein Exempel von Allah, und Allah ist mächtig und weise.”
  • Sure 4, 89: “Wenn sie sich abkehren, dann greift sie und tötet sie, wo immer ihr sie findet.”
  • Die 85. Sure des Korans droht jedem, der “die Gläubigen herausfordert”, die “Strafe der Verbrennung” an.

Pa = Übersetzung von Rudi Paret. Zur Version des Zentralrates der Muslime in Deutschland siehe den beigefügten Link.

Muslime als Sprengsatz in der Gesellschaft

Aktuell stufen die renommierten Hamburger Sozialforscher Peter Wetzel und Katrin Brettfeld sechs Prozent der muslimischen Jugendlichen in Deutschland als “gewaltaffin” ein. Immerhin 14 Prozent der Befragten, von denen knapp 40 Prozent einen deutschen Pass hatten, stünden mit der Rechtsstaatlichkeit auf Kriegsfuß und zeigten eine problematische Distanz zur Demokratie.

Gleichzeitig steigt die Bedeutung des Religiösen – gerade bei den jungen Leuten. Die Studie ordnet 40 Prozent der in Deutschland lebenden Muslime als fundamental orientiert ein. Immerhin zwölf Prozent der Muslime in Deutschland identifizierten sich mit einer stark religiös-moralischen Kritik an westlichen Gesellschaften, kombiniert mit der Befürwortung von Körperstrafen bis hin zur Todesstrafe. …

In diesem Milieu, den bildungsfernen Migrantenfamilien, spielt die Religion seit eh und je ein dominierende Rolle. Schon vor Jahren wiesen Studien eine Korrelation zwischen der Gewaltbereitschaft und der tiefen Religiösität der Familien nach. Danach wachsen Kinder dort mit Gewalterfahrungen auf. Eltern bauen ihre erzieherische Autorität auf Gewalt auf. In der Folge dieser Erziehung sprechen sich die Jugendlichen später offen dafür aus, Ziele notfalls auch mit dem Mittel der Gewalt durchzusetzen. Gewalt ist für sie normal, alltäglich.

Slightly OT: German Ministery of the Interior has just released a 500-page-study revealing Muslim attitudes in Germany

The German Ministery of the Interior has just released a 500-page-study revealing Muslim attitudes in Germany. They asked 1750 Muslims (telephone interviews) how far they accept German constitutional values.

  • 40 percent are fundamentally oriented (meaning “Islam, Islam über alles”). As guestimated 3.5 Million Muslims are living in Germany, that means about 1.2 Million.
  • 14 percent have “problematic attitudes”, distancing themselves from democracy and accepting violence.
  • 6 percent can be mobilized for combat. That would be 180.000. Mind you, the German army (Bundeswehr) has 250.000 men.
  • 40 percent think violence is legitimate if they feel Islam is threatened by the West.
  • Almoust 9 percent support suicide bombings.
  • Noteworthy: Many Muslim students hold these views (not the poor, downtrodden).

Now our political nomenklatura is tripping all over itself, beeing “puzzled”, bewildered” and “disturbed”. Among them are many “Islamism experts”. Heck if they were experts, they wouldn´t be puzzled a bit.

And from Muslim representatives come the usual statements of “let´s handle this sensibly” and “if these people understood real Islam, they wouldn´t say such.”

19./20. Dezember 2007

Quellen

Rahmenbeschluss zur Bekämpfung von Rassismus und Fremdenfeindlichkeit. Europa. Tätigkeitsbereiche der Europäischen Union
http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/de/lvb/l33178.htm

EU plant Einschränkung der Bürgerrechte, von gw. Deak, Kommentar # 2, Politically Incorrect, 19. Dezember 2007
http://tinyurl.com/25hvac

Koran. Suren. Zentralrat der Muslime in Deutschland
http://islam.de/1422.php

Rudi Paret (1901 – 1983). Wikipedia
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudi_Paret

Bedrohte Freiheit. Der Koran in Spannung zu den Grund- und Freiheitsrechten in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland sowie zu internationalen Rechtsnormen und Verträgen. Bundesverband der Bürgerbewegungen, 3. Auflage 1994
http://www.buergerbewegungen.de/bedrohtefreiheit.pdf

Muslime als Sprengsatz in der Gesellschaft. Von Günter Lachmann, WeltOnline,
20. Dezember 2007
http://tinyurl.com/ytddqr

Muslime in Deutschland. BMI, 18. Dezember 2007
http://tinyurl.com/3cjruz

Muslime in Deutschland. Integration und Integrationsbarrieren. Die Studie
(pdf, 515 Seiten, 6458 KB), BMI
http://tinyurl.com/3csg6c

“North African Men,” swearing on Qur´an, brutally attack Paris Jewish teen.
Slightly OT, posted by buraq_is_dead, December 20, 2007, 12:23 PM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019253.php#c487060

The study (pdf, in German, 515 pages, 6458 KB)
http://tinyurl.com/3csg6c

Posted in E.U., Human Rights - menschenrechte, Islam, Islamisierung | 1 Comment »