Fjordman: Defeating Eurabia Part IV and V

Defeating Eurabia, Part 4

This is the fourth of five installments of Fjordman’s book Defeating Eurabia. Click here for Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

For those who wish to republish his work, please read his conditions.

For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

The Case of Sweden

This essay consists of bits and pieces of information from many different essays published between 2005 and 2008.

There is a disproportionate amount of Scandinavian material in this book, obviously because I am Scandinavian myself and follow the developments in Norway, Sweden and Denmark closely in the native languages. The primary reason why I write much about Sweden is because it is one of the most totalitarian countries in the Western world. It is an interesting — and frightening — example of Political Correctness and self-loathing and can as such serve as a warning to others. Most of the problems described here exist throughout the Western world, although there is a difference in degree. The second reason is that Sweden, like my own country, needs some “tough love.” Too many Swedes still cling on to the myth of the “Swedish model” while their country is disintegrating. If Sweden the nation is to be saved — if it still can be saved, I’m not so sure — then Sweden the ideological beacon for mankind must be smashed, because vanity now blocks sanity.

I was involved, along with several others, in a heated public debate with Charles Johnson of the major American “anti-Jihad” blog Little Green Footballs (LGF) from late 2007 and well into 2008, which became bitter in part because we had traditionally been allies. I won’t go into the specific details here since this isn’t interesting to most readers, but I will say something about the general situation in Sweden. Mr. Johnson criticized the inclusion of a small political party called the Sweden Democrats (and the major Flemish party the Vlaams Belang from Belgium) in a counter-Jihad conference because they supposedly are “racists.”

My answer would be that I find some of their policies to be reasonable, although I do not necessarily agree with all of them. Besides, I don’t see why we need to agree with people on everything just because we talk to them. The authorities all over the Western world meet with representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamic groups. Even quite violent groups in Third World countries are considered “freedom fighters” by many Westerners when they fight for their causes. This amounts to saying that meeting with potentially violent groups, as long as they are non-white, is OK, but meeting with non-violent groups who work peacefully within the democratic system is not OK if they stand up for their rights and happen to be white. I do not accept this double standard and refuse to submit to it.

The “white nationalist” label which LGF used is totally meaningless in Europe. Maybe it makes sense in a North American or Australian context, but not in a European one. Yes, native Europeans happen to be born white, and most of us support national sovereignty. But nobody calls Asians, Africans or others who fight for their dignity black, brown or yellow nationalists, so why should we be called white nationalists if we do the same?

Moreover, it’s just plain, factually wrong. Europeans have been waging wars against each other for hundreds of years. There is hardly a spot on European soil where a person cannot stand and say “You did this bad thing to us X number of centuries ago, and we still hate you for it.” We view ourselves as Italians, Norwegians, Poles, Irishmen etc., not as “whites.”

Europeans generally do not wish to eradicate all of our national peculiarities, and the differences between northern and southern, eastern and western Europe are profound. Let us not kid ourselves about that. However, that doesn’t mean that we never have common interests. The irony is that precisely the kind of verbal and physical attacks we are being subjected to now could potentially change things. There is an increasing amount of racist violence targeting whites. And I do mean whites, not Englishmen, Scots, Germans, Czechs, Hungarians, Catholics, Orthodox Christians or atheists. Perhaps if people feel that they are being attacked as whites they will start defending themselves as whites as well. Maybe, if this is a “post-national” age and nation states are undermined by transnational ideologies of various kinds, native Europeans will create a “transnational” ideology of their to defend themselves. This ideology would be dedicated to the defense of a shared European civilization and of the peoples who have historically created it. I don’t foresee that pre-existing national identities can or should disappear completely, but there could be another layer of “Europeanism” added on top of this: Europe as a cultural alliance rather than as a single nation.

As the Baron of Gates of Vienna put it: “Wouldn’t it be ironic if the Multicultural regime imposed by the EU and the UN actually produced that which it fears the most? A newly-forged pan-European nationalist identity, but one that rejects Multiculturalism, immigration, and Islam. Yet another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. For they sow the wind, and they reap the whirlwind…“

Regarding racism: It is perfectly plausible from a scientific point of view to speculate whether biology affects human behavior. If you believe the theory of evolution then the very concept of racism is essentially meaningless. “Racism” doesn’t mean anything other than that you recognize that there are genetic differences between groups of people (an undisputed medical fact) and ask whether these differences have practical consequences. It is even a scientifically valid question to ponder whether there is a genetic component to culture. It’s unscientific to block any debate of the subject.

I could add that in a traditional society, the worst thing you can be is not a racist but a traitor. We now have a situation where it is good to betray your people whereas those who defend their nation are evil. This needs to be reversed back to normal. We shouldn’t have to defend ourselves and say “I’m not a racist, but….” at all. When the Multiculturalists start their sentences with the words “I’m not a traitor to my people, but…,” we know we are winning.

Here is a comment by British reader DP111:

“Britain is under a threat, the likes of which it has never been under. If Napoleon or even Hitler, had conquered Britain, most of our British/Western culture, music, art etc would be unscathed. Islam on the other hand will wipe out everything. In the fullness of time, the very presence of Christianity- cathedrals, minsters, abbeys, will be demolished and razed to the ground (re: Bamiyan Buddhas). So grave is the threat to the existence, nay, the very soul of Britain, that it is not possible to rule out any policy to remove the Islam threat, just because it may harm some innocent person or group — racial, religious or secular, or ethnic, no matter how sacred. Besides, all of them can be compensated in some form at a later date, once the Islam threat has been removed. This is an existential war, and innocents will, and are being injured or killed. If this means that we need to suspend parliamentary democracy for the duration — so be it. If it means suspending constitutional monarchy — so be it. If it means banning groups from the realm — so be it. All can be reversed once the danger is eliminated. Besides, there is precedent in British history for all the above.”

I remember walking through the Vatican in Rome not too long ago, admiring all the beautiful pictorial art as well as the amazing statues. Nothing like this can or does exist in Islam. All of this priceless art will be destroyed if Islamization continues. It will happen, the only question is when. The cultural treasures of Italy survived Mussolini. The Communists were more destructive than the Fascists when it came to art, but even they didn’t destroy all the traditional art within their territory. What we are facing, the combination of Multiculturalism, mass immigration and Islam, constitutes the greatest threat European civilization has ever faced. We will simply cease to exist as distinct peoples forever if we don’t defeat this threat.

I warned Johnson and his followers that they relied upon heavily biased information provided by political enemies from countries whose politics they did not understand. Those opposing the official Multicultural policies will automatically be branded as “racists” and “extremists” by the political establishment throughout Western Europe. The state-sponsored organization Expo was treated as a credible source of information by LGF regarding Swedish politics. One of their co-founders, Tobias Hübinette, wrote this in 1996:
– – – – – – – – –
“To feel and even think that the white race is inferior in every conceivable way is natural with regards to its history and current actions. Let the Western countries of the white race perish in blood and suffering. Long live the multicultural, racially mixed and classless ecological society! Long live anarchy!”

According to his CV, Tobias Hübinette worked for Expo until at least 1997. In other words, he continued doing research for this “anti-racist” organization after having publicly advocated the extermination of whites and the violent destruction of an entire civilization. Hübinette has continued promoting “Multiculturalism,” even received awards, and was in late 2007 working for the Multicultural Centre of Botkyrka, Sweden. To some, “Multiculturalism” apparently means “death to white people and their culture,” nothing more and nothing less.

The founder and editor of Expo magazine from 1995 until his death in November 2004, Stieg Larsson, worked with Hübinette. Larsson left behind three unpublished thrillers which have become major bestsellers after his death, in Sweden and beyond. And by bestsellers I mean a Scandinavian equivalent of the Da Vinci Code. I have read several articles in the mainstream media about Larsson’s life, and they all left out his collaboration with Hübinette. Apparently, working with a person calling for the mass murder of your people is of such little significance that it doesn’t even deserve to be mentioned in a single sentence.

The EU’s official watchdog against “racism” complains that native Europeans do not censor themselves enough. The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) is a Vienna-based agency created in 2007 as the successor to the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). One of the organizations cooperating with FRA is the Swedish left-wing organization Expo, which has been treated as a credible source of information by the European Fundamental Rights Agency regarding “racist violence” in Sweden [ pdf ]. Not only is Expo linked to from the Agency’s website, it has received hundreds of thousands of Euros — presumably sponsored by European taxpayers — in direct financial support from the Agency [ pdf ]. Expo takes part in the EU’s Raxen network against racism and xenophobia.

I have never seen a single official study tracking the wave of racist violence, rapes, stabbings and murder directed against native Europeans in cities across the continent, at least the western half of it. As the EU is deliberately breaking down existing nation states through mass immigration of alien and sometimes hostile peoples, the EU is to a considerable extent responsible for triggering this wave of racist violence against the indigenous peoples of an entire continent. If the EU wants to fight against racism, it should start with abolishing itself.

The EU spends millions and millions of Euros of European tax money on funding Islamic groups in the Middle East as well as “anti-racist groups” (usually heavily infiltrated by former Communists) across much of Europe. This is done in order to facilitate the creation of Eurabia and harass “racists” who oppose the EU’s agenda and desire national sovereignty. The most dangerous thing, however, is the money going the other way, with Arab oil money sponsoring Islamic expansionism and buying corrupt officials and politicians in Western nations.

According to what appeared to be a leaked document from the fall of 2008, Expo has apparently provided some of their material on the Sweden Democrats to the largest political party in the country, the Social Democrats, for use against their political rivals from a legal opposition party which appears to be set to gain seats in parliament during the next elections. I cannot say with certainty whether this document is genuine, but it is not impossible that it is. Expo is treated as a respectable organization by the political class, and their material has been reprinted by leading newspapers Expressen and Aftonbladet, among others.

Unfortunately, Expo has demonstrated a willingness to “share information” with radical groups of “anti-Fascists” in Antifascistisk Action (AFA). The thugs of AFA in the spring of 2008 destroyed the car of an elderly woman and wrote “nasse“ (Nazi) on top of it. As it turned out, they picked the wrong car. Yet years of such attacks against private citizens have not prompted the authorities to crack down on their activities.

Leading newspaper Aftonbladet has close ideological ties to the Social Democrats, the country’s dominant party for most of the past century. Helle Klein, its political editor-in-chief from 2001 to 2007, during a demonstration organized by Islamic and anti-racist organizations in December 2006 stood in front of a banner which read “A Sweden for all — Stop the Nazi violence“ and held a speech warning against Islamophobia in the media. Klein has voiced sympathy for terrorist organization Hamas in her editorials while warning against the threat posed to world peace by Israeli aggression and the Christian Right in the USA. Hamas is a Fascist organization openly calling for mass murder of Jews. Violent attacks against Jews in Europe in 2008 are to an overwhelming degree caused by Muslim immigration, which is encouraged by the EU and the national political elites. The irony of warning against “Nazi violence” while showing sympathy for an organization that wants to finish what the Nazis started apparently doesn’t strike Ms. Klein. She still blogged at Aftonbladet‘s website as of early 2008.

One of Klein’s fellow columnists at Aftonbladet, the long-time Communist Robert Aschberg, is the publisher of Expo magazine. Leading Expo member Charles Westin in October 2007 published the book Brunt! (“brown,” as in “Fascist”), where he let members of AFA contribute some of their intelligence regarding “right-wing extremists,” among them people associated with the legal party the Sweden Democrats. In addition to Mr. Westin, the book was co-authored by Mats Deland, who is a journalist in Aftonbladet. Why is it considered OK that a representative of one of Scandinavia’s largest newspapers, with ties to the country’s largest political party, thus associates himself openly with an organization known for physically assaulting members of a legal opposition party, even in their private homes?

Before the elections in 2006, the established parties cooperated in boycotting the Sweden Democrats and other “xenophobic” parties. In one of many similar incidents, which extreme Leftists bragged about on the Internet, around 30 members of the SD were attacked during a peaceful, private party outside the town of Växjö. The brave “anti-Fascists” threw tear gas into the building, forcing people outside where they were beaten with iron bars and axes. Open, aggressive and sometimes violent harassment of critics of the country’s immigration policies has been going on for years while the authorities have largely turned a blind eye to the problem. Still, the SD’s press spokesman Jonas Åkerlund has said such attacks have become less common, and in 2008 the party does seem to be treated slightly better.

Seemingly encouraged by the silence from the establishment to political violence, extreme Leftists have stepped up their attacks to include mainstream parties, such as the Centre Party’s offices in Stockholm. Newspaper Expressen warned against the “low-intensity terrorism” conducted by extreme Leftists and neo-Nazis. But they were honest enough to admit that the extreme Leftists have tended to get away with their violence because it has been directed against despised right-wingers. Political scientist Peter Esaiasson has done research into every election movement in Sweden since 1866. According to him, the organized attempts at disrupting meetings during the 2006 elections have no parallels in modern history.

AFA are Marxists and convinced that progress can only be made through violent struggle: “If we want to fight against capitalism, the working class needs to be united, and in order to be so intolerance cannot be tolerated. However, if we want to fight against intolerance we have to defeat capitalism as an extension of that struggle. Hence anti-fascism, feminism and the struggle against homophobia go hand in hand with the class struggle!”

If you protest against Muslim immigration, you suffer from Islamophobia, which is almost the same as xenophobia, which is almost the same as racism. And racists are almost Fascists and Nazis, as we all know, and they shouldn’t be allowed to voice their opinions in public. Hence, if you protest against being assaulted or raped by immigrants, you are evil and need to be silenced. Natives who object to a mass immigration that will render them a minority in their own country within a couple of generations have already been classified as “racists,” and racists are for all practical purposes outside of the protection of the law. According to Politikerbloggen, AFA have produced a manual about how to use violence in order to paralyze and hurt their opponents, and they encourage their members to study it closely.

The “respectable,” state-funded organization Antirasistisk Senter, the Antiracist Center in Norway, at their home page as of 2008 link to AFA Stockholm, which they call “militant Swedish anti-Fascists.” So they know that they are “militant,” but not so much that they won’t link to them. They also link to Antifaschistische Aktion (AFA) in Berlin, some of whose members were probably among the brave “anti-Fascists” who assaulted “racist” old ladies and Jewish “Nazis” during the peaceful anti-Islamization demonstration in Cologne, Germany in September 2008. The other organizations mentioned indicate that these are recommended and not just “relevant” links. This is met with silence from the mass media and the political class.

The girlfriend of a politician from the Sweden Democrats was attacked at her home outside Stockholm. The young woman was found bound with duct tape in the apartment block where she lives with Martin Kinnunen, chairman of the youth wing of the SD. Three men had forced their way into the couple’s apartment and held the 19-year-old at knife point. Kinnunen tells of several threats and anonymous phone calls to the family. He blames the media for systematically portraying the SD as monsters and thus for legitimizing aggression against them, and claims that the Swedish democracy is a sham.

text14|News website The Local states that members of the only significant (but still small) party in Sweden critical of mass immigration live under constant threat of violence. Sweden is witnessing the greatest explosion of street violence in its history, and a woman is raped every two hours. Expo, which is backed by the media and the major parties, has been campaigning against the Sweden Democrats for years. Daniel Poohl from the unelected organization Expo states that it’s “not undemocratic” to deny the SD access to political influence.

According to Jonathan Friedman, an American working in Sweden for years, “no debate about immigration policies is possible, the subject is simply avoided. Sweden has such a close connection between the various powerful groups, politicians, journalists, etc. The political class is closed, isolated.” The elites are worried to see their power slip away and therefore want to silence critics, for instance the Sweden Democrats, a small party opposed to immigration: “It is a completely legal party, they just aren’t allowed to speak.…In reality, the basis of democracy has been completely turned on its head. It is said: ‘Democracy is a certain way of thinking, a specific set of opinions, and if you do not share them, then you aren’t democratic, and then we condemn you and you ought to be eliminated. The People? That is not democratic. We the Elite, we are democracy.’ It is grotesque and it certainly has nothing to do with democracy, more like a kind of moral dictatorship.”

As Bruce Bawer writes in the article While Sweden Slept: “Sweden Democrats have been the targets of events that recall China’s Cultural Revolution. Staged ‘people’s protests’ by members of the ‘youth divisions’ of other parties have led to the firing of Sweden Democrats from their jobs. A few weeks ago, a junior diplomat was dismissed when it became known that he was a member of the party and had criticized his country’s immigration policy. On several occasions, thugs loyal to the ruling parties have broken up SD meetings and beaten up party leaders.”

A judge who hears migration appeals had his house vandalized by left-wing extremists. Threats were sprayed on the walls, red paint was poured over the steps and an axe was left outside his home. “When a judge in a Swedish court has his home vandalized in this way, it is of course very serious,” said Ingvar Paulsson, head of the Gothenburg District Administrative Court. The group Antifascistisk Action (AFA) wrote on its homepage that the attack was motivated by the plight of Iraqi asylum seekers. The Swedish Board of Migration has ruled that they should be deported if they cannot show that a threat exists against them personally.

Sweden alone in 2006 accepted almost as many asylum applications from Iraqis as all other European countries did combined. Native Swedes, who live in a country which was one of the most ethnically homogeneous nations in the world only 30 years ago, will be a minority in their own country within a few decades if current trends continue. Sweden is self-destructing at a pace which is unprecedented in history (although other Western nations are trying hard to beat them to it), but for the extreme Left, even this isn’t fast enough.

I have seen a TV program from the city of Malmö, the third-largest in Sweden, where a veiled Muslim girl told how much she loved in there; it was just like some Arab city. A large proportion of the incoming Iraqis have settled in Södertälje, which vies with the soon-to-be majority Muslim Malmö as the town with the highest percentage of social welfare recipients. However, in Södertälje there is a much larger amount of Assyrian Christians. Interestingly enough, the native population are still harassed by immigrant gangs. This demonstrates that sometimes this is not about Jihad; it’s about racist violence against the white population by various immigrant groups from developing countries. Consequently, the only way to stop this is to halt or severely limit all mass immigration, not just Muslim immigration.

In the fall of 2008, a girl in Södertälje was brutally assaulted and beaten unconscious (they continued beating her even after she was unconscious) by a group of more than twenty armed young men dressed in black. The attackers were immigrants (which the newspaper article actually stated; Swedish media usually don’t mention this if a crime involves immigrant perps) and screamed “f**king Swedish whore!” while they beat the girl and her friend and kicked her while she was lying on the ground. The good news is that another group of five young men (native Swedes) intervened. That took real courage since they were unarmed and greatly outnumbered. They got badly beaten up but probably saved the girl’s life.

As blogger Baron says, “What makes Södertälje unusual is that most of the immigrants causing trouble are not Muslims, but Assyrian Christians. The example of Södertälje highlights the fact that the issue in Sweden and other parts of Europe is not just Muslim immigration, but all mass immigration, especially from the Third World. Even though the Assyrians are Christians, like their Muslim counterparts they have brought with them violence, crime, the disinclination to assimilate, and a widespread disregard for the laws and customs of their adopted country. These are hard lessons to learn, but it’s important to see the problem clearly: mass immigration into a country tends to cause disruption of civil society and lawlessness. It also tends to erode respect for the authority of the state, on the part of immigrants and natives alike.”

Swedish blogger Daniel Eriksson has made a report from Södertälje, which is one of the towns in Sweden with the highest portion of immigrants. A very large number of them are Christian Assyrians, who have clans and even run their own courts:

“Mafia-like criminal networks, many of the members of which are Assyrians, threaten policemen, officials, and small businesses. In classic mafia style, restaurants are offered ‘protection’. Professional criminals work at the entrance, which enables them control how much money comes in and to take what share they want. An alcohol inspector got a bomb put on the outside of his car. Threats are regularly issued against policemen — ‘your house will be burnt down, we know where you live’, etc. It is generally believed that the fact that the Assyrian group is so dominant it a major reason for the problems. In more diverse multicultural areas, people don’t stick as much to one another as the Assyrians do in Södertälje. The diversity makes it less easy for criminals to co-operate, less easy to construct a parallel justice system, and people are also more prone to integrate into Swedish society. The Assyrians in Södertälje don’t need that; they have set up their own self-contained society in Södertälje.”

Following the September 2006 election, Fredrik Reinfeldt became Prime Minister of Sweden, presiding over a centre-right coalition government. This is, in my view, positive. Sweden has been described as a “one-party state,” since the Social Democrats had been in power for 65 of the previous 74 years and had more or less merged with the big labor unions and some government agencies. It is healthy that other parties are in power for a while.

However, the differences between the left-wing and the right-wing in Sweden are not always that big. The last time these parties were in power, under the leadership of PM Carl Bildt from the Swedish “conservative” party in the early 1990s, they presided over massive immigration, and have not been vocal in their opposition to the immigration policies since. Bildt, now Foreign Minister in Reinfeldt’s government, as a UN Commissioner to the Balkans called for recognizing Islam as a part of European culture. These parties are slightly more sensible in economic policies than the Social Democrats, but not much better when it comes to Multiculturalism. Mass immigration continues at full speed.

The “conservative” PM Reinfeldt has stated that the traditional Swedish culture was merely barbarism. He said this following a visit to an area called Ronna in Södertälje, near Stockholm. In an earlier incident, a police station in Södertälje was hit by shots from an automatic weapon following a confrontation between immigrant youths and police. Apart from police staff, two civilian Swedish women were in the police station. They were being questioned about harassment earlier in the day. Three young men who had been identified by the women were suspected of making illegal threats. The three men were released in the evening, but the arrests provoked strong reactions. A group of immigrants advanced on the police and attacked them with stones. The trouble in Ronna started after a native Swedish girl had been called a “whore” by some immigrants and she reacted to this.

Such incidents are part of the increasingly extreme sexual and physical violence targeting native whites by immigrant gangs. This is way beyond just “crime,” it can hardly be labeled anything other than ethnic warfare. It has been met with almost total silence from the “anti-racist” organizations, many of which are dominated by white Marxists more than by immigrants. They appear to be totally uninterested in racism against their own people, and indirectly encourage it by telling immigrants that they face a system of repressive “white racism” designed to hold them down, thus whipping up hatred against whites.

Expo has ties to extreme left-wing organizations. For instance, one member of their staff in 2008, Kenny Hjälte, was until recently an active member of the Left Party, the “reformed” Communist party. Just how “reformed” this party is has been a matter of controversy. Their leader Lars Ohly called himself a “Leninist” as late as 1999, a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Following media exposure regarding his party’s links with the repressive Communist regimes of Eastern Europe during the Cold War, he said that he would no longer call himself a Communist but still supported the Marxist ideals of a classless society.

The seminar “Arguments against the Sweden Democrats” in October 2007 was moderated by a person representing Internationalen, the newspaper of Socialistiska partiet, the representatives of Trotskyist Communists in Sweden. It was co-organized by Arbetaren (“The Worker”), a Socialist newspaper, with Kajsa Lindohf from Expo and journalist Mats Deland from major newspaper Aftonbladet as participants. Several prominent Swedes have a background from Arbetaren, among them the author Liza Marklund. She cooperates professionally with the writer Jan Guillou, whose story about the fictional character Arn Magnusson, placed during the Crusades (with a heavy anti-Christian and pro-Islamic bias), in 2007 was turned into the most expensive film production in Scandinavian history.

Jan Guillou refused to honor the victims of the Jihadist attacks of September 11, 2001 with three minutes of silence because the attacks were “an attack on U.S. imperialism.” Responding to a study showing a vastly disproportionate amount of Left Party (former Communist party) supporters among journalists, the Socialist Jan Guillou admitted that “The statistics are true.” Guillou has boasted about the fact that unlike their neighbors, Sweden doesn’t have a significant political party critical of mass immigration. This is, according to him, because the intellectuals have stuck together to prevent such “Islamophobia and racism” from gaining ground. It is curious that he brags about curtailing freedom of speech regarding mass immigration, since from 2000 to 2004 he was the chairman of the Swedish Publicists’ Association, which is supposedly dedicated to free speech in the mass media.

To give some perspective on just how biased the Swedish political and media establishment is, here is a blog post from February 2008 by the Scandinavia-based American writer Bruce Bawer, author of the international bestseller While Europe Slept:

“Dagens Nyheter, Sweden’s largest newspaper, contains a piece by Andreas Malm about While Europe Slept, Bat Yeor’s Eurabia, Walter Laqueur’s Last Days of Europe, and Mark Steyn’s America Alone. (But mostly about While Europe Slept.) It’s more of the usual mischief: instead of seriously addressing the facts and analyses in these books, Malm is regally dismissive and derisive, relentlessly mocking the authors and caricaturing their arguments.”

Who is Mr. Malm? According to Bawer he’s “a former member of Syndicalist Youth (no, it’s not a Swedish boy band), a regular contributor to a syndicalist weekly called Arbetaren, and a founder of the Swedish branch of the International Solidarity Movement. A couple of years ago he wrote a piece for Expressen explaining why he supports Hizbollah. In this corner of the world, it’s only par for the course for a major newspaper to invite a person with such a résumé to write about books like While Europe Slept.”

The Syndicalist Youth see themselves as a part of the “revolutionary Left” and champion a “stateless and classless” society. They are supporters of the Palestinian intifada because it “shows the way for the millions of workers in the West and for us revolutionaries who are fighting in the heart” of “US-led imperialism.” As Norwegian journalist Jens Tomas Anfindsen notes, it is difficult to believe that a person with a history of revolutionary activism could be awarded a job in this “paper of record” unless they knew about his background and maybe considered it an asset. Dagens Nyheter is a “center-right” newspaper by local standards. A supporter of the Islamic terrorist organization Hizbollah and of a global stateless world thus gets to write about “Islamophobia” in a leading “conservative” newspaper.

In contrast, Lennart Eriksson worked at the Swedish Migration Board for more than 20 years. In 2007 he was ousted from his job as unit manager, allegedly because he ran a website in which he gave his opinions on various issues and because he is a political Conservative and pro-Israeli. On his website, he voiced appreciation of the US and Israel as thriving democracies and praised US general Patton as a hero of World War Two. He never spent work-time on his website and never used his work computers for this purpose. Neither do his employers contend that he ever did so. Eriksson sued the Migration Board. He maintains he has in effect been fired from his job as asylum assessment unit manager, camouflaged in the form of a transfer, and feels that there is no legal or justifiable cause for the move. The Migration Board confirms that Lennart Eriksson has been transferred as a result of the opinions he expressed on his private website. The case will be settled in October 2008, but as far as I know, it was not yet resolved when this book was completed, on October 13 2008.

In Sweden, you risk your job if you are a pro-Israeli, pro-American conservative or an “Islamophobe,” but ridiculing Christianity or supporting Islamic terrorist organizations is OK; it may even enhance your career prospects. Criticizing Multiculturalism and mass immigration will not only make you lose your job (there have been several cases of this), but could make you a victim of physical attacks, perhaps in your private home.

At the same time as Eriksson’s case was scheduled for court, Swedish Academy supremo Horace Engdahl denounced the “ignorance” of authors from the United States and claimed that the reason why not many Nobel Prizes for Literature are awarded to Americans is that Europeans are more open-minded. Americans “don’t really participate in the big dialogue” of ideas. Which dialogue is he referring to? The only dialogue self-appointed intellectuals in his country are interested in is with hardline Marxists, Islamic Jihadists and others who believe Western civilization is evil and should be destroyed.

When Andreas Malm wrote about the “Islamophobia” of Bruce Bawer, Bat Ye’or and Canadian writer Mark Steyn, he was echoing an article written by Expo. In late 2007 Expo released the publication [ pdf, in Swedish] “The war against Islam,” in which they worried about an increasing trend towards “organized Islamophobia” in the West. They specifically singled out the Brussels anti-Jihad conference of October 2007 for attention, and compared criticism of Communism, which has killed perhaps one hundred million people, to criticism of Islam. Expo’s founder Stieg Larsson was pro-Communist and met his future wife during a support meeting for the pro-Communist National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam.

As we speak, Muslims are driving Christians out of the birthplace of Jesus Christ, Bethlehem, but Western media choose to blame this on the Jewish state of Israel, a fellow victim of Jihad. The Christian population has dwindled from more than 85 per cent in 1948 to 12 per cent of its inhabitants in 2006. The few remaining non-Muslim communities in the Middle East are being systematically eradicated. Overall, the Middle Eastern Christian population has dropped from 20 percent in 1900 to less than 2 percent today, and is declining by the day. Why do “anti-racists” hardly write a single word about global Muslim infidelophobia when they are so concerned about Islamophobia?

On the International Women’s Day, March 8 2008, the columnist Marte Michelet in left-wing Multicultural Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet attacked “brown” Feminists. And no, by that she did not mean Feminists with a dark skin, but those championing “Fascist,” racist and Islamophobic forces, which she took to mean virtually the same thing. One of them would be Hege Storhaug from the organization Human Rights Service, who has worked for the rights of immigrant women. After Ms. Michelet got many angry responses from readers who are fed-up with Islam, she wrote another article arguing that “Islamophobia is the most dangerous ideology of our time” and referred to Expo’s work in Sweden. According to her, “The amateur historian Bat Ye’or [is] the author of the Islamophobic Bible, the book Eurabia, which warns of a Muslim conspiracy against Europe. The book is probably as trustworthy as the anti-Semitic idea of the Jewish conspiracy ZOG.”

Columnist Marte Michelet is the daughter of the Communist writer Jon Michelet and was until 1998 the leader of the Red Youth, the country’s “revolutionary youth league.” For my part, I find it very interesting how many Marxist Feminists, who have for generations worked to break down Christianity and the nuclear family in the West, now passionately embrace Islam, the most repressive religion on earth. Marxists do not care about “women’s liberty.” They do not care about anybody’s liberty. They support anything that can destabilize the West. The fact that a newspaper that has been at the forefront of radical Feminism for generations now suddenly warns against “Islamophobia” and “prejudice” against the world’s most anti-female religion is highly revealing.

Ethnologist Maria Bäckman, in her study “Whiteness and gender,” has followed a group of Swedish girls in the suburb of Rinkeby outside Stockholm, where natives have been turned into a minority of the inhabitants due to immigration. The subjects “may encounter prejudices such as the idea that Swedish girls act and dress in a sexually provocative way or that blonde girls are easy.” Bäckman relates that several of the Swedish girls she interviewed stated that they had dyed their hair to avoid sexual harassment. They experienced that being blonde involves old men staring at you, cars honking their horns and boys calling you “whore.”

A report from organization Save the Children told that Swedish girls are scared of being raped, a possibility that appears very real to them. A survey carried out among ninth-grade boys in the immigrant-dominated suburb of Rinkeby showed that in the last year, 17% of the boys had forced someone to have sex, 31% had hurt someone so badly that the victim required medical care, and 24% had committed burglary or broken into a car. Sensational statistics, but they appear to have been published only in a daily newssheet that is distributed free on the subways.

“It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl,” says Hamid, in an interview about a gang rape involving a Swedish girl and immigrant perps. “The Swedish girl gets a lot of help afterwards, and she had probably f**ked before, anyway. But the Arab girl will get problems with her family. For her, being raped is a source of shame. It is important that she retains her virginity….It is far too easy to get a Swedish whore…girl, I mean;” says Hamid, and laughs over his own choice of words. “I don’t have too much respect for Swedish girls. I guess you can say they get f**ked to pieces.”

In an article from June 2007 with the title “Summertime — rape time,” Aftonbladet, one of the largest dailies in Scandinavia, linked the spike in rapes during the summer to the warm weather. The official number of rape charges in Sweden has more than quadrupled during one generation, even more for girls under the age of 15. If this is due to the warm weather, I suppose the Scandinavian rape wave is caused by global warming? The fact that a greatly disproportionate number of the suspects have an immigrant background according to statistics from neighboring Norway and Denmark is purely coincidental, no doubt.

According to journalist Karen Jespersen, Helle Klein, the political editor-in-chief of Aftonbladet from 2001 to 2007 and a former leading member of the Social Democratic Youth League, has stated that “If the debate is [about] that there are problems caused by refugees and immigrants, we don’t want it.” Opinion polls have revealed that two out of three Swedes doubt whether Islam can be combined with Swedish society, yet not one party in parliament has been genuinely critical of the immigration policies.

The rape numbers are being heavily manipulated by the authorities and the media, who claim that the massive increase in rapes is caused by:

A.		The warm weather
B.		Alcohol,
C.		Internet dating sites, and
D.		A technical increase due to the fact that women suddenly report rape more frequently than before.

These are the explanations that are mentioned. There is no other. Suggesting that it has something to do with mass immigration of alien and aggressive cultures is quite literally banned by law. In March 2007 during a rally supported by SSU, the Social Democratic Youth League, a man carried a sign reading, “While Swedish girls are being gang raped by immigrant gangs the SSU is fighting racism.” He was promptly arrested and later sentenced to a fine because he “expressed disrespect for a group of people with reference to their national or ethnic background.” The local court rejected the man’s free speech argument because even free speech has its limits, and he had clearly acted in a too provocative manner.

In September 2008, while an anti-Islamization demonstration was interrupted in Germany, clashes between police and demonstrators broke out as Malmö played host to the European Social Forum, with assorted groups of international left-wingers. Rocks were thrown at the police, windows were broken and a woman was raped as 800 people demonstrated against climate change. One group of Leftist blackhoods carried a banner with the inscription: Yes we are dreamers, Yes we believe in socialism, But we are more numerous than you think, and we have weapons. AFA Youth Malmö (AFA=Antifascistisk Aktion). This is a group which has assaulted critics of immigration for years, even judges and public officials, yet they can demonstrate openly in the streets and brag about how well armed they are. That doesn’t mean that free speech doesn’t have its limits. It clearly does.

Dahn Pettersson, a local politician, has been fined 18,000 kronor for writing that 95 percent of all heroin brought in comes via Albanians from Kosovo. “It is never ethnic groups that commit crimes. It is individuals or groups of individuals,” prosecutor Mats Svensson told the court, which found Pettersson guilty of “Agitation Against a Minority Group.” Svante Nycander, former editor of daily Dagens Nyheter, stated that “the ruling in Malmö District Court is damaging to freedom of expression. Many will take it as proof that the authorities are afraid of uncomfortable truths, and that lacking reasoned counter-arguments they punish those who speak plainly.” In Sweden, saying that Muslim Albanians are behind much of the drug traffic in Europe (a fact) is a crime. Making derogatory statements about the native population, however, is just fine.

Feriz and Pajtim, members of the group Gangsta Albanian Thug Unit in Malmö, explain to a journalist how they mug people downtown. They target a lone victim. “We surround him and beat and kick him until he no longer fights back,” Feriz says. They are always many more people than their victims. Isn’t this cowardly? “I have heard that from many, but I disagree. The whole point is that they’re not supposed to have a chance.” They don’t express any sympathy for their victims. “If they get injured, they just have themselves to blame for being weak,” says Pajtim and shrugs. “Many of us took part in gangs which fought against the Serbs in Kosovo. We have violence in our blood.” They blame the politicians for why they are mugging, stating that they are bored. If the state could provide them with something to do, maybe they would stop attacking people. But is a lack of leisure pursuits the only reason why they assault people? “No, it’s good fun as well,” says Feriz.

The wave of robberies the city of Malmö has experienced is part of a “war against Swedes.” This is the explanation given by young robbers from an immigrant background in interviews conducted by sociologist Petra Åkesson: “When we are in the city and robbing we are waging a war, waging a war against the Swedes. Power for me means that the Swedes shall look at me, lie down on the ground and kiss my feet. We rob every single day, as often as we want to, whenever we want to.”

Swedish authorities have virtually done nothing to stop this. On the contrary, they continue the policies that created these problems and ban opposition to this as “racism.” Sweden has absolutely no public debate about mass immigration, yet the natives are victims of an unprecedented wave of violence. While this is going on, the number one priority for the political class is demonizing neighboring Denmark for its “brutal” and “xenophobic” debate about immigration. During the immigrant riots in France in 2005, the Social Democratic Prime Minister Göran Persson criticized the way the French handled the unrest: “It feels like a very hard and confrontational approach.” He rejected the idea of more local police in Sweden. “To start sending out signals about strengthening the police is to break with the political line we have chosen to follow,” he said.

Police officers in 2007 protested against a new uniform designed to make them appear less aggressive by replacing boots with shoes, making guns less visible and changing the shirts to a softer, gentler color. Jan Karlsen from the Swedish Police Union warns that the underfunded police force will not be able to keep up with organized crime and rising levels of ethnic tensions for much longer. Meanwhile, Sweden has all but abolished its armed forces. According to Professor Wilhelm Agrell, Sweden now has a security policy based on the assumption that national territorial defense is no longer needed. The few soldiers they do have are stationed in faraway places.

Don’t Swedes pay famously high tax rates? Yes, they do. But tens of billions of kroner are spent on propping up rapidly growing communities of immigrants. Sweden has become the entire world’s welfare office and its celebrated welfare state the world’s largest pyramid scheme, an Enron with a national flag. The Danish People’s Party have suggested that Denmark should limit the right to settle in other Nordic countries and claim benefits because they fear that the Swedish welfare state could break down due to immigration, triggering a flood of welfare tourists to neighboring countries. “Sweden will have to make dramatic cuts in social security benefits unless they want their welfare system to come crashing down,” says Søren Espersen from the DPP.

In the New York Times May 10, 2006, Alan Cowell wrote an article from Sweden entitled “An Economy With Safety Features, Sort of Like a Volvo.” In all fairness, Mr. Cowell does mention potential problems, not the least that massive immigration is rapidly changing what was once a very ethnically homogeneous nation state. Still, he concludes that “the economy prospers — even though taxes here remain high and big government administers cradle-to-grave social programs that absorb more than half of the national output” and that “compared with some other parts of Europe, there is still some optimism here.”

This is sloppy journalism. Cowell states that “Sweden’s official unemployment rate of 4.8 percent, many economists say, is distorted by the omission of people in government-financed retraining programs. The labor unions calculate the real figure at closer to 8 percent.” In fact, some Swedes have suggested that true unemployment was more in the ballpark of 20-25%. In June 2006, think tank McKinsey Global Institute claimed that Sweden’s real unemployment rate was 15 percent, and that “If nothing else changes, the resulting increase in welfare costs would become too large to finance through the current tax system in only 10 to 20 years.”

500,000 people are on early retirement, 68,000 of whom are between the ages of 20 and 40. “If the sick-leave levels in Sweden really were an indicator of how sick we are, we would be facing a plague here,” as one commentator put it. Johnny Munkhammar of free market think-tank Timbro thinks the Scandinavian model is not all it’s cracked up to be. Sweden had the second highest growth rate in the world from 1890 to 1950, but since the tax rate later rose drastically it has fallen behind. It was the fourth richest country per capita in the world in 1970 whereas now it is number 14, and falling.

More immigrants should be allowed in to safeguard the welfare system, said finance minister Pär Nuder in 2005. However, unofficial estimates indicate that immigration costs at least 40 to 50 billion Swedish kroner every year, probably much more. A cost of 225 billion kroner in 2004, which is a high but not impossible estimate, would equal 17.5% of the tax income in a country where the overall tax burden between 1990 and 2005 on average was 61%. Exact numbers are impossible to come by, as the authorities refuse to make such calculations out of fear that it would contribute to “racism and xenophobia.”

Parallel with mass immigration from Third World countries, more people are leaving Sweden than at any time since the late 19th century. This trend is similar to that of the Netherlands, Germany, Britain and other countries where well-educated natives leave while they are being displaced by immigrants from developing countries. This policy of population replacement clearly cannot be economically beneficial to the countries in question. It is difficult to see any other logic behind this policy than a desire to crush existing Western nation states by all means necessary. In the 19th century Swedes left because of poverty. In the 21st they leave because their country is systematically being taken away from them by their own authorities.

Doesn’t this mean that the Swedish state and its elites are indirectly responsible for driving their own people away from their homes? I think it does, and I think future generations will view this policy as an example of pure evil. I also think they will find it difficult to understand how those who are vilified could in this case be the majority population, not a minority. There are several reasons for this, but I find it hard to believe whether this would have been possible without the incessant demonization of people of European origins and their culture that has become an established part of the mainstream ideology in many countries.

An unofficial survey among 52 Swedish municipalities indicated that at least 114 cases of arson against schools were registered within the first half of 2006, but accurate numbers were hard to come by. At least 139 schools suffered attempted arson during 2002 alone. Firefighter Björn Vinberg from the Malmö area says it is degrading to put out fires again and again in the same immigrant areas, with school kids laughing at them and lighting a new one just afterwards. No doubt, this must be a protest against the institutionalized and pervasive racism in Swedish society. By 2008, firefighters in Malmö demand police escorts on calls. They have had enough of threats in some of the city’s rougher areas. The firemen were attacked twice in a week during calls to the Muslim-dominated Rosengård suburb. In one case a “youth” pelted a fireman with stones, while another was attacked by a barrage of raw eggs. None of this has discouraged the political elites from continuing mass immigration, however.

Writer Nima Sanandaji states that “The Social Democratic party has started fishing for votes with the help of radical Muslims clergies.” They have been working with the influential Muslim leader Mahmoud Aldebe, president of Sweden’s Muslim Association, which is widely believed to be inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood. In 1999 Aldebe proposed that sharia should be introduced in Sweden. The Social Democrat Ola Johansson has referred to the book Social Justice in Islam by Muslim Brotherhood member and influential Jihadist ideologue Sayyid Qutb as proof that Socialist ideology can find common ground with Islamic ideas. After the elections in 2002, the Muslim Association sent a congratulation letter to the re-elected Social Democratic Prime Minister Göran Persson, hoping that his party would work for implementing some of their sharia demands in the future.

In 2006, the Muslim Association demanded in a letter, signed by its leader Aldebe, separate family laws regulating marriage and divorce, public schools with imams teaching homogeneous classes of Muslim children their religion and the language of their original homeland, and a “mosque in every municipality to be built through interest-free loans made available by the local municipalities.” This to demonstrate “Islam’s right to exist in Sweden” and to “heighten the status of and respect towards Muslims.” The demands were rejected by the Social Democrats then, but we shouldn’t be surprised if we see calls for the use of sharia in family matters by this “feminist” party. The British Labour Party has already accepted this.

In 2007 Broderskapsrörelsen (“The Brotherhood”), an organization of Christian members of the Social Democratic Party, decided to establish a network for cooperation with people of other faiths, which largely seemed to mean Muslims. The Social Democrats narrowly lost the elections in 2006 and appear to have decided that the way to regain and maintain power is to import voters; a strategy adopted by many of their sister parties in Western Europe.

According to journalist Salam Karam, “For the Muslim Brotherhood, Sweden is in many ways an ideal country, [and it] shares the ideals of the Social Democrats in their view of the welfare society. Leading figures in Muslim congregations are also active within the Social Democratic [Party], and have very good relations with Sweden’s Christian Social Democrats — Broderskapsrörelsen. The Social Democrats have, in turn, and perhaps as thanks for the support they receive from the mosque leadership, shown a tendency to shy away from the fact that there is extremism in some of our mosques. This has given the Muslim Brotherhood the freedom to force its ideology upon [the mosque’s worshippers].”

The Swedish Social Democrats were pro-Fascist and pro-Nazi during the 1930s and 40s, appeased the Communists during the Cold War and cooperate with radical Islamic organizations today. They have consistently supported or appeased some of the worst societies and ideologies in human history. Yet they are the good guys, the poster boys of the political Left throughout the world.

Why do they get away with this? How come Socialists can ally themselves openly with some of the most violent and repressive movements on earth and still manage to portray themselves as beacons of goodness? I am tempted to agree with former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky: The West didn’t win the Cold War, at least not as decisively as we should have done. The belief-system we were up against has been allowed to mutate and regain some of its former strength. We haven’t defeated Socialism (or Multiculturalism) until we stage a Nuremberg trial and demonstrate clearly that the suffering, repression and massacres by regimes from Vietnam via the Ukraine to the Baltic were a direct result of Socialist doctrines.

Many former Marxists have become passionate Multiculturalists, so much so that we need to analyze what these doctrines have in common. How come so many white Marxists are aggressively hostile to their own civilization and almost seem to derive pleasure from the idea of wiping out their own people? Is Globalist Multiculturalism on some level a replacement Communism or is it in fact a direct continuation of Communism? In traditional Communism the “oppressive class” should be forced out of power, stripped of their assets and perhaps physically eliminated. If we assume that whites, and by that I mean people of European stock, are seen collectively as the “global oppressive class” who uphold the capitalist system and prevent a just world order, breaking down whites becomes the road to implement equality. Perhaps if traditional Communism put its emphasis on economic differences, this new form of Communism puts emphasis on breaking down cultural and genetic differences in order to achieve global equality. It could thus be thought of as cultural and genetic Communism.

If we assume that the ideology of Globalist Multiculturalism has totalitarian tendencies, we should remember that totalitarian ideologies usually have a Villain Class, a group of evil oppressors that can be blamed for all the ills of society. If the ruling ideology falls somewhat short of producing the Perfect Society it has promised, this will be followed by even more passionate attacks on the Villain Class, be that the Jews, the capitalists, the bourgeoisie, etc. The Villain Class of Multiculturalism seems to be European culture and persons who happen to be born with a white skin. Any problems will automatically be blamed on “white racism.” One of the hallmarks of a Villain Class is that its members can be verbally or even physically abused with impunity. The Villain Class is subject to public scorn and has de facto or de jure less legal protection than other groups.

The radical feminist Joanna Rytel wrote an article called “I Will Never Give Birth to a White Man,” for the Swedish daily Aftonbladet, stating things such as “no white men, please… I just puke on them.” After receiving a complaint because of this, Swedish state prosecutor Göran Lambertz explained why this didn’t qualify as racism: “The purpose behind the law against incitement of ethnic hatred was to ensure legal protection for minority groups of different compositions and followers of different religions. Cases where people express themselves in a critical or derogatory way about men of ethnic Swedish background were not intended to be included in this law.”

In 2006, Chancellor of Justice Göran Lambertz discontinued his preliminary investigation regarding anti-Semitism at the great mosque in Stockholm. He wrote that “the lecture at hand contains statements that are strongly degrading to Jews, among other things, they are throughout called brothers of apes and pigs.” Furthermore a curse is expressed over the Jews and “Jihad is called for, to kill the Jews, whereby suicide bombers — celebrated as martyrs — are the most effective weapon.” Lambertz thought that the “recently mentioned statements in spite of their contents are not to be considered incitement against an ethnic group according to Swedish law.” His conclusions were that the preliminary investigation should be discontinued because this incitement against Jews could be said to originate from the Middle East conflict.

It is illegal to suggest that certain groups are worse than others. If you criticize oppression of women, you should be careful to state that all men are equally bad and that Western men are at least as bad as Muslim men. The Marxist politician (from the “reformed” Communists) Gudrun Schyman in a 2002 speech posited that Swedish men were just like the extremely brutal Islamic Taliban regime. A male columnist in newspaper Aftonbladet immediately agreed with her: Yes, Western men are like the Taliban.

A note to Ms. Schyman: A feminist culture will eventually be squashed because the men have either become too demoralized and weakened to protect their women, or because they have become fed-up with incessant ridicule. If Western men are pigs and “just like the Taliban” no matter what we do, why bother? Western women will then be squashed by more aggressive men from other cultures (whom women often voted to let in because of their “kind and compassionate” Socialist sympathies), which is exactly what is happening in Western Europe now. The irony is that when women launched the Second Wave of Feminism in the 1960s and 70s, they were reasonably safe and, in my view, not very oppressed. When the long-term effects of feminism finally set in, Western women may very well end up being genuinely oppressed under the boot of Islam. Radical feminism thus leads to oppression of women.

In 2005, a TV program which caused some stir quoted Irene von Wachenfeldt, chairwoman of ROKS, The National Organization for Women’s Shelters, as saying: “…when war breaks out, it is fully ok to use violence openly. I sometimes say that we are involved in a civil world war, a gender war. Men are animals.” In the organization’s magazine, the extreme feminist Valeria Solana was hailed in a review. She writes in her manifesto: “To call a man an animal is to flatter him: He is a machine, a walking dildo, a biological mishap.” In the TV documentary, Irene von Wachenfelt was asked whether she agreed with Solana, and she did. ROKS has received millions in public funding.

In Sweden, you cannot say that certain ethnic groups are more involved in crime than others. That’s hateful and banned by law. But you can say that all men are animals, and you will get state support for doing so. You can also belittle the traditional culture of the natives. This is not just allowed but encouraged. As mentioned before, the “conservative” Prime Minister Reinfeldt has stated that the native culture was merely barbarism and that everything good has been imported from abroad. Had a public figure said something similar about the culture of an immigrant group, he or she would have had to resign immediately and most likely would have faced a trial for hate speech and racism.

Jonathan Friedman, an American Jew living in Sweden, mentions that the so-called Integration Act from 1997, two years after Sweden joined the European Union, proclaimed that “Sweden is a Multicultural society.” The Act implicitly states that Sweden doesn’t have a history, only the various ethnic groups that live there now. Native Swedes have formally been reduced to just another ethnic group, with no more claims to the country than the Iraqis who arrived there last Thursday. As Friedman puts it, “it’s almost as if the state has sided with the immigrants against the Swedish working class.”

“Exit Folkhemssverige – En samhällsmodells sönderfall“ (Exit the People’s Home of Sweden — The Downfall of a Model of Society) is a book from 2005 about immigration and the welfare state model called “the people’s home,” written by Jonathan Friedman, Ingrid Björkman, Jan Elfverson and Åke Wedin. According to them, the Multicultural elites see themselves first of all as citizens of the world. In order to emphasize and accentuate “diversity,” everything associated with the native culture is deliberately disparaged. Opposition to this is considered racism: “The dominant ideology in Sweden, which has been made dominant by powerful methods of silencing and repression, is a totalitarian ideology, where the elites oppose the national aspect of the nation state. The problem is that the ethnic group that are described as Swedes implicitly are considered to be nationalists, and thereby are viewed as racists.”

Jens Orback, Minister for Democracy, Metropolitan Affairs, Integration and Gender Equality from the Social Democratic Party said during a debate in Swedish radio in 2004 that “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”

This was a government which knew perfectly well that their people risked becoming a minority in their own country, yet did nothing to stop this. On the contrary: Pierre Schori, Minister for Immigration, during a parliamentary debate in 1997 said that: “Racism and xenophobia should be banned and chased [away],” and that one should not accept “excuses, such as that there were flaws in the immigration and refugee policies.”

In other words: It should be viewed as a crime for the native white population not to assist in wiping themselves out from the lands where their ancestors have lived since prehistoric times. The state is turned into a committed enemy of the very people it was supposed to serve and protect. Swedes pay some of the highest tax rates in the world, and for this they get runaway crime rates and a government that is actively hostile to their interests.

Mona Sahlin has held various posts in Social Democratic cabinets, among others as Minister for Democracy, Integration and Gender Equality. Sahlin has said that many Swedes are envious of immigrants because they, unlike the Swedes, have a culture, a history, something which ties them together. Notice how Swedish authorities first formally state that Swedes don’t have a history or culture, and then proceed to lament the fact that Swedes don’t have a history or culture. A neat trick: First you break down the traditional values of your nation; then you proclaim that it needs to import values from abroad because it doesn’t have any.

Sahlin has stated that “If two equally qualified persons apply for a job at a workplace with few immigrants, the one called Muhammad should get the job….It should be considered an asset to have an ethnic background different from the Swedish one.” This is another way of saying that the natives according to Multicultural doctrines are second-rate citizens of their own country. In 2004 she was quoted as saying that “A concerted effort that aims at educating Swedes that immigrants are a blessing to their country must be pursued,” stressing that her compatriots must accept that society is Multicultural. “Like it or not, this is the new Sweden.” Mona Sahlin was elected leader of the Social Democratic Party in 2007.

Only a week after members of Antifascistisk Action (AFA) harassed a Swedish judge and vandalized his house, AFA members demonstrated alongside the Swedish police, the Swedish government and the Swedish media establishment during Pride Week, Stockholm’s annual gay celebration, in August 2007. At the very end of the Pride Parade marched a group of black-clothed and masked blackhood or blackshirt representatives of AFA, ready to beat up anybody deemed to be insufficiently tolerant (they did hospitalize at least one person that day, according to their website). Adjacent to them marched a number of policemen, including members of the Swedish Gay Police organization.

According to journalist Kurt Lundgren, Mona Sahlin, expected to become Prime Minister in the future, was a participant in the Pride Festival in 2007 where she was graduated, after several questions about orgasms, to the F**king Medal Award. Has she given some thought to what effect this will have in a country with exploding rape statistics ? According to the leading blogger Dick Erixon, the number of reported rapes in Sweden is now three times as high as in New York City. NYC has roughly the same number of inhabitants but it is a metropolis, whereas Sweden is a country with mostly rural areas and villages. Swedish girls are called “whores” on a regular basis and are increasingly scared to go outside, yet the nation’s arguably most powerful woman takes the F**king Medal Award. How will this be perceived?

Moreover, how will these views on “sexual liberation” be reconciled with her party’s cozy relationship with groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, since several of its international leaders have indicated that gays should be killed? Top Brotherhood cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi discussed at the Arabic satellite channel al-Jazeera various punishments he said were appropriate for homosexuality, including being thrown from heights or burnings: “Some say we should burn them, and so on. There is disagreement.” Mona Sahlin thinks that the right-wing opposition party the Sweden Democrats are “a misogynistic” party. I suppose the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t? What about her party’s immigration policies, gang rapes of native girls and honor killings of immigrant girls? The Swedish Church has announced that it will allow gay couples to marry in church. Will the Social Democrats make sure that gay couples will be allowed to marry in mosques controlled by the MB? More interestingly, will the left-wing extremists of AFA attack them for homophobia if they refuse?

Kurt Lundgren in May 2007 had a noteworthy story on his blog. Lundgren reported about a magazine aimed at preschool teachers who take care of children between the ages of 0-6 years old. It included recommendations to promote “gender equality” and “sexual equality.” He said that in a kindergarten in Stockholm, parents were encouraged by the preschool teachers to equip their sons with dresses and female first names. There are now weeks in some places when boys HAVE TO wear a dress. Lundgren considers this sexual indoctrination to be worse than political propaganda:

“To give sex education to preschool children, to force them to have an opinion on gay sex and queer (lesbians, transsexuals, bisexuality, fetishism, cross over, sex change etc.) I regard as abuse of children.…Little children, we are talking about three to six-year-olds here, cannot in the preschool protect themselves from these sexual assaults. Their parents are not there, the children are totally left to themselves.”

One comment left by a blog reader stated: “My 13-year-old son had ‘equality day’ [in school] and had to listen to a transvestite. I have myself never encountered or talked to one during my considerably longer life. Why is this important? Today’s children know nothing about the crimes of Communism, but everything about the sexual orientation of transvestites.”

This is quite literally true. A poll carried out on behalf of the Organization for Information on Communism found that 90 percent of Swedes between the ages of 15 and 20 had never heard of the Gulag, although 95 percent knew of Auschwitz. “Unfortunately we were not at all surprised by the findings,” Ander Hjemdahl, the founder of UOK, told website The Local. In the nationwide poll, 43 percent believed that Communist regimes had claimed less than one million lives. The actual figure is estimated at around 100 million. 40 percent believed that Communism had contributed to increased prosperity in the world. Mr. Hjemdahl states several reasons for this massive ignorance, among them that “a large majority of Swedish journalists are left-wingers, many of them quite far left.”

In Norway, a specialist in early childhood education stirred debate by supporting “sexual games” for children of pre-school age. Family therapist Jesper Juul conceded that “many are disturbed by children’s sexuality, but I think it’s important to put it on the agenda.” Most Norwegians send their children to kindergartens before they begin school at age six, and many average citizens were shocked by this. “I thought at first that this was a joke,” said Karin Ståhl Woldseth, a spokesman for the right-wing Progress Party. “Children don’t need more exposure to this in kindergartens. We think it will damage their health.” Child psychologist Thore Langfeldt in an interview publicly admitted that sex games were encouraged by those who fear that people could become infected by the ideas of conservative groups and therefore want to make children immune from Christian morality as early as possible.

I do not believe sex in itself is sinful or bad. However, being civilized means precisely that you learn to control your urges and natural impulses, sexual, violent or otherwise. Moreover, sex in this situation isn’t “natural;” it is specifically used for destructive ideological purposes. This sexualization of childhood is increasingly prevalent all over the Western world.

The Frankfurt school of cultural Marxism, with such thinkers as Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs, aimed at overthrowing capitalist rule by undermining the hegemonic culture. According to Gramsci, the Socialist revolution, which failed to spread following the Russian Revolution in 1917, could never take place until people were liberated from Western culture, and particularly from their “Christian soul.” As Lukacs said in 1919, “Who will save us from Western Civilization?” This could be done through breaking down traditional Christian morality and family patterns and undermining the established culture from within by a long march through the institutions. In 2008, we can see that this strategy has been successful in Western media and academia, which are not only lukewarm in defending our civilization but in many cases actively side with our enemies. The irony is that most Westerners have never heard of Gramsci, yet ideas similar to his have had a huge impact on their lives.

Mona Sahlin, leader of the Social Democratic Party, confirmed in early October 2008 that her party and the Greens want to form a coalition government in 2010. What kind of policy will such a government follow? Miljöpartiet de Gröna, the Swedish Green Party, state on their official website that the education system should start working for “gender equality” at an early age; children need counterweights to the gender roles which girls and boys are raised into. Therefore teachers and personnel in child care services must finish an education in equality before they are given their exams. They also want to abolish grades in schools.

The Green Party favor ideological Globalism in its purest form. They want a “world citizenship” to replace the national citizenship, totally free migration on a global basis, global taxes and a strengthened United Nations to ensure a just world order. Their political program is so radical that I almost wish I had time to translate it all into English, just to document it:

“We do not believe in artificial borders. We have a vision of unrestricted immigration and emigration, where people have the right to live and work wherever they please….We want Sweden to become an international role model by producing a plan to implement unrestricted immigration.”

They have a strong focus on anti-discrimination and racism, and desire harsh and swift penalties for “discrimination” yet soft penalties for many other crimes. They want “religiously neutral” holidays (no Christmas or Easter) and education against racism and discrimination to be taught in schools. No “bigotry” against any group of people (except whites presumably, and white men in particular) will be allowed, and all forms of bigotry should be banned by law regardless of where it is voiced. Among the forms of racism they specify should be aggressively stamped out is “Islamophobia.” However, they understand that racism cannot be totally stamped out until we have dismantled the “racist world order” and replaced it with a just world order where none suffer and the poor are no longer exploited.

The Swedish Green Party state explicitly that the concepts male and female are “socially constructed” and forced upon all human beings. In order to reach the new world order, it is paramount that all such artificial identities are broken down. This should be facilitated by the education system and specially trained teachers. They believe that “all human beings” should be free to choose whatever name they desire. By this they appear to mean “gender” as well. They want everything to be “gender neutral,” not only marriage ceremonies but identity cards.

I assume this means that I should be able to choose a female name on my identity card and that the state is oppressing me if it doesn’t allow this. Since employing artificial categories such as “male” and “female” contributes to upholding the exploitative world order of poverty and global warming, one must assume that children will starve in the Sudan if I cannot call myself “Mary” or “Christine” on my driver’s license. After all, I may have a penis, but it’s a socially constructed penis and it contributes to an unjust capitalist system.

Just for the record: In 2007, protests from female soldiers led to the Swedish military removing the penis of a heraldic lion depicted on the Nordic Battlegroup’s coat of arms. The armed forces agreed to emasculate the lion after a group of women from the rapid reaction force lodged a complaint to the European Court of Justice. This is obviously funny, but the serious side to this is how women are trying to castrate their own men, in this case literally, at the same time as their country has one of the highest rape frequencies of any Western country. This is caused by Multiculturalism and runaway immigration, both policies which are disproportionally supported by female voters. So the femininization of society supported by the feminists makes women less safe, not more. The same can be said of all Western nations.

And no, not all differences between men and women are “socially constructed.” Professor Helmuth Nyborg at Aarhus University in Denmark did research which revealed that there are differences between the sexes when it comes to intelligence. This triggered massive resistance. According to him, “Within the realms of psychology you are not allowed to talk about intelligence. You cannot measure intelligence and you cannot rank people according to intelligence. The entire field of intelligence is a so-called ‘no-go-area.’“ If you still choose to proceed, you are a bad person. If you look at differences between groups of people, you are viewed as immoral and plain evil.

According to Professor Annica Dahlstrom, an expert in neuroscience, men are found at the extremes of high and low intelligence. Although female geniuses do exist, they are much less frequent than male ones. She believes children should be left primarily in the care of their mother during their first years of living. The feminist establishment in Sweden claims that she has misused her position as a scientist to reinforce gender stereotypes. As Dahlström says, “The difference between boys and girls, in terms of their biology and brain, is greater than we could ever have imagined.” Differences between the sexes emerge in fetuses and are clearly recognizable at the age of three. The centers of the brain dealing with verbal communication, the interpretation of facial expressions and body language are more developed in girls even at this early age. Forcing boys to behave like girls are vice versa is unnatural and will inevitably hurt them. Such a policy could even be viewed as “mental abuse” of children in her view. Yet this is exactly what is happening, and sometimes with government support.

The British historian Roland Huntford wrote a book in the early 1970s about Sweden called The New Totalitarians. He noted how equality between the sexes was aggressively promoted from the late 1960s and early 70s. This was closely linked to a campaign for sexual liberation:

“Indeed, the word ‘freedom’ in Swedish has come to mean almost exclusively sexual freedom, product perhaps of an unadmitted realization that it is absent, or unwanted, elsewhere. Through sex instruction at school for the young, and incessant propaganda in the mass media for the older generations, most of Sweden has been taught to believe that freedom has been achieved through sex. Because he is sexually emancipated, the Swede believes that he is a free man, and judges liberty entirely in sexual terms.…The Swedish government has taken what it is pleased to call ‘the sexual revolution’ under its wing. Children are impressed at school that sexual emancipation is their birthright, and this is done in such a way as to suggest that the State is offering them their liberty from old-fashioned restrictions.”

By old-fashioned restrictions, read Christian morality. Huntford noted that this came together with efforts to downplay or attack Western culture prior to the French Revolution. As Mr. Olof Palme, who was Swedish Socialist Prime Minister from the late 1960s until 1986, said: “The Renaissance So-called? Western culture? What does it mean to us?”

The teaching of history was severely curtailed in Swedish schools because it was “impractical.” Religion, and Christianity in particular, was presented as superstition designed to fool the masses, who had been liberated from this ancient oppression by the labor movement. As he noted, “Scrapping historical knowledge deprives pupils of the instrument for criticizing society here and now. And perhaps that is the intended effect.”

“The State,” in the words of Ingvar Carlsson, then Minister of Education, “is concerned with morality from a desire to change society.” Mr. Carlsson, who was Swedish Prime Minister as late as 1996, also stated that “School is the spearhead of Socialism” and that it “teaches people to respect the consensus, and not to sabotage it.”

“We have no ethical standards in education, and no rules for sexual behaviour,” in the words of Dr Gösta Rodhe, the then head of the department of sexual education in the Directorate of Schools, and thus in some ways the executive officer of government sexual policy. “You see, since there’s a lack of tension in Swedish politics, younger people have got to find release and excitement in sexual tension instead.”

Mr. Huntford ended his book with a warning that this system of soft-totalitarianism could be exported to other countries. This was in the early 1970s, and he has been proven right since:

“The Swedes have demonstrated how present techniques can be applied in ideal conditions. Sweden is a control experiment on an isolated and sterilized subject. Pioneers in the new totalitarianism, the Swedes are a warning of what probably lies in store for the rest of us, unless we take care to resist control and centralization, and unless we remember that politics are not to be delegated, but are the concern of the individual. The new totalitarians, dealing in persuasion and manipulation, must be more efficient than the old, who depended upon force.”

For my own part, I find it interesting that the same people who in the 60s and 70s broke up the traditional family structure in Western countries and warned people against the dangers of overpopulation, telling people to lower their birth rates, came back a few years later and said that we had to import millions of immigrants because we have such low birth rates.

“As political and economic freedom diminishes” said Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, “sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase.” This fits perfectly with Huntford’s description. The state strips away your personal, economic and political freedom, yet grants you sexual freedom in return, boldly hailing itself as your liberator. Sweden in 2008 is a society with no real freedom of speech if you deviate from the ruling ideology. The more crushing ideological censorship and political repression become, the more frantic the displays of “sexual freedom” get. Sex is freedom; freedom means sex, and only sex.

State authorities present this as liberation of women and sexual liberation, but it is actually about breaking down rival sources of power: The traditional Christian culture and the nuclear family. This leaves the state more powerful since it can regulate all aspects of life and, most importantly, can indoctrinate the nation’s children as it sees fit, without undue parental interference. The state replaces your family, raises your children and cares for your elderly.

The social engineers have discovered that despite decades of state-sponsored gender equality propaganda, boys and girls still behave differently. Instead of concluding that maybe there are innate differences between the sexes, they have decided to indoctrinate children more thoroughly, starting at an even earlier age, to eradicate “gender differences.”

The Swedish Consumers Association reacted angrily to a star-shaped, pink ice-cream because it represented gender-profiling. “Girlie, GB’s new ice pop, is pink and has make-up inside the stick. It says a lot about what GB thinks about girls and how they should be,” the association said in a statement. Sweden does not need more products that reinforce existing prejudices about sex roles, so they asked the producer to make the product less gender specific. A bus driver in the increasingly Muslim-dominated town of Malmö was fired from his job following revelations that he stopped a woman from boarding his bus because she was wearing full Islamic face-covering, which made her hard to identify. In Sweden, it is unacceptable if girls are presented with pink ice-creams because this reinforces “gender stereotypes,” but the burka is just fine.

Meanwhile, the country is in the midst of the most explosive rape wave in recent history, largely caused by immigration. While Swedish girls are called “whores” by immigrants, Swedish boys are told to be as “gender neutral” as possible. Traditionally, a nation has been defended by masculine men who take pride in their heritage. By removing cultural pride and any sense of masculinity among native men, the country is rendered effectively defenseless. And maybe that was the intention?

In Western Europe, great emphasis is placed on destroying the heritage of the native population and instilling whites with a guilt complex and shame designed to alienate them from their own history. They are supposed to abase themselves in front of immigrants and tell them how worthless and evil their culture is, or alternatively how much they lament the fact that they don’t have a culture.

While Christianity has been ridiculed for generations, so much so that Christians complain about persecution, Islam is presented in textbooks as a benevolent religion and granted a high degree of respect in the public sphere. Maybe I have a conspiratorial mindset, but the way Multiculturalists condemn Christianity and praise Islam is so consistent that I cannot help but ask whether some of them have deliberately set out to uproot the plague of Christianity from our culture once and for all. They ridicule it at any given opportunity and at the same time import a rival religion and groom it as a replacement. When the day comes when people have gotten sufficiently tired of nihilism, Christianity will have become so discredited as to have been eliminated as a viable alternative, and people will be left with Islam. Or maybe it’s simply about eradicating anything and everything associated with European culture.

Sweden has been known as a “model country” with an economic system as a third way between capitalism and Socialism, or enlightened Socialism as it has been called. In 2008, the “Swedish model” no longer refers to an economic success story (and the Swedish economy grew rapidly before the welfare state was established), but to a horror story of cultural suicide, Gramscian cultural Marxism, ideological censorship and repression of dissent. Sweden is not unique. Similar trends are evident all over the Western world. But Political Correctness is unusual in its severity here, in part because Sweden already viewed itself as an “ideological state,” and the country is definitely ahead of the curve in ideological repression. Those of us who still have some love for aspects of what once was traditional Swedish culture can only hope that some of it is still alive and can re-emerge once the current ideological paradigm has disintegrated. The question remains, though, how much will be left of the Swedish nation once we get to that point. What is certain is that rough times are ahead, not just for Sweden but for the entire Western world, as Multiculturalism facilitates the slow disintegration of our societies.

Islamization and Cowardice in Scandinavia

This essay was first published at The Brussels Journal in September 2008, but has been substantially expanded with later additions from a number of essays.

I will start with saying a few words about the situation in Finland. The word “Finlandization” was coined to describe the concessions made under the pressure of circumstances by a small country when confronted by a much more powerful neighbor, which in Finland’s case was the Soviet Union. Until the Revolution in 1917, Finland was a part of the Russian Empire. Prior to the Napoleonic wars it had been a part of the Kingdom for Sweden for centuries and still has a Swedish-speaking minority. The presence on its eastern border of Russia’s Soviet successor kept Finnish independence balanced on a knife’s edge up until the collapse of Communism. Nowadays it seems that the entire West is voluntarily agreeing to be Finlandized with respect to Islam.

Finns in the far north of Europe, unlike their cousins in the southern regions of the continent, have had little direct exposure to and historical experience with Islam. Finland still has significantly fewer immigrants than Scandinavian neighbors Norway and Denmark, not to mention Sweden, which is why I will not make the country my main focus here. In the 70’s Finland was significantly poorer than Sweden, and this only changed during the 80’s and 90’s. Finland has received some immigration from the 1990s onwards, including a number of Muslims. Although demographically speaking less affected yet, Finland is by no means immune to Political Correctness and Multicultural censorship. KGS from the quality Finnish blog Tundra Tabloids has posted an English translation of an essay that was originally written in Finnish by fellow blogger Vasarahammer:

“In today’s Finland multiculturalism and political correctness rule the day the same way as in other Western European countries. But because of the short history of mass immigration, the societal development together with other effects of immigration lag behind. Finland is roughly 20 years behind in the development of ‘multicultural’ society. However, if the current academic, media and political elite have their way, the situation may change very rapidly…. After 9/11 Khodr Chehab, the leader of a Finnish Muslim community, appeared together in Senate square with the Finnish Lutheran Archbishop Jukka Paarma. The significance of the moment was lost by many, but it first showed, how the Finnish establishment was eager to appease Islam the same way Finnish establishment appeased the Soviet Union. But it was the cartoon crisis that finally exposed the attitude of the Finnish political elite. Not only did Prime Minister Vanhanen apologize for the publication of the cartoons but the police started an investigation concerning the publication of Muhammad cartoons by Suomen Sisu. The publication was followed by fierce calls of exercise of ‘responsible freedom of speech’ as well as outright calls to the authorities to prosecute the publications in all manners provided by the law.”

The organization Suomen Sisu was never prosecuted because they republished the Muhammad cartoons on their website, but the Finnish PM apologized in public for the act. Today, the best known critic of Islam and mass immigration in Finland comes from the academic circles. His name is Jussi Halla-aho, a doctor of Slavic studies.

Among Nordic and indeed Western countries, Denmark stands out with its popular opposition to Islamization. It is not a coincidence that the Muhammad cartoons were published there. This should not be taken as an indication that Denmark is a paradise. Danes face the same problems of Islamic aggression, Politically Correct cultural elites and political dhimmitude, but they have a genuine, intellectual resistance movement as well. Danes are deeply civilized people, but they are not cowards. They have an instinct for opposing evil ideologies and managed to save most of their Jews from the Nazis during the Second World War.

In 2008, three years after the cartoons were first published, the matter is still very much alive in the minds of many Muslims. More than 200 lawmakers shouted “Death to the enemies of Islam” during an angry demonstration outside the Afghan parliament, protesting the reprinting of the cartoons in Denmark and the release of the Islam-critical film Fitna by the Dutch politician Wilders. At the same time, Danish aid is helping schools to re-open in Afghanistan, even though critics say the curriculum is based on fundamentalist Islam. A campaign to boycott Danish and Dutch products was launched in Jordan. The campaign will include ads in newspapers and on radio and television that urge consumers to avoid buying named goods. The organisation, “The Messenger of Allah Unites Us,” have produced t-shirts, bumper stickers and posters with the campaign logo “Live without it.”

“[Danish] Muslim organizations intend to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights,” Muslim leader Mohammed Khalid Samha told IslamOnline, the large English language website founded by the influential Yusuf al-Qaradawi, after a Danish court rejected a suit by seven Muslim groups. “We were quite sure that the Danish judiciary would not be fair to Muslims,” said Samha. Meanwhile, two Tunisian men were arrested and charged with plotting the murder of cartoonist Kurt Westergaard.

In September 2008 a group of Jihadist Muslims discussed how to poison Denmark’s water supply in retaliation for the cartoons. Writer Hugh Fitzgerald stated in a comment:

“I assume that were such an attack to be made, the Danish people would demand that as a matter of national security, the Muslims living in Denmark would be expelled. At this point, after all that has been said and done, if you continue to self- identify as a Muslim, it is perfectly reasonable for Infidels to assume that you know what Islam teaches, or rather inculcates, and that you agree with it, or at least are not about to do anything to prevent or denounce such teachings.….Any more attempts on the lives of Infidels has to be treated as an act of war, by Muslims on non-Muslims. In World War II the Allied bombers did not selectively bomb only full-fledged enthusiasts for the Nazis, but bombed German cities — and Japanese ones, too — into rubble, to defeat the enemy. It is the collective that counts in wartime, and we do not have to spend our time delicately distinguishing between this or that degree of support, by Muslims, for Jihad, violent or otherwise.”

As Bruce Bawer put it in the essay Courage and Cowardice in Scandinavia from June 2008, following a bomb in Pakistan targeting Denmark:

“When a car bomb exploded outside Denmark’s embassy in Islamabad on June 2, killing eight, it was easy to guess who had done it and why. Sure enough, some days later al-Qaeda took credit and confirmed its motive: the now-infamous Muhammed cartoons. Originally published in the Jyllands-Posten daily on September 30, 2005, they were reprinted by a raft of Danish dailies last February 13 in a show of solidarity with turban-bomb cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, the target of three would-be assassins who had been arrested the day before. Presumably this rather surprising action — the Danish media, generally speaking, have given Jyllands-Posten a rough time for the past three years for upsetting the Muslims — was the immediate cause for the bombing.”

“Blasphemy” against Islam carries the death penalty according to sharia law, and this is far from redundant. For instance, in June 2008 a Pakistani judge sentenced a Muslim man to death on charges that he insulted Islam’s Prophet Muhammad.

In contrast to Denmark’s defiance, other Scandinavian countries surrendered to Islamic pressure as fast as humanly possible. Bawer again:

“Sweden took another route. When a political website featured a Jyllands-Posten cartoon, the government sent police to close it down. More recently, hit with his own cartoon crisis involving artist Lars Vilks, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt not only met Muslim ambassadors, but was praised by one for his ‘spirit of appeasement.’ Norway didn’t cover itself in glory, either. On the pretext that a tiny newspaper, Magazinet, had reprinted the Jyllands-Posten cartoons (never mind that major dailies in Spain, Germany, and France had done so as well), the cartoon jihadists chose to target Norway as well, plainly betting that the dialogue-happy, UN-worshipping ‘peace country’ would curb its freedoms at the first hint of Muslim displeasure. They were right. Norway’s government caved in ignominiously, holding a press conference on February 10, 2006, at which Magazinet‘s cowed editor, Vebjørn Selbekk, with the blessing of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, grovelled before a posse of imams and apologised to them for exercising his freedom of speech. It was probably the most disgraceful day in modern Norwegian history, but you wouldn’t know it by the politicians and journalists, who celebrated this selling out of freedom as a triumph of peacemaking.”

Selbekk, editor of the small Christian newspaper Magazinet, had firmly resisted pressure from Muslims who had made death threats and from the Norwegian establishment. But eventually Norway’s Minister of Labor and Social Inclusion Bjarne Håkon Hanssen hastily called a press conference at a major government office building in Oslo. There Selbekk issued an abject apology for reprinting the cartoons. At his side, accepting his act of contrition and asking that all threats now be withdrawn, was Mohammed Hamdan, the then head of Norway’s Islamic Council. As Bawer indicates, it was a picture right out of a sharia courtroom, with the Muslim leader declaring Selbekk to be henceforth under his protection.

In a Friday sermon on February 3 2006, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s largest Islamic organization, exhorted worshippers to show rage in response to the cartoons. The sermon was aired on Arab TV. The day after, the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria were set ablaze by an angry mob. It should be mentioned that Norway and Denmark are members of NATO and that destroying an embassy could be considered an act of war. A few days later, a delegation led by Mohammed Hamdan of Norway’s Islamic Council and a senior pastor representing Oslo’s bishop visited Qatar to meet Mr. Qaradawi. The trip received support from the Norwegian government. Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre was happy to accept the aid of the Islamic Council and its leader Hamdan. Al-Qaradawi then accepted the apology that Vebjørn Selbekk had issued on February 10.

Walid al-Kubaisi, a Muslim dissident living in Norway, warned that Yusuf al-Qaradawi is more dangerous than the terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, and that the Muslim Brotherhood, whose founder Hassan al-Banna Qaradawi followed in Egypt when he was young, wants the world to submit to sharia. Kubaisi reacted strongly to the statement by Mr. Hamdan that he would now give Mr. Selbekk protection: “It frightens me that he presents himself as an authority that can grant or revoke protection. Does this mean that [Minister] Bjarne Håkon Hanssen thinks that the next time I feel threatened because of something I have written, I should contact the Islamic Council, not the police? Sadly, the government, in their eagerness to end the current troubles, have made the authoritarian forces stronger.” Kubaisi feared that Islamic hardliners would from now on burn something every time they feel offended about something and expect to get their will.

Trond Giske, Minister of Culture and Church Affairs from the Labor Party, met with Mohammed Hamdan of the Islamic Council a few months after the embassy attacks and announced that government subsidies for the Islamic Council would be raised from 60,000 kroner a year to half a million. That’s more than a 700% increase in a single year. The government declared it would meet more frequently with the Islamic Council to “improve dialogue.” Its leader Hamdan smiled after having talked with Mr. Giske for about one hour. “We’re pretty pleased with the meeting. For us it’s important to improve contacts with the government so that we can get to know each other better.”

In the fall of 2008, the Norwegian Islamic Council was still waiting for a reply from the European Council for Fatwa and Research, which is led by Yusuf al-Qaradawi and other clerics affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, before it decided whether or not it is in favor of the death penalty for homosexuality. Qaradawi discussed at the Arabic satellite channel al-Jazeera various punishments he said were appropriate for homosexuality, including being thrown from great heights or burnings. At the same time, Mr. Qaradawi supports marriage to girls at the age of nine, as did his Prophet.

The status given to non-Muslims who accept being second-rate citizens, dhimmis, under Islamic rule is technically referred to as “protected.” During the Cartoon Jihad, the left-wing coalition government demonstrated in public that Norwegian authorities did not control the security of their citizens and had to accept Muslim intervention to secure their safety. This amounted to the acceptance of Islamic rule according to sharia law, a view which was subsequently strengthened by payments to Muslims at home and abroad. Undoubtedly these payments offered by Mr. Giske on behalf of the Government were viewed by Muslims as jizya, the “protection money” non-Muslims are required to pay in willing submission (Koran, 9:29) as a sign of their inferior status vis-à-vis Islam, as a compensation for not being slain.

Mohammed Hamdan of the Islamic Council participated in a meeting with members of the terrorist organization Hamas at Stortinget, the Norwegian parliament, in the summer of 2006. According to him, he was only an interpreter, but his brother Osama Hamdan was a member of parliament for Hamas in the Palestinian Territories. Members of Hamas have made it perfectly clear that their Jihad against Israel is part of a wider war against the West. For instance, Hamas member of parliament and cleric Yunis Al-Astal said on TV in April 2008 that “Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesized by our Prophet Muhammad…. the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, and even Eastern Europe.” Calls to conquer the West are frequently made by leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, including Qaradawi, but they are rarely reported in mainstream Western media.

Norway in 2007 became first Western country to recognize the then Hamas-led Palestinian government and to make the first transfer of direct financial aid to it. Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre of the Labor Party urged others to follow. Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. They state this explicitly in their charter, which means that the left-wing government of PM Jens Stoltenberg was willing to fund an organization whose spiritual leader had recently caused physical attacks against their country and is waging a war against their civilization. This was applauded by most media commentators. This policy is presented as “tolerance” whereas in older times it would probably have been seen as treason.

FM Støre participated in a conference with participants from dozens of countries and media outlets on how to “report diversity” in a non-offensive manner, with Arab News from Saudi Arabia as a moderator. The Cartoon Jihad had prompted Indonesia and Norway to join forces and promote a Global Inter-Media Dialogue. In June 2007 this was held in Oslo.

Keynote speaker at the conference, Doudou Diène, the United Nations Special Envoy for racism, xenophobia and intolerance, urged the media to actively participate in the creation of a Multicultural society, and expressed concerns that the democratic process could lead to immigration-restrictive parties gaining influence in the West. Mr. Diène represents Senegal, a predominantly Muslim country which is a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the largest voting bloc at the United Nations.

There were already signs that large portions of the mainstream media had been working according to similar ideas long before this conference. In Britain, leading figures of the BBC have proudly announced that they actively promote Multiculturalism. In Denmark in 2008, while their country was threatened by Muslims across the world, public broadcaster Danmarks Radio, the local equivalent of the BBC and with the same left-wing pro-Multicultural bias, held a “Miss Headscarf” beauty contest for women with the requirement being that they were over 15 and wore a veil, the way Muslim women are supposed to do.

As American scholar Dr. Daniel Pipes notes, “Self-hating Westerners have an out-sized importance due to their prominent role as shapers of opinion in universities, the media, religious institutions, and the arts. They serve as the Islamists’ auxiliary mujahideen.”

Following new threats in Denmark, the regional Norwegian daily Adresseavisen in 2008 decided to show solidarity with the Danish cartoonists. As Bruce Bawer writes:

“Trondheim’s Adresseavisen daily ran a cartoon which, though not depicting Muhammed, angered ‘moderate’ Muslim lawyer Abid Q. Raja, who — apparently feeling that Adresseavisen had obeyed the word but not the spirit of the Magazinet accords — argued that the cartoon shouldn’t have been published because it would be ‘misunderstood’ by Muslims. Pakistani ambassador Rab Nawaz Khan agreed, calling the cartoon an ‘act of terror’ that can ‘endanger the lives of Norwegian citizens.’ When a cartoon is terrorism and a bomb is a form of expression, you’re in Orwell country. Yet the star of the moment was Norwegian novelist Dag Solstad, who only days before the bombing delivered what you might call Norway’s version of Rowan Williams’s sharia lecture. Solstad didn’t go in for sharia explicitly — instead, he made the argument that free speech is actually undesirable, since it drowns meritorious works (such as his novels, presumably) in a sea of vulgarity (a category to which he relegated the Muhammed cartoons). Solstad’s colleagues offered polite demurrals.”

Mr. Solstad, with a history of long and strong sympathies for various Communist movements, is not unique. By the time these words are written, many Norwegian observers and intellectuals have criticized “free speech fundamentalists” in the major media.

In 2007, Minister of Justice Knut Storberget from the Labor Party said that the Norwegian Constitution Day, May 17th, is for “everybody,” and that it’s appropriate to demonstrate this by displaying a multitude of flags and cultures. It is now permitted to celebrate it by waving the flag of the United Nations. The editor of a Multicultural newspaper has suggested that the Norwegian national anthem should be translated to Urdu because this would be good for integration. Norwegians are supposed to celebrate their independence by singing their national anthem in Urdu, by wearing the national costume of Ghana and by waving the flag of the UN. This would be the equivalent of Americans celebrating the Fourth of July by waving the UN flag and by singing the Star-Spangled Banner in Arabic.

Norwegian police have discovered that a number of taxi drivers, many of whom have already been charged with tax evasion in one of the worst cases of welfare fraud in the nation’s history, have close contact with Pakistani gangs and operate as couriers of arms and drugs. In Oslo it is documented that criminal gangs have ties to Jihadist groups at home and abroad.

Minister Bjarne Håkon Hanssen from the Labor Party has called for increased immigration from Pakistan because this would be good for the economy. A majority of Muslims voted for the Labor Party in the 2005 elections, which the left-wing coalition won by a very slim margin. Eighty-three percent of Muslims voted for Leftist parties, just as all over Western Europe. Kristin Halvorsen, the leader of the Socialist Left Party, began her election campaign in the Pakistani countryside, praising all the “blood, sweat and tears Pakistanis in Norway have spent on building the country.” She is now Minister of Finance. The deputy leader of the Socialist Left Party, Audun Lysbakken, stated in November 2005 — while the party’s leader was Minister of Finance — that he wants to close the stock exchange and abolish private property rights because this would lead to more democracy. His party is highly critical of the United States and has been pushing, unsuccessfully so far, for a general boycott of Israel.

I should mention that the Socialist Left Party, just like virtually all left-wing parties supportive of Multiculturalism and high taxation in the West, is supported by a disproportionate number of female voters, while the “racist” Progress Party that wants to limit mass immigration is supported significantly more by men than by women. Feminists hail this as an indication that women are more “open-minded and compassionate” than men. Perhaps. But it could also be an indication that women are more naïve than men, since they support the continued importation of cultures that enslave women. Isn’t that self-defeating? If women are indeed more politically naïve than men, does that mean that the increased feminization and female influence in politics we’ve had for decades now has made the West soft?

The agency that handles immigration to Norway, UDI, in 2005 thought that the country must make it more attractive for both skilled and unskilled workers to move to Norway. “We need more immigrants,” claimed UDI chief Trygve Nordby, who has previously worked in key positions for the Socialist Left Party in parliament. “Too few dare to say that we have a large need for non-professional workers as well,” he said. UDI, in turn, should be able to have more flexibility in deciding cases, and process cases more quickly and efficiently. As it turned out later, the bureaucrats of UDI were in fact so “flexible” that they had been running their own, private immigration policies, and that the agency’s liberal interpretation of asylum rules had “stretched the boundaries” of the law. UDI violated both the law and political directives when it granted residency permits to nearly 200 Iraqi Kurds in the fall of 2005. A commission that probed the controversial permits blasted Nordby, and his successor resigned.

The idea that mass immigration from developing countries is “good for the economy” is 100% incorrect. Those who want a detailed analysis of this can read my online essays When Danes Pay Danegeld, What Does Muslim Immigration Cost Europe? and The Welfare State is Dead, Long Live the Welfare State, among others. Skilled immigrants want to move to a country with low tax rates so that they benefit the most from their work, while those who want to exploit the welfare state system move to countries with high taxation. Muslims add huge indirect costs due to the threat of Jihadist terrorism. This goes for all Western nations.

An ever growing group of non-Western immigrants in Norway is dependent on welfare. This was the conclusion of a study by Tyra Ekhaugen of the Frisch Centre for Economic Research and the University of Oslo. Ekhaugen’s research contradicted the often heard assertion that the labor market depends increasingly on immigrants. The study indicated quite the reverse. If the present evolution continues, immigration will increase the pressure on the welfare state rather than relieve it because many immigrants do not join the tax-paying part of the population. “Non-Western immigrants” in Norway are recipients of social security benefits ten times as frequently as native Norwegians.

Journalist Halvor Tjønn in June 2006 cited a report from NHO, the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise. NHO stated that the current immigration policies were a serious threat to the country’s economy. The most profitable immigration would be high-skilled workers who stay for period of limited duration, but at the same time not too brief. A Danish think tank has estimated that the net cost of immigration was up to 50 billion kroner every year, and those were cautious estimates. Denmark could thus save huge sums by stopping immigration from less developed countries. A study found that every other immigrant from the Third World — especially from Muslim countries — lacked the qualifications for even the most menial jobs on the organized labor market.

According to Statistics Norway, immigrants generally have a three times higher unemployment rate than native Norwegians. It should be noted that non-Muslim Asians are much more successful, which means that the unemployment rate among Muslims is even higher than 300 % that of the natives. The number of Muslims in Norway has quadrupled over the past 15 years. The number of immigrants in Oslo increased by 40 percent in just five years, from 2002 to 2007. With current trends remaining unchanged, native Norwegians will be a minority in their own country within a few decades.

Admittedly, part of the problem lies with the Western European welfare state system itself and cannot be blamed on the immigrants alone. Iranian Nima Sanandaji tells of his family’s meeting with the Swedish system: “In Sweden my family encountered a political system that seemed very strange. The interpreter told us that Sweden is a country where the government will put a check into your mailbox each month if you don’t work. She explained that there was no reason to get a job….Although my mother got several jobs, we concluded that this really didn’t improve our family’s economy. During the sixteen years we have been in Sweden, my mother has in total worked less than one year.”

However, part of the problem is due to the mentality of some of those who move here, yet display no loyalty to their new countries. Immigrant men who divorce their wives according to secular law but stay married to them according to Islamic law represent an increasing problem in the city of Odense, Denmark, according to deputy mayor Erik Simonsen. The result is a large number of “single” women who receive welfare support.

In other countries, some Muslim men to do this trick with several women at the same time. Some observers blamed the Muslim riots in France in 2005, accurately described by writer Mark Steyn as the “first welfare funded Jihad in history,” on polygamy practiced by Muslim men, paid for by French taxpayers. But also immigrants who are financially independent are cheating, says Simonsen. “80 percent of the immigrant economy in Odense is a black market economy. That’s a lot, and it cannot be tolerated, because the law is equal for all.”

As one Muslim in Norway stated: “I worked in a Pakistani shop, but all of the work there is ‘unofficial.’ Neither the boss nor I pay taxes to Norwegian authorities. In addition to this, I receive 100% disability benefits and welfare. I have to be cunning to make as much money as possible, since this is my only objective with being in Norway.” In Britain, one member of an Islamic group warned an undercover reporter against getting a job because it would be contributing to the kuffar (non-Muslim) system.

Andrew Bostom quotes the observations made by Dr. Muqtedar Khan, a much-ballyhooed Muslim moderate, after a trip to Belgium. Even Khan admitted the largesse of Belgium’s welfare state towards its Muslims: “…the welfare check was normally 70 percent to 80 percent of the salary. For those [Muslims] who were married with children, welfare provided comfortable living and with low property values, even those on welfare could actually own homes.”

Undoubtedly, many Muslims view welfare money from the infidels as jizya, the poll-tax non-Muslims according to the Koran are supposed to pay to Muslims as tribute and a sign of their inferior status and submission to Islamic rule. As Bostom points out, “such attitudes, whatever their origins, raise this larger basic question: why does the West continue to validate the raw, imbalanced bigotry that denies non-Muslims any access to Mecca and Medina—upon pain of imprisonment, torture, and death—while Muslims demand and are granted the ability to settle, with generous accommodations, within Europe or America?”

Mullah Krekar is convicted of terrorism in Jordan. He has lived off welfare money in Oslo for years and reputedly gets free taxi rides from Muslim cab drivers who think he’s a great guy. Norway’s most controversial refugee has lodged a threat against the country that has hosted him and his family for the past decade and a half. Krekar continues to fight deportation back to Iraq and calls any such order “an offense” that should be punished. “I defend my rights in their court just like Western people defend their rights. I am patient like they are patient. But if my patience runs out, I will react like Orientals do.” Krekar has spoken positively about terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and the recently killed Iraqi al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He has indicated that Muslims will succeed in conquering the West because they breed like mosquitoes.

Head of the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST) Jørn Holme stated in 2007 that he fears that a terrorist attack carried about by Muslims would lead to lynching of local Muslims because Norwegians are “a bit stupid, not good at integrating” and “don’t understand” the supposedly huge differences between Islam and Islamism. In other words, the “Islamophobes” are as much of a danger as the Jihadists. I recommend that he reads The Al Qaeda Reader by the historian Raymond Ibrahim to see that Islamic terrorists justify their actions from a straightforward reading of Islamic texts.

In Britain, the police have investigated allegations that the four suspected London bombers from July 2005 collected more than £500,000 in benefits payments. The suspects are supposed to have used multiple aliases and addresses. One, Mr Ibrahim, is said to have had six aliases. Some are shown to have claimed several nationalities, ages and national insurance numbers while in Britain. Investigators believe that bogus names were used to make some benefit claims. Two are also alleged to have obtained asylum using bogus passports and false names and nationalities. Mr Ibrahim, alleged to be the Hackney bus bomber, is believed to have used two dates of birth, six aliases, two national insurance numbers and two addresses. Mr Osman apparently went under five names, variously claimed that he was Eritrean or Somali, and used four addresses in southwest London. Mr Omar, 24, who is linked with the attack on a Tube train near Warren Street, had five aliases.

DP111, an articulate and highly intelligent British blog commentator, points out that as Muslim families are large, a single wage earner will find it hard to support all. They will need to supplement this by getting considerable benefits from the state:

“A considerable amount of this money to Muslims from the British taxpayer finds its way to finance the Jihad. The same scenario must hold in all European states that have a considerable Muslim population. We are in the ridiculous position of sheltering and feeding a population that is hell bent on destroying us. Islam’s people, from the very outset, were nothing but a collective to gain plunder and loot at the expense of other people’s work. In the past, it was conducted by war, conquest and then pillage. Now it is conducted by immigration (invasion), begging or crime. Meanwhile Muslim nations are given huge loans (aid), which we and they know will never be repaid. Thus, from a purely economic point of view, Islam seems to be a collective of people who live by the ethos of ‘beg, borrow or steal.’ So why do we, the capitalist countries, who do not believe in offering anyone a free lunch, subsidise the most lazy yet aggressive bunch of people on God’s planet, who are bent on subverting our democratic system? The nub is, how has it come about, that the natural progression of the most advanced civilisation on earth is towards stupidity?”

He points out that the cost of Muslim immigration is much higher than just welfare. “One really needs to factor the loss of confidence in the markets, loss of new investment because of a fear of flying or the disenchantment with intrusive security. Then there is the increased cost of insurance on all businesses.” All this affects the competitiveness of business with nations that do not have a major Islamic presence, such as Japan and Korea. We may be talking of million dollars per Muslim individual per year. And to top it all, we give them aid, welfare benefits on a grand scale, while we live in fear, and our freedoms compromised.

One of the reasons for the low participation in the work force among Muslims is a very high drop out rate from schools, especially for boys. Although Muslims themselves blame this on “poor integration efforts” and “marginalization,” some of them are actively obstructing their kids’ education, lest they become too much like the infidels. Thousands of Muslim children with Scandinavian citizenship are sent to Koran schools in Pakistan and other countries, to prevent them from becoming “too Westernized.” When this practice was documented and criticized by the Norwegian organization Human Rights Service, Pakistanis in Norway had the galls to ask for a school for their children in Pakistan, funded by Norwegian taxpayers. According to the Copenhagen Post, in Denmark when the country’s schools open their doors again after the summer holidays, not every student is there to enter. Some schools report one in every five students missing from the schoolrooms.

Not that the problems always disappear when they actually attend school, either. Going to school is no child’s game for many children in Copenhagen, where beatings, kicks, robberies, and threats have become everyday occurrences. The perpetrators are normally their own age.

In 2005, it was reported that 82 percent of crimes in Copenhagen were committed by immigrants or descendants of immigrants, and the police pressed charges against second-generation immigrants five times as frequently per capita as against ethnic Danes. Doormen working in the Danish capital are now often armed with guns or clubs so as to be able to defend themselves against violent immigrant gangs. There is more violence than ever before and some immigrant gangs have been known to seek out doormen in their private homes.

A shoot-out between two Pakistani gangs one crowded Sunday evening at Oslo’s popular waterfront complex Aker Brygge left two men wounded. Newspaper VG reported that a policeman had to run for his life from an angry crowd of Pakistanis. The plainclothes policeman was hit in the face and told to leave the Furuset shopping center. He was told that it was none of his business being in this area, and that a gang of young men had defined Furuset as their turf and didn’t accept “intruders.” The authorities have already ceded control over chunks of their own capital city. Peaceful rallies denouncing Islamic terrorism or supporting Israel have been physically attacked. Similar things are happening with increasing frequency in cities across Western Europe, from Birmingham to Hamburg.

There has been a sharp increase in violent crime in urban areas. In 2001, newspapers Aftenposten and Dagbladet reported that two out of three charged with rape in Oslo were immigrants. Ethnic Norwegian women were victims in 80 percent of the cases. Both newspapers then conveniently “forgot” about this again until 2007, although the number of rape charges continued to rise to historic levels. They were thus at best guilty of extreme incompetence, since their former articles were still available online. I wrote a number of blog posts about the issue in Norwegian and English. It has later been revealed that a police report was made about the rape problem in 2005, a year with parliamentary elections, yet the Oslo-based Aftenposten newspaper did not mention this report at the time. The reported number of rapes in Oslo is now allegedly six times as high per capita as in New York.

This trend is the same all over Western Europe. The number of rapes committed by some immigrant groups is so high that it is difficult to view it only as random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. German journalist Gudrun Eussner considers this to be “sexuality as a weapon against disobedient Muslim as well as non-Muslim women, both categorized as ‘unbelievers’. Against them jihad is the duty, and what to do with women ‘conquered’ in jihad, this may be read in the Qur’an: they become slaves to be used by the victors.”

French filmmaker Pierre Rehov states that: “A friend of mine is a retired chief of police, who used to be in charge of the security of a major city in the south of France. He reported to me that his men had to face an average of 10 rapes a week, 80% made by Muslim young men. 30% being what we call, in French, a ‘tournante,’ meaning that the victim is being raped by an entire gang, one after the other, often during an entire night. He was astonished that, in most cases, the parents not only would back up their rapist children, but also would not even understand why they would be arrested. There is an instant shift in the notion of good and evil as a major component of culture. The only evil those parents would see, genuinely, is the temptation that the male children had to face. Since in most cases the victims were not Muslims, the parents’ answer and rejection was even more genuine: how could their boys be guilty of anything, when normally answering to a provocation by occidental women, known for their unacceptable behavior?”

Sheik Taj Din al-Hilaly, who called himself the Grand Mufti of Australia and New Zealand, in a sermon compared unveiled women to uncovered meat: “If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park, or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, then whose fault will it be, the cats, or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the disaster. If the meat was covered the cats wouldn’t roam around it.” Abduljalil Sajid of the Muslim Council of Britain defended Hilaly as “a great scholar.”

Shahid Mehdi, an Islamic mufti in Copenhagen, Denmark, stated in 2005 in a televised interview that women who do not wear headscarves are “asking for rape,” so Hilaly is not an isolated case. According to Tanveer Ahmed, a Sydney-based psychiatrist, the attitude “comes from households, where young Muslims get the message that white girls are different, and that women in general are a corrupting influence.” There have been several brutal gang rapes of white women by Muslim immigrant men in Australia.

There is a growing wave of crime and violence targeting native Europeans. The response of the authorities to this has been to increase crackdowns on “racism” — by the white natives. In 2005 the Norwegian parliament — with the support of 85% of MPs — passed a new Discrimination Act, prepared by then Minister of Integration from the Conservative Party, Erna Solberg, who had earlier called for the establishment of a sharia council in Norway.

A spokesman for the right-wing Progress Party, Per Sandberg, feared that the law would jeopardize the rights of law-abiding citizens. Reverse burden of proof is combined with liability to pay compensation, which means that innocent persons risk having to pay huge sums for things they didn’t do. If an immigrant claims that a native has somehow discriminated against him or made a discriminatory remark, the native person has to mount proof of his own innocence. This harsh law was passed despite the fact that at the time most immigrants themselves claimed that they had encountered little discrimination.

I have later discovered that similar laws have been passed across much of Western Europe, encouraged by the EU and the Council of Europe in cooperation with international Islamic organizations. The Norwegian law followed an initiative from the CoE. There was virtually no public debate about this law, which was passed in relative silence prior to the national elections that year. Not a single journalist genuinely criticized it, and most barely mentioned it at all before it was passed. The same journalists otherwise tend to be very concerned about the legal or “human rights” of Islamic terrorists, but apparently not of their own people.

The Equality and Anti-discrimination Ombud Beate Gangås, a white lesbian feminist, before the municipal elections in 2007 warned all political parties against making “discriminatory” remarks regarding immigration policies, but called for actively reducing the number of white, heterosexual men in politics. There was little real debate about immigration in the heavily left-leaning media that year, but an all the more passionate witch-hunt looking for racists, and by that I mean whites only.

Following the case of alleged “racism” which is described below, the left-wing coalition government represented by Minister Bjarne Håkon Hanssen met with13 immigrant organizations and announced that racists, apparently meaning white natives only, should be “smoked out” of all public sector jobs. Minister Heidi Grande Røys from the Socialist Left Party stated that the government would practice “zero tolerance” for racism. Asked whether people who are critical of mass immigration should be allowed to hold public sector jobs, she replied that no, if this could be deemed to interfere with their ability to do their job, this would not be allowed. Since we have already seen that mass immigration costs huge amounts of money, this means that the natives are forced to fund their own colonization and eventual eradication. Opposition to this is banned as “racism.”

The same government in October 2008 funded a conference in Oslo involving “dialogue” with a number of sharia-sponsoring groups from the Middle East, including the Egyptian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian branch of the Brotherhood has in addition to its founder Hassan al-Banna produced Sayyid Qutb, the ideological godfather of terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, as well as the current MB spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi. The section Fred og Forsoning (“Peace and Reconciliation”) of the Foreign Ministry financed the research project “Fault Lines of Islamism” ( pdf ) led by Bjørn Olav Utvik from the University of Oslo. Gry Larsen from the Labor Party was scheduled to meet with representatives of these groups. The government can meet with radical Islamic groups, but want to silence those among the natives who don’t want Muslims with such views to settle in their country. No “dialogue” is possible with them.

Two ambulance drivers in Oslo, both of them native Norwegians, were in August 2007 involved in what became a massively hyped case supposedly involving “white racism.” They had arrived to pick up an injured African man. As ambulance driver Erik Schjenken months later explained, the man “pulled down his pants and urinated on my colleague’s leg. My colleague was surprised, pulled away and called him a pig. That’s when we viewed the man as a problem, and decided it was best if the police took him to the clinic.” Ali Farah, the Somalian man in question, had more severe head injuries than the drivers assumed at the time. “We made a mistake, because we interpreted his urination as willful and a provocation, but NOT because we had racist or discriminatory motives,” Schjenken later wrote.

Based on weak suspicions of “racism,” the mass media, leading intellectuals and politicians launched what can only be described as a witch-hunt against the two ambulance drivers. “This would never happen to a white man,” said the prominent Norwegian-Pakistani lawyer Abid Q. Raja, representing Farah and his family. Author Anne Holt, who once served as Minister of Justice for the Labor Party, wrote an essay in newspaper Aftenposten which in my view amounted to a moral execution of the drivers. Both of them were suspended from service and became the target of widespread, negative media coverage. They were later cleared after an investigation of the incident by the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision. However, the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud, or the Multicultural Inquisition as I like to call it, ruled that Farah was a victim of discrimination and that the ambulance personnel broke the anti-discrimination laws. As noted before, the anti-discrimination law states that natives are guilty of “discrimination” almost as soon as they are suspected of it.

It should be mentioned here that this African man was injured in the first place because he was beaten by another African man, from Ghana. In Norway, a country straddling the Arctic Circle and with no colonial history, one African man beats another African man, and the result is that the white ambulance drivers, who have dedicated their lives to helping other people, become the targets of a lynch mob led by the country’s media. Driver Erik Schjenken needed professional help as he was brought to the brink of suicide.

According to Hans Rustad from the major blog Document.no, the ideology of anti-racism in sometimes resembles what we have seen from Communists regimes. Being called a “racist” under Multiculturalism is similar to being called a “class traitor” under Communism. The mere accusation is powerful enough to destroy lives. Rustad fears that anti-racism in some cases leads to lawlessness. Ambulance driver Schjenken was a well-regarded employee whose work had helped save many lives, yet because of one error of judgment, which in my view was understandable given the situation, his life was ruined. All because he happened to have a politically incorrect skin color while the other person was non-white.

What makes this even more absurd is that in Norway, as throughout the Western world, white-on-non-white violence is exceedingly rare. The vast majority of racism and racist violence comes from non-whites against whites, or between different groups of non-whites. In Oslo, young girls are raped; schoolchildren are threatened with death, robbed and assaulted. The police have warned against “an alarming rise in street violence” in urban areas across the country. This is directly caused by mass immigration, which is nevertheless still championed by the very same media who attacked these two ambulance drivers.

For instance, a 17-year-old Somalian was convicted of the rape of a young girl in Oslo. The court stated that the rape was unusually brutal and lasted for several hours. The man choked the girl for so long that the medical doctor who examined her said that she could have died. The girl suffers from severe psychological problems in the aftermath of the attack. The African youth was sentenced to four and half years in prison. This sentence included another rape, where his Norwegian-Moroccan friend raped a 13-year-old girl whilst the Somalian helped to threaten her and keep guard. She has naturally been traumatized from the incident.

Numerous natives have had their lives ruined by similar attacks, yet anti-white racism is rarely mentioned as a problem by the mainstream media. Whites are apparently fair game. The more vicious the rapes, muggings, and stabbings targeting whites in their own country get, the more aggressive and hysterical the witch-hunt on “white racism” becomes.

French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut has warned that “the lofty idea of ‘the war on racism’ is gradually turning into a hideously false ideology. And this anti-racism will be for the 21st century what Communism was for the 20th century: A source of violence.”

Professor Sigurd Skirbekk of the University of Oslo notes that “In 1994, the German periodical Focus pointed to opinion polls taken in Germany, France and England in which 55, 52 and 50 per cent, respectively, felt that their countries accepted too many immigrants. From Norway we have a representative study from 1987 which showed that 51% of the people felt that the country should accept fewer immigrants; 25% felt that politicians should stick to current practice, while only 8% wanted to accept more immigrants. A similar study in Sweden, made a couple of years later, showed that 54% of Swedes felt that too many people were immigrating to Sweden. In later studies the figures have varied somewhat; but there have always been more people who have favored a restrictive policy than those who favored liberalization.” Thus, according to Skirbekk, “the extent of recent immigration cannot be explained on the basis of popular opinion [my emphasis].”

Skirbekk wonders whether there is a quasi-religious undercurrent to the anti-racist movement, and that it is quite literally the equivalent of the witch-hunts of previous ages:

“A number of researchers have come to see that certain issues in the migration debate has religious connotations. The Norwegian social anthropologist Inger Lise Lien, for instance, has written that ‘racism’ in the public immigration debate has become a word used to label the demons among us, the impure from whom all decent people should remain aloof. We have every reason to believe that the use of the term ‘racist’ in our day has many functional similarities with the use of the word ‘heretic’ three hundred years ago….It is presumably fully possible to join anti-racist movements with the sole motive of identifying with something that appears to be politically correct, or in order to be a part of a collective that entitles one to demonstrate and to harass splinter groups that no one cares to defend.” But “behind the slogan ‘crush the racists,’ there might well be something more than a primitive desire to exercise violence. The battle also involves an element of being in a struggle for purity versus impurity. And since racism is something murky, anti-racism and the colorful community it purportedly represents, becomes an expression of what is pure.”

The Norwegian left-wing author Torgrim Eggen warns against “race wars” brought about by mass immigration yet continues to support it. Questioned about what we can do to avoid this scenario he states: “That’s a very stupid question to ask to an author. This presupposes that I want everybody to be happy, have a good time and don’t have any problems. If so, what do they want me to write about?”

I will give him credit for his honesty: This is the most frank admission I have seen of the fact that some people don’t WANT society to be harmonious; they think it’s boring. There is no worse fate for a self-professed intellectual than to live in a nation that is by and large prosperous, peaceful and well-functioning because nobody will care about his advice or follow his guidance, as is befitting a person of his intelligence.

Even if you manage to create a society that it prosperous, this isn’t always a stable situation. People will gradually forget the qualities that made them successful in the first place, and because they enjoy their material comforts they become too soft to defend themselves against threatening brutes, a condition we call “decadence.” Human beings also appear to have a deep-seated need for something to struggle with and for, and Western welfare states seem to lack this. Some people react to this by drug abuse, to make their lives more colorful and meaningful; others turn to Utopian ideas. Bad things can be said about Islamic terrorists, but at least they are not boring, which could explain why some Westerners are attracted to their cause.

During the Multicultural craze of the 1990s, Eggen in an essay entitled “The psychotic racism “ warned against turbulence caused by mass immigration. The solution to this was not to limit immigration, but to limit criticism of immigration. According to him, xenophobia and opposition to mass immigration should be viewed as a mental illness, and hence “the solution to this xenophobia is that you should distribute medication to those who are seriously affected. I have discussed this with professor of community medicine, Dr. Per Fugelli, and he liked the idea.” Mr. Fugelli suggested putting anti psychotic drugs in the city’s drinking water.

This may sound too extreme to be meant seriously, but Fugelli has continued to chastise those who are critical of national immigration policies. Eggen warned that arguments about how ordinary people are concerned over mass immigration shouldn’t be accepted because this could lead to Fascism: “One should be on one’s guard against people, especially politicians, who invoke xenophobia on behalf of others. And if certain people start their reasoning with phrases such as ‘ordinary people feel that,’ one shouldn’t argue at all, one should hit [them].”

Thomas Hylland Eriksen, professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, heads a multi-million project sponsored by the state trying to envision how the new Multicultural society will work. He is a career Multiculturalist and intellectual celebrity in his country, a frequent contributor to the public debate and lives, according to himself, in a boring, white monocultural part of the city, insulated from the effects of cultural diversity. Hylland Eriksen has proclaimed the death of (Western) nation states as if he derives pleasure from it, and has stated that the Nidaros Cathedral (Nidarosdomen), the most prominent church in the country, should no longer serve as a national symbol in our Multicultural society.

Mr. Eriksen has clashed with Ole Jørgen Anfindsen, who runs the bilingual quality website HonestThinking.org and warns against the effects of uncontrolled mass immigration. According to Hylland Eriksen, “Cosmopolites insist on a world comprising of more colors than black and white. In such a world, the problems presented by Ole-Jørgen Anfindsen are not just petty, but irrelevant.”

What are the problems presented by Mr. Anfindsen? Well, he has published calculations indicating that if the current immigration continues, native Norwegians will be a minority in their own country within a couple of generations. Given the fact that ethnic groups who become minorities in their own lands usually have a hard time, and always get persecuted when the newcomers are Muslims, one would assume that this would be interesting information. But for self-proclaimed “Multicultural cosmopolites,” it is “petty and irrelevant” to even consider that this could represent a problem. Eriksen calls Anfindsen “stupid and ignorant,” and hints that “Maybe Anfindsen’s agenda is inspired by a kind of perverted Christianity (he has a Christian background).”

Yes, Anfindsen does have a Christian background. Is that supposed to disqualify a person from worrying about whether his grandchildren will be persecuted? Mr. Eriksen, like other Western Multiculturalists, worries about Islamophobia but is more than willing to mock Christianity. A newspaper essay co-authored by Eriksen states that: “Is he [Anfindsen] asking us to once again repeat the obvious in that the murder of Theo van Gogh, various acts of terrorism and death threats against newspaper editors have nothing to do with Islam?”

Nothing to do with Islam? Really?

Mohammed Bouyeri, born in Amsterdam of Moroccan parents, killed Theo van Gogh as he was cycling in Amsterdam on Nov. 2, 2004, shooting and stabbing before slashing his throat and pinning a note to his body with a knife. “I did what I did purely out my beliefs,” he told judges while clutching a Koran. “I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan,” but because he believed van Gogh insulted Islam in his film criticizing the treatment of Muslim women.

So a peaceful Christian man is accused of having a dark, secret agenda, while a Muslim murderer who brags about his Islamic motivations has nothing to do with Islam? A Serbian doctor from the former Yugoslavia, where a Multicultural society recently collapsed in a horrific civil war, warned against the effects of unchecked mass immigration to Western Europe. Thomas Hylland Eriksen responded by chastising her for her “lack of visions.”

Apparently, your worth as an intellectual is measured in how grandiose your ideas are. The greater your visions, the more dazzling your intellect is and thus the greater prestige should be awarded to you. Whether those visions actually correspond to reality and human nature is of secondary importance. In fact, many a self-proclaimed intellectual will be downright offended by the petty considerations of his more pedestrian fellow citizens, concerned with what effects his ideas will have in real life. The fact that some people could get hurt from his ideas doesn’t discourage him. Truly great advances for mankind can only be accomplished though sacrifices, preferably made by others.

I’ve heard Multiculturalists state specifically that our societies should be based on the principle of Multiculturalism and various ethnic groups only tied together by “human rights.” But that is a weak glue to hold a society together, to say the least. What’s more: Once you decide that your society should be founded upon human rights and nothing but human rights, you give away power to those defining human rights to decide the future of your society and your country, for instance in managing your immigration policies.

The French philosopher and cultural critic Alain Finkielkraut thinks that Europe has made human rights its new gospel. Has human rights fundamentalism approached the status of quasi-religion? Have we acquired a new class of scribes, who claim the exclusive right to interpret their Holy Texts in order to reveal Absolute Truth, and scream “blasphemy” at the few heretics who dare question their authority? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a great document, but it is written by humans and may contain human flaws. We shouldn’t treat as if it were a revelation from God, carved into stone. Far less should we deem as infallible the veritable maze of regulations and well-meaning human rights resolutions that have rendered our nations virtually unable to defend themselves.

Moreover, who decides which “human rights” should take precedence? If you say that free migration should be a universal human right, you trample on the right of the peoples at the receiving end of mass immigration to preserve their cultural heritage. More explicitly, should Muslim nations be allowed to dump their unsustainable population growth in the West? Since they tend not to respect human rights because they frequently conflict with sharia, allowing them to undermine countries that do respect individual rights means that human rights will become a tool for undermining democratic nations in favor or authoritarian ones, precisely the opposite of what was originally intended.

Following the release of a UN population report in 2007 which indicated a global population increase of several billion people over the coming decades, Marie Simonsen, the political editor of Norwegian left-wing newspaper Dagbladet, which has spent decades denouncing the right-wing Progress Party for their “racist” policies of limiting mass immigration, wrote that it should be considered a universal human right for people everywhere to migrate wherever they want to. This would mean certain annihilation for a tiny, wealthy and naive Scandinavian nation. Ms. Simonsen thus endorsed the gradual eradication of her own people, no doubt congratulating herself for her tolerance. To my knowledge, not a single word of protest was voiced by any other journalist to this statement.

“Human rights” was a concept originally intended to ensure liberty. Now it’s used to eradicate an entire civilization, in the name of tolerance and diversity, and the natives are specifically banned from protesting against this.

Is there no opposition to this evilness and insanity? Fortunately, there is. Per Edgar Kokkvold, Secretary-General of the Norwegian Press Association, deserves credit for his principled opposition to censorship vis-à-vis the Muhammad cartoons (which earned him several death threats). A book by a former MP for the Conservative Party, Hallgrim Berg, warns against plans to turn Europe into Eurabia. He discusses anti-Americanism and maintains that the United States is the only power capable of securing freedom. In 2005 the police issued a mobile security alarm to the then leader of the Progress Party, Carl I. Hagen. He criticized Islam and could see no similarity with the concept of morality found in Christianity. He said that if Israel loses in the Middle East, Europe will succumb to Islam next. Therefore, Christians should support Israel and oppose Islamic inroads into Europe. In an unprecedented step, a group of Muslim ambassadors blasted Hagen in a public letter. Other politicians quickly caved in and condemned Mr. Hagen, including Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik of the Christian Democrats. By 2008, the Progress Party stands a real chance of replacing the Labor Party as the largest party in the country, for the first time in generations.

As elsewhere in the Western world, the general public is not quite as suicidal as the political and cultural elites, and therein lies the best hope for the future. You can find pockets of resistance in Norway (and to a lesser extent Sweden), but the general picture is admittedly rather bleak. Denmark is currently the only Scandinavian country with something resembling a spine, but Danes compensate for this by being one of the leading countries in the Western world in opposing Islamization.

Defeating Eurabia, Part 5

by Baron Bodissey

This is the final installment of Fjordman’s book Defeating Eurabia. Click here for Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

For those who wish to republish his work, please read his conditions.

For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

On Anti-White Racism

This essay is an amalgam of several posts of mine.

The violence waged by Muslim gangs in Europe is usually labelled as “crime,” but I believe it should more accurately be called Jihad. Those who know Islamic history, described in books such as The Truth About Muhammad by Robert Spencer, know that looting and stealing the property of non-Muslims has been part and parcel of Jihad from the very beginning. In fact, so much of the behavior of Muhammad and the early Muslims could be deemed criminal that it is difficult to know exactly where crime ends and Jihad begins. In the city of Oslo, it is documented that some of the criminal Muslim gangs also have close ties to radical religious groups at home and abroad.

As Dutch Arabist Hans Jansen points out, the Koran is seen by some Muslims as a God-given “hunting licence,” granting them the right to assault and even murder non-Muslims. It is hardly accidental that while Muslims make up about tem percent of the population in France, they make up an estimated seventy percent or more of French prison inmates. Muslims are overrepresented in jails in countries all over the world, and a striking number of non-Muslims in jail convert to Islam.

In the city of Antwerp, Belgium, Marij Uijt den Bogaard from 2003 to 2006 worked as a civil servant in the immigrant borough of Berchem. She noted how radical Islamist groups began to take over the immigrant neighborhoods, but was fired when she warned against this danger in her reports to the authorities:

“Many victims of burglaries in houses and cars, of steaming and other forms of violence, can testify that aggression by Muslims is not directed against brothers and sisters, but against whoever is a kafir, a non-believer. Young Muslims justify their behaviour towards women who do not wear the headscarf, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, by referring to the Salafist teaching which says that these women are whores and should be treated as such. They told me this. I wrote it down in my reports, but the authorities refuse to hear it.”

Muslim violence targets non-Muslims regardless of skin color, in Asia, Africa, Europe and elsewhere. However, some of the violence directed against people of European origins is anti-white racism, not Jihad. In March 2005, peaceful white French demonstrators were attacked by bands of black and Arab youths. One 18-year-old named Heikel added that he had “a pleasant memory” of repeatedly kicking a student, already defenseless on the ground. The sentiment was a desire to “take revenge on whites.”

Why is there so little public discussion of anti-white racism? I have heard two explanations for this. The first one is that white people are more racist than non-whites, a claim I find highly dubious these days. The other is that we should focus mainly on white racism because “white people are so powerful.” But whites are, demographically speaking, a rapidly shrinking global minority. We are even a shrinking percentage of the population in the West.

Barbara Kay of Canada’s National Post writes about a new fad called Whiteness Studies:

“The goal of WS is to entrench permanent race consciousness in everyone — eternal victimhood for nonwhites, eternal guilt for whites — and was most famously framed by WS chief guru, Noel Ignatiev, former professor at Harvard University, now teaching at the Massachusetts College of Art: ‘The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race.’“

Whiteness Studies began in the 1990s after the collapse of Communism, when some Marxists concluded that the key to Utopia was to undermine Western culture and white people, race war instead of class war, or perhaps race war as class war. Some of its inventors state their goals quite openly:

“Abolitionism is also a strategy: its aim is not racial harmony but class war. By attacking whiteness, the abolitionists seek to undermine the main pillar of capitalist rule in this country.” And: “The task is to gather together a minority determined to make it impossible for anyone to be white.”

Conservative social critic David Horowitz comments that: “Black studies celebrates blackness, Chicano studies celebrates Chicanos, women’s studies celebrates women, and white studies attacks white people as evil.” However, despite widespread criticism, at least 30 institutions — from Princeton University to the University of California at Los Angeles — teach courses in Whiteness Studies.
– – – – – – – – –
A mandatory University of Delaware program in the United States required students to acknowledge that “all whites are racist,” offering them “treatment” for incorrect attitudes regarding class, gender, religion or culture. A civil rights group cited excerpts from the university’s Office of Residence Life Diversity Education Training documents, including the statement: “A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination.” The education program also notes that “reverse racism” is “a term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege.”

I’ve been trying to understand exactly what this “white privilege” consists of. In many Western European countries, if you are a native and in the mildest terms possible object to uncontrolled mass immigration which, if continued, will render the natives a minority in their own country, you will immediately be branded a racist and vilified. Most likely, your career will be over. The natives are de facto disenfranchised and are supposed to meekly fund their own colonization. If this is “privilege”, then privilege is vastly overrated these days.

College professor Mike S. Adams writes about conspiracy theories he’s heard among students attempting to blame various social ills on white people: “The Mona Lisa was painted by an African artist and stolen from a museum in Ethiopia. Most of the great works of art are African in origin and stolen by white people. This is done to promote the myth of white cultural superiority.” Another one: “It is a proven fact that U.S. Coast Guard ships — on orders from President Bush — were seen crashing into the New Orleans levees during Hurricane Katrina. Bush did it to kill black people living in government housing projects.”

Adams presents this as funny, but I don’t think it is.

Dr. Kamau Kambon, former North Carolina State visiting professor of African Studies, told a forum at Howard University that: “We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem.…I’m saying to you that we need to solve this problem because they are going to kill us.…The problem on the planet is white people.”

Kambon may be an extreme example, but he is the product of a climate where accusing whites of the most insane things has become socially acceptable. Since the 1960s, the Western education system has become increasingly dedicated to demonizing traditional Western culture. Young people of European origins know little of their history, and what they do know they are often taught to hate. As a result, entire generations of young Westerners would find it difficult to articulate anything that’s good about their culture and makes it worth preserving.

Robert Spencer has written about the demonization of Christianity in Western media and academia. He is right about this, but I sometimes suspect that this is part of a larger trend aimed at discrediting Western culture in general, of which Christianity has traditionally been a part. Those of us who are not Christians should reject this trend. First of all because it is factually incorrect: Christianity has made many positive contributions to our civilization and does not deserve the negative reputation it has gained in recent years; and second because the demonization of Christianity is part of a wider movement aimed at discredicting our heritage.

Here is a quote from Spencer’s book Religion of Peace?:

“Attacks on Christian history and doctrine are an integral part of a larger effort to instill a sense of cultural shame in even non-Christian European and American youth — a shame that militates against their thinking the West is even worth defending. A white American student, ‘Rachel,’ unwittingly summed up this attitude when she told American Indian professor Dr. David Yeagley in 2001: ‘Look, Dr. Yeagley, I don’t see anything about my culture to be proud of. It’s all nothing. My race is just nothing… Look at your culture. Look at American Indian tradition. Now I think that’s really great. You have something to be proud of. My culture is nothing.’ Yeagley mused: ‘The Cheyenne people have a saying: A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground…When Rachel denounced her people, she did it with the serene self-confidence of a High Priestess reciting a liturgy. She said it without fear of criticism or censure. And she received none….Who had conquered Rachel’s people? What had led her to disrespect them? Why did she behave like a woman of a defeated tribe?’“

As Allen G. King, an employment defense attorney put it: “I just have to leave you to your own devices, and because you are a white male,” you will discriminate. In other words: You don’t have to do anything; you’re a racist simply because you’re white and breathe.

All people of European origins can be considered racists. In Defending the West, former Muslim Ibn Warraq criticizes Edward Said’s highly influential book Orientalism from 1978:

“In cultures already immune to self-criticism, Said helped Muslims, and particularly Arabs, perfect their already well-developed sense of self-pity. There is a kind of comfort and absolution in being told that none of your problems are of your making, that you do not have to accept any responsibility for the ills besetting your society. It is all the fault of the West, of infidels….Orientalism came at the precise time when anti-Western rhetoric was at its most shrill and was already being taught at Western universities, and when third-worldism was at its most popular. Jean-Paul Sartre preached that all white men were complicit in the exploitation of the third world, and that violence against Westerners was a legitimate means for colonized men to re-acquire their manhood. Said went further: ‘It is therefore correct that every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was consequently a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric.’ Not only, for Said, is every European a racist, but he must necessarily be so. As I have argued, Western civilization has been more willing to criticize itself than any other major culture.”

René Descartes, French philosopher and one of the key thinkers of the Scientific Revolution — a Dead White Male as Western students now learn — is famous for his statement Cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am. Apparently, if Mr. Descartes has been alive today, he’d have to rephrase that to “I’m guilty, therefore I am.”

I once heard the Dutch-Somali critic of Islam Ayaan Hirsi Ali be told that if she had been white, she would have been called a “racist.” Which essentially means that if you’re white, you’re not allowed under any circumstances to stand up for your culture, far less criticize non-whites. It doesn’t matter whether what you’re saying is factually correct. Whites have effectively been disfranchised in matters related to the preservation of their own countries.

Jews were once told to “get back to Palestine.” When they did, they were told to “get out of Palestine.” The people who said this didn’t object to where Jews lived, they objected to the fact that they existed at all. Similarly, I have noticed that while I have heard calls for people of European descent in the Americas, Australasia or southern Africa to “go back to Europe,” the natives in Europe are demonized if they resist being turned into a minority in their own countries. The problem then, apparently, isn’t where whites live; it’s that we exist at all.

As Professor Ida Magli writes in an Italian essay entitled A Nation for Sale: “Why can’t we protest? Why aren’t we allowed what every people has always had the right to say, that is that no ruler, whatever the system of government — monarchy, dictatorship, democracy — has either the power or the right to sell off the homeland of their own subjects?”

It has happened many times that a people move into an area and subdue those living there before, but the natives have at least been allowed to defend themselves. It is unprecedented in the annals of history that a people is banned by their own leaders from defending their lands from foreign colonization. The established historical pattern is that people who are conquered by others are harassed by the newcomers. When we are being told that mass immigration is “inevitable,” we are actually being told that verbal and physical abuse of our children is inevitable and that we should “get used to it.” I see no reason to accept this. If mass immigration leads to harassment of my children then it is my duty to resist it.

Observer Ole Kulterstad notes that Europeans who are against free migration are labeled as “right-wing extremists.” But common sense indicates that giving away your country to alien cultures is more extreme than merely wanting to preserve it as it once was.

I am personally tired of hearing how Islamic organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood that want to destroy my civilization are called “moderates,” whereas Westerners are “extremists” if we resist this, yet that is exactly what our media and authorities do. We are not extremists; we are subjected to policies that are extreme. Is reducing a people to a minority in their own land, without proper debate about future consequences, not to be regarded as extreme?

Some observers fear a “white extremist backlash,” but if people are so concerned about this then they should stop creating the foundations for such extremism to grow. Native Europeans increasingly get the feeling that they are being pushed into a corner and have an entirely justifiable fear of being overwhelmed. Fear leads to desperation, which sometimes leads to aggression. If we do get an outbreak of extremist political movements, this will not come about because Europeans are born evil; it will come about because they will be pushed into extremism, feel that their continued existence is at stake and that they have been abandoned by their authorities. The solution to this is to recognize that Western nations have accepted more immigration from alien cultures in a shorter period of time than any other civilization has done peacefully in history. We have reached our limit and we need a break before our entire political and economic system breaks down. The ongoing mass immigration is population dumping where less successful cultures dump their population in more successful ones. This is a form of global Communism and will generate the same disastrous effects by destroying successful communities and centers of excellence.

My ancestors have lived in this country since prehistoric times, yet we have no status as a distinct group. Pakistanis, Somalis and Kurds have the right to preserve their culture in my country, but I don’t. The only ones who are specifically denied displaying any pride in their cultural heritage are people of European origins. That’s the whole point of Multiculturalism. Our countries no longer exist as cultural entities, only as empty vessels to be filled with the “human rights” of other peoples.

Native Europeans are being told that we don’t have a culture and that we thus “gain” culture when others move to our countries. This is an insult to thousands of years of European history, to the Celtic, Germanic and Slavic legacies and the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian heritage we all share in. The next moment we are told that we do have a culture, but it consists of nothing but a long line of crimes and is not worth preserving, anyway.

My nation doesn’t have a colonial history. It gained its independence as late as the twentieth century, at which point it was a poor country, yet because I am white, I am held personally responsible for every bad act, perceived or real, committed by every person who happens to have roughly similar skin color throughout recorded history. American novelist Susan Sontag once stated that “The white race is the cancer of human history.” I am told that I am evil specifically because of my race, and five minutes later I’m told that “race” doesn’t exist, it’s socially constructed. What this means is that people of European origins can be verbally (and sometimes physically) attacked for being white, yet are systematically deprived of any means of defending themselves against these attacks or identifying the cause of them.

I do not hold Abdullah the kebab salesman personally responsible for sacking Constantinople, abducting millions of Europeans to slavery, colonizing the Iberian Peninsula, ruining the Balkans or threatening Vienna several times. I criticize Islam because Muslims have never admitted their past and will continue to commit atrocities as long as the institution of Jihad is alive. I do not believe in collective responsibility, and I do not think a person should be held responsible for actions done by his ancestors centuries ago. On the other hand, if I am to take the blame, personally, for every bad act, perceived or real, committed by any white person in the past, it is only fair that I, personally, should also take credit for their achievements.

It was to an overwhelming degree people of European stock who created the modern world. If I am to be held personally responsible for colonialism or the transatlantic slave trade, I want personal credit for the greatest advances for mankind made by any civilization that has ever existed on this planet. The next time our children are taught to feel bad for something that happened centuries ago, we should inform them that they should take pride in discovering electromagnetism and thus the telegraph, the telephone, radio, TV and the Internet, making chemistry into a scientific discipline (as opposed to alchemy), coining the concept of “gravity” and inventing rockets that could be used to explore space (Asian rockets used gunpowder and weighed a few kilograms at most), making the first accurate measurements of the speed of light, creating barometers and thermometers, thus establishing meteorology and the only mathematical temperature scales ever made by humans, inventing everything from light bulbs, refrigerators, beer cans and chocolate bars to cars, airplanes and all modern means of transportation, inventing microscopes and founding microbiology and antiseptics in medicine. We did all of these things, and much more. Nobody else did, despite how much they claim otherwise.

If current immigration continues, France will soon become an African Muslim country that just happens to be north of the Mediterranean. If non-Europeans have the right to resist colonization, shouldn’t Europeans have the same right? No Eastern European country has a colonial history and many Western European countries have only marginal ones. The Germans had a colony in Namibia. Why should they accept millions of Turks, who have a thousand years of extremely brutal colonial history of their own, because of this? There are not many Dutch people left in Indonesia, so why should the Dutch be rendered a minority in their major cities by Moroccans and others? And why should Portugal, Spain and Greece, which have suffered from centuries of Islamic colonization, have to accept Muslims into their lands? Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Norway hardly have any colonial history at all, yet are still subject to mass immigration. The truth is that immigration policies bear little correlation to past history, population density or size. Ireland, Denmark, Britain, France, Sweden, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands have one, and only one, thing in common: The natives are white, and therefore seemingly have no legitimate claim to their own countries.

People of European origins have a right to exist, too. The primary duty you have as a human being is to preserve the heritage of your ancestors and pass on to your children a country they can call their own, where they can prosper and walk the streets in a major city without being harassed for who they are. We have the right to preserve our heritage and are under no obligation to commit collective suicide or serve as a dumping ground for other countries. It has nothing to do with animosity towards others. For my part, I still love visiting other cultures, but I will love this even more if I know I can also return to my own.

Creating a European Indigenous People’s Movement

Published at The Brussels Journal in April 2008

An American friend of mine has proposed that native Europeans should create a European Indigenous People’s Movement. I have hesitated with supporting this because it sounded a bit too extreme. However, in more and more European cities, the native population is being pushed out of their own neighborhoods by immigrant gangs. The natives receive little or no aid from their authorities, sometimes blatant hostility, when faced with immigrant violence. In an age where the global population increases with billions of people in a few decades, it is entirely plausible, indeed likely, that the West could soon become demographically overwhelmed. Not few of our intellectuals seem to derive pleasure from this thought.

Bat Ye’or in her book about Eurabia has documented how the European Union is actively allowing Muslims to colonize European countries. The next time EU leaders complain about China’s treatment of minorities, I suggest the Chinese answer the following: “Yes, we represent an anti-democratic organization dedicated to subduing the indigenous people of Tibet, but you represent an anti-democratic organization dedicated to displacing the indigenous peoples of an entire continent.” There is no love lost between me and the Chinese Communist Party, an organization responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of its citizens, but even Chinese authorities do not actively seek to displace their own people with violent Muslims. European authorities do, at least in Western Europe.

In decadent societies of the past, the authorities didn’t open the gates to hostile nations and ban opposition to this as intolerance and barbarophobia. What we are dealing with in the modern West is not merely decadence; it’s one of the greatest betrayals in history. Our so-called leaders pass laws banning the opposition to our dispossession as “racism and hate speech.” To native Europeans, when listening to our media and our leaders, it’s as if we don’t even exist, as if it were normal for them to put the interests of other nations over their own. Despite having “democratic” governments, many Western countries have authorities that are more hostile to their own people than dictators in some developing countries. Why?

At the Daily Telegraph, Simon Heffer suggests that the mass immigration encouraged in particular by the Labour governments of Blair and Brown in Britain is not happening out of incompetence, but is part of “a doctrinally driven determination by the new Government in 1997 to destroy our national identity and to advance multiculturalism.” I agree, but this policy of state-sponsored population replacement is far from limited to Britain.

Numbers discussed in 2008 showed clearly that mass immigration has had no positive effects on the economy in Britain, and I have seen similar calculations from France, Denmark and Norway, among others. On the contrary, it is a drain on the finances of the native population, and that’s even if we don’t count the wave of terrorism, insecurity and street violence which is sweeping Western Europe, from Sweden via Germany to the Netherlands. On top of this, the costs of destruction of national cohesion and weakened cultural legacies are incalculable, yet mass immigration continues as if nothing has happened. In April 2008, a report indicated that Spain needed over two million new foreign workers just until 2020, many of whom are likely to come from Muslim North Africa. The authors of the report would call upon the Spanish government to adopt a new law on immigration “to facilitate the legal entry, take advantage of the new arrivals and encourage integration.”

I have earlier toyed with the idea of giving native Norwegians the legal status as indigenous people in Norway. A large proportion of my ancestors have lived here since the end of the last Ice Age, for as long as this country has been habitable for humans. The original settlers, who came from Central Europe (Germany and the Czech Republic), have been supplemented by other Europeans. Genetic traces from peoples of Near Eastern origins who spread agriculture to Europe are detectable, but until recently most Europeans were overwhelmingly the descendants of men and women who had lived in the region for thousands, if not tens of thousands of years.

Genetically speaking, native Europeans have thus lived longer on the same continent than have Native Americans. Many Southeast Asians are descendants of southern Chinese settlers who displaced or eradicated the original, dark-skinned inhabitants of the region in early historical times, just as many of the nations of sub-Saharan Africa are Bantu invaders who displaced or eradicated the indigenous Khoi-San peoples throughout much of Africa. Modern-day Japanese have lived in Japan for a shorter period of time than Europeans have lived in Europe. Yet a Scottish councillor, Sandy Aitchison, was chastised for using the term “indigenous” about native Brits. Why is it considered ridiculous or evil if Europeans assert our rights? Is it because we are white? Everybody’s supposed to keep their culture, except people of European origins? Is that it? Why is colonialism bad, except when my country, which has no colonial history, gets colonized by Third World peoples?

Western Europeans have in recent years accepted more immigration in a shorter period of time than any society has ever done peacefully in human history. If we want a break we have the right to do so. What we are dealing with is not “immigration” but colonization, and in the case of Muslims, internationally organized attempts to conquer of our countries. If non-Europeans have the right to resist colonization then so do Europeans.

I like cultural diversity and would hope this could be extended to include my culture, too. Or is Multiculturalism simply a hate ideology designed to unilaterally dismantle European culture and the peoples who created it? If people in Cameroon or Cambodia can keep their culture, why can’t the peoples who produced Beethoven, Newton, Copernicus, Michelangelo and Louis Pasteur do the same? As Rabbi Aryeh Spero points out, European elites insist “on the primacy of indigenous cultures and religions when speaking of other faraway regions, yet find such insistence arrogant when it concerns the indigenous culture of its own lands.”

Yes, a little immigration from compatible cultures can be absorbed, and can be beneficial on certain terms. But what we are dealing with now is not from compatible cultures and it certainly isn’t little. My nation runs a very real risk of being demographically wiped out during this century, as do the other Nordic countries. We will go from being among the most successful societies in human history to being eradicated in the space of a few generations if current levels of immigration continue. Do I have the right to worry about this, or is that “racist”?

The author Gore Vidal once stated: “Norway is large enough and empty enough to take in 40 to 50 million homeless Bengalis. If the Norwegians say that, all in all, they would rather not take them in, is this to be considered racism? I think not. It is simply self-preservation, the first law of species.” Thomas Jefferson said that “The law of self-preservation is higher than written law,” and he was right.

As I wrote two years ago: “By any standards possible, we’re one of the most successful cultures in the world, our largest flaw, which could eventually bury us, probably being our naivety. So why on earth should we quietly watch while our country is subdued by the most unsuccessful cultures in the world? The most basic instinct of all living things, even down to bacteria level, is self-preservation. In 2006, you have a natural right to self-preservation if you are an amoeba, but not if you’re a Scandinavian. Maybe the solution then is to argue that Scandinavians are indeed a species of amoebas, and that we need special protection by the WWF. We could showcase some of our finest specimen of Leftist intellectuals and journalists to prove our point. Shouldn’t be too hard.”

For simply suggesting that I would not enjoy being turned into a persecuted minority in my own country, I have been accused of being a “white nationalist,” which says a great deal about how demonized people of European ancestry have become. What about Koreans or Japanese? If they were gradually being displaced by, say, Nigerians and Pakistanis and were harassed in their cities by people who moved there out of their own free will, would they be denounced as yellow nationalists if they objected to this? In fact, why do the terms yellow nationalist, brown nationalist and black nationalist hardly exist, whereas the term white nationalist does? Isn’t that by itself an indication of a double standard?

I started out initially writing almost exclusively about Islam, and I still write predominantly about Islam. However, I have gradually realized that we are dealing with an entire regime of censorship that needs to be removed before we can deal with Islam. I will in any situation highlight and support the struggle of Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Baha’is, Jews, African Christians, Chinese Taoists etc. against Islamic Jihad, which is a global fight. I always have and I always will. The one thing I will not do is surrender my land, which is not mine to give. I do not see anybody else quietly accept being turned into a minority in the country where their ancestors have lived since the end of the last Ice Age, and I cannot see why I should have to do so, either. I don’t care if white Westerners are “scared of being called a racist.” I will not leave a ruined land behind to my descendants because I was afraid of being called bad names. If you think it is “racist” for Europeans to preserve their heritage and protect their children from abuse, then I’m not the bigot here. You are.

I hereby propose that native Europeans should create a European Indigenous People’s Movement, on behalf of the traditional majority populations of Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark etc., inspired by the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The European Indigenous People’s Movement should support the right of Europe’s indigenous peoples to preserve their self-determination, traditions, sovereignty and culture as majority peoples in their own lands.

The list of goals and objectives should include:

1.) The right to maintain our traditional majorities in our own lands, control our own sovereignty and our own self-determination. We do not wish harm or ill-feeling toward any other peoples on earth, but we assert the right to maintain our own majorities in our own lands without being accused of “racism.” We reject current trends which preach that we have no right to oppose, control or lessen unlimited immigration from non-indigenous cultures.

2.) The right to teach our children our cultures, languages, historical interpretations, religious celebrations and traditions unimpeded. We reject educational trends which encourage our children to forget or despise their culture, traditions, religious practices and history in order to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens.

3.) The right to maintain, cherish and practice our own indigenous religious holidays and celebrations. We reject out of hand current trends which preach that traditional indigenous European religious or cultural celebrations such as Christmas are somehow “racist” or “non-inclusive” and therefore must be “downgraded,” “renamed” or otherwise de-emphasized or eliminated in order to avoid offending non-indigenous European residents or citizens. We reject current policies which establish that our indigenous cultures are somehow deficient and therefore are not complete until they are “enriched” by other, non-indigenous cultures.

4.) The right to maintain, cherish and display our own indigenous religious, national, ethnic and cultural symbols. We reject out of hand current trends or policies which preach that our national flags or ethnic symbols of centuries standing are somehow “racist” or “non-inclusive” in order to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens.

5.) The right to maintain, cherish, protect and display our own indigenous cultural expressions such as music, artwork and sculptures. We reject out of hand current trends or policies which preach that indigenous European cultural expressions such as statues of boars, folkloric tales about pigs or dogs, paintings with Christian or Classical pagan themes, war memorials with a Christian theme, etc., should be removed from public view, banned, destroyed, modified or otherwise threatened in order to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens.

6.) The right to maintain, cherish and protect indigenous burial sites, structures, buildings, churches, museums and other public works and structures from destruction, modification or other changes. We reject out of hand current trends or policies which establish that indigenous public works and structures must be changed or modified to avoid offense to non-indigenous European residents or citizens, or to “make way” for structures or public works that benefit non-European residents or citizens (i.e. digging up indigenous graves that are centuries old in order to “make room” for non-indigenous cemeteries, removing external Christian symbols and statues from churches, etc.)

Mr. Franco Frattini of the EU Commission, the unelected and unaccountable government for nearly half a billion people, has stated that Europeans should accept further tens of millions of immigrants within a generation. The British Foreign Minister Milliband stated late in 2007 that the EU should expand to include Muslim nations in North Africa and the Middle East. The French President Sarkozy and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed this early in 2008. This is part of an organized attempt to surrender Europe to Islamization that has been going on for decades. Since the European Union involves the free movement of people across borders, European leaders are opening the floodgates to tens of millions of Muslims and other non-indigenous peoples at a time when native Europeans fear for the survival of their civilization and feel like aliens in their own cities. Meanwhile, Ernst Uhrlau, the president of Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, warned about the rising assertiveness of violent Jihadist organizations in North Africa.

Based on this evidence, the European Union can hardly be seen as anything other than a criminal organization dedicated to the demographic dispossession and cultural marginalization of the indigenous peoples of an entire continent. Consequently, the EU should be immediately and totally dissolved. Europe is being targeted with coordinated Islamic efforts aimed at the elimination of our freedoms. We are being subject to a foreign invasion, and aiding and abetting a foreign invasion in any way constitutes treason.

Native Europeans should demand that we have an interim period with public de-Eurabification, where the lies propagated by pro-Islamic Multiculturalists should be removed from our history books, and a proper respect for European cultural traditions should be restored. Those officials on senior levels who have participated in the creation of Eurabia should stand trial for crimes against their civilization.

CAN THE WEST BE SAVED? by Serge Trifkovic

May 2008

Serge Trifkovic is a Serbian-born American historian and political analyst. He is the author of several books, among them Defeating Jihad: How the War on Terrorism Can Be Won — in Spite of Ourselves and The Sword of the Prophet: Islam; History, Theology, Impact on the World. He is currently foreign affairs editor for the conservative monthly “Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.” This essay is republished here with his permission.

“Europe today is a powder keg,” Otto von Bismarck remarked, “and the leaders are like men smoking in an arsenal.”

I am not going to waste your time tonight with yet another treatise on why Islam is not the Religion of Peace, Tolerance, Compassion, etc, etc. We are beyond that. Had America agonized, in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, whether Shinto was actually OK but only Bushido was bad, the Greater Asian Co-prosperity Sphere would be going strong to this day. Among reasonable people, unblinkered by the dicta of political correctitude, the real score on Muhammad and his followers is well known. It has been known for centuries. That score, however, no matter how calmly stated and comprehensively supported, invariably elicits the howls of “Islamophobia” from the neoliberal elite class.

AN EMINENTLY POSTMODERN LITTLE PHOBIA

In the way of an introduction, let us therefore look at the formal, legally tested definition of that word, the latest addition to the arsenal of postmodern “phobias.” It is provided by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) based here in Vienna. (“Orwellian” is a worn-out adjective, but it simply has to be used in connection with this particular institution.) The EUMC diligently tracks the instances of “Islamophobia” all over the Old Continent, which it defines by eight red flags:

1.		Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2.		Islam is seen as separate and “Other.”
3.		Islam is seen as inferior to the West, barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
4.		Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, linked to terrorism, engaged in a clash of civilizations.
5.		Islam is seen as a political ideology.
6.		Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
7.		Discriminatory practices and Muslims’ exclusion from mainstream society are advocated.
8.		Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

This definition is obviously intended to preclude any possibility of meaningful discussion of Islam. As it happens,

1.		That Islam is static and unresponsive to change is evident from the absence of an internal, orthodox critique of jihad, sharia, jizya, etc. As Clement Huart pointed out back in 1907, “Until the newer conceptions, as to what the Koran teaches as to the duty of the believer towards non-believers, have spread further and have more generally leavened the mass of Moslem belief and opinion, it is the older and orthodox standpoint on this question which must be regarded by non-Moslems as representing Mohammedan teaching and as guiding Mohammedan action.” A century later his diagnosis still stands: it is not the jihadists who are “distorting” Islam; the would-be reformers are.
2.		That Islam is separate from our Western, Christian, European culture and civilization, and “other” than our culture and civilization, is a fact that will not change even if Europe eventually succumbs to the ongoing jihadist demographic onslaught.
3.		Whether Islam is “inferior to the West” is a matter of opinion, of course. That Islam cannot create a prosperous, harmonious, stable, creative, and attractive human society is not. Whether Islam is “barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist” is at least debatable; but that many of its tangible fruits are so, is all too painfully visible.
4.		Islam is seen by so many as “violent, aggressive, supportive of terrorism” not because of some irrational “phobia” in the feverish mind of the beholder, but because (a) of the clear mandate of its scripture; (b) of the record of its 14 centuries of historical practice; and above all (c) of the timeless example of its founder.
5.		“Islam is seen as a political ideology,” and it should be seen as one, because its key trait is a political program to improve man and create a new society; to impose complete control over that society; and to train cadres ready and eager to spill blood. This makes Islam closer to Bolshevism and to National Socialism than to any other religion. It breeds a gnostic paradigm within which the standard response to the challenge presented by “the Other,” i.e. non-Muslim societies and cultures, is implacable hostility and violence, or violent intent.
6.		Criticisms made of the West by Islam should not be rejected out of hand; they should be understood. Its chief “criticism” of the West-and of every other non-Islamic culture or tradition-is that it is infidel, and therefore undeserving of existence.
7.		A priori hostility towards Islam should not be “used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims.” Quite the contrary, an education campaign about the teaching and practice of Islam should result in legislative action that would exclude Islam from the societies it is targeting — not because it is an intolerant “religion,” but because it is an inherently seditious totalitarian ideology incompatible with the values of the West.
8.		And finally, while anti-Muslim hostility is not a priori “natural or normal,” the desire of non-Muslims to defend their lands, families, cultures and faith against Islamic aggression is “natural and normal”; but the elite class is actively trying to neutralize it.

As the demand for Sharia-based communal self-rule is made with increasing frequency in the banlieus of Paris and the grim West Midlands council estates, Europe’s elite class is ready to throw in the towel. Dutch Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner-a Christian Democrat!-sees the demand as perfectly legitimate and argues that sharia could be introduced “by democratic means.” Muslims have a right to follow the commands of their religion, even if that included some “dissenting rules of behavior”: “Could you block this legally? It would also be a scandal to say ‘this isn’t allowed’! The majority counts. That is the essence of democracy…”

GUILT-RIDDEN FELLOW-TRAVELLERS

Such inanities are light years away from Winston Churchill’s warning, over a century ago, that “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than Islam:

Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science-the science against which it had vainly struggled-the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

Even Churchill’s prescience could not envisage the possibility that the invader would find his fellow-travellers at No. 10, Downing Street, at the European Union headquarters in Brussels, and in dozens of chancelleries and palaces across the Old Continent. Their joint efforts are helping change the face of Europe. The cumulative effect is not in doubt: by 2050, Muslims will account for over one-third of “Old Europe’s” young residents. Millions of them already live in a parallel universe that has very little to do with the host country, toward which they have a disdainful and hostile attitude.

The elite class responds to such hostility with calls for ever-greater inclusiveness. Giuseppe Pisanu, Berlusconi’s former minister of the interior, responsible for controlling the country’s borders, thus declared five years ago that the high fatality rate of North African illegals on the high seas en route to Sicily was “a dreadful tragedy that weighs on the conscience of Europe.” His view was paradigmatic of the utopian liberal mind-set. If “Europe” should feel shame and guilt that people who have no right to come to its shores are risking their lives while trying to do so illegally, then only the establishment of a free passenger-ferry service between Tripoli and Palermo-with no passport or customs formalities required upon arrival, and a free shuttle to Rome or Milan-would offer some relief to that burdened conscience. And Sr Pisanu is supposedly a man of the “Right”!

The tangible results of the leaders’ moral decrepitude are devastating. A century ago, Sr. Pisanu and his class shared social commonalities that could be observed in Monte Carlo, Carlsbad, Biaritz or Paris, depending on the season. Englishmen, Russians, and Austrians shared the same outlook and sense of propriety, they all spoke French, but they nevertheless remained rooted in their national traditions, the permanent vessels in which Weltanschauung could be translated into Kultur. Today’s “United Europe,” by contrast, does not create social and civilizational commonalities except on the basis of wholesale denial of old mores, disdain for inherited values, and an overt rejection of “traditional” culture. It creates the dreary sameness of “antidiscriminationism” and “tolerance.”

Such weakness breeds contempt and haughty arrogance on the other side. Take Tariq Ramadan, who calmly insists that Muslims in the West should conduct themselves as though they were already living in a Muslim-majority society and were exempt on that account from having to make concessions to the faith of the host-society. Muslims in Europe should feel entitled to live on their own terms, Ramadan says, while, “under the terms of Western liberal tolerance,” society as a whole should be “obliged to respect that choice.”

If such “respect” continues to be extended by the elite class, by the end of this century there will be no “Europeans” as members of ethnic groups that share the same language, culture, history, and ancestors, and inhabit lands associated with their names. The shrinking native populations will be indoctrinated into believing-or else simply forced into accepting-that the demographic shift in favor of unassimilable and hostile aliens is actually a blessing that enriches their culturally deprived and morally unsustainable societies. The “liberal tolerance” and the accompanying “societal obligation” that Tariq Ramadan invokes thus become the tools of Western suicide. “No other race subscribes to these moral principles,” Jean Raspail wrote a generation ago, “because they are weapons of self-annihilation.” The weapons need to be discarded, and the upholders of those deadly “principles” removed from all positions of power and influence, if Europe is to survive.

THE PATHOLOGY OF THE ELITE CLASS

It is in the inability and unwillingness of the neoliberal elite class to confront the grave threat to our civilization that Western Europe and North America most tellingly certify that they share the same cultural chromosomes. In 1938 Hilaire Belloc wondered, “Will not perhaps the temporal power of Islam return and with it the menace of an armed Muhammadan world which will shake the dominion of Europeans-still nominally Christian-and reappear again as the prime enemy of our civilization?”

Seven decades later, the same traits of decrepitude are present in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States, including both the primary cause, which is the loss of religious faith, and several secondary ones. Topping the list is elite hostility to all forms of solidarity of the majority population based on shared historical memories, ancestors, and common culture; the consequences are predictable:

• the loss of a sense of place and history among Europeans and North Americans;
• rapid demographic decline, especially in Europe, unparalleled in history;
• rampant Third World (and in Europe, overwhelmingly Muslim) immigration;
• collapse of private and public manners, morals, and traditional commonalities;
• imposition of “diversity,” “multiculturalism,” “sensitivity”; and
• demonization and criminalization of any opposition to any of the above.

The end-result is the Westerners’ loss of the sense of propriety over their lands. Before 1914, both the West and the Muslim world could define themselves against each other in a cultural sense. The neoliberal elite insists on casting aside any idea of a specifically “Western” geographic and cultural space that should be protected from those who do not belong to it and have no rightful claim to it. The elite insists that our countries belong to the whole world.

We face an elite consensus that de facto open immigration, multiculturalism, and the existence of a large Muslim diaspora within the Western world are to be treated as a fixed and immutable fact that must not be scrutinized. That consensus, I contend, is ideological in nature, flawed in logic, dogmatic in application, and disastrous in its results. It needs to be tested against evidence, and not against the alleged norms of acceptable public discourse imposed by those who do not know Islam, or else do not want us to know the truth about it.

In addition, a depraved mass culture and multiculturalist indoctrination in state schools and the mainstream media have already largely neutralized the sense of historical and cultural continuity among young West Europeans and North Americans. By contrast, the blend of soft porn and consumerism that targets every denizen of the Western world has not had the same effect on the Muslim diaspora in the West. The roll-call of Western-born and educated young Muslims supportive of terrorism confirms that failure.

The loss of a sense of place and history experienced by millions of Westerners follows the emergence of two sides of the same coin: a neoliberal post-national hyper-state in Europe and the neoconservative “benevolent global hegemony” in the U.S. epitomized by the demand for an ever-growing NATO. These two mindsets, seemingly at odds, are but two aspects of the same emerging globalized universe, two sides of the same coin. The neoliberals advocate multilateralism in the form of an emerging “international community” framed by the United Nations and adjudicated by the International Criminal Court (ICC), with the EU acting as an interim medium for transferring sovereign prerogatives to a supra-national body; the neocons prefer to be the only cop in town. Both share the same distaste for traditional, naturally evolving societies and cultures.

The revolutionary character of the multiculturalist project is revealed in the endless mantra of Race, Gender and Sexuality, the formula now elevated to the status of the post-modern Philosopher’s Stone, the force that moves the linear historical process forward, towards the grand Gleichschaltung of nations, races, and cultures that will mark the end of history. Race, Gender and Sexuality have replaced the Proletariat as both the oppressed underclass (hence the cult of the non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual victimhood), and as the historically preordained agent of revolutionary change.

Classical Marxist political economy found the dynamics of revolution in the inevitable conflict between the owners of the means of production and the proletariat that has nothing to sell but its labor and nothing to lose but its chains. Latter-day Marxist revolutionaries go beyond dialectical materialism, however, by introducing a wholly metaphysical concept of victimhood and an array of associated special-rights claims that have worked such wonders for Islam all over the Western world. Majority populations of “old” Europe and America, in this insane but all-pervasive paradigm, are guilty of “oppression” by their very existence, and therefore must not protest the migratory deluge, let alone try to oppose it: that is “racism.”.

The fruits are with us already. Gibbon could have had today’s Antwerp or Malmo in mind, or Marseilles, or Huddersfield, when he wrote of Rome in decline, its masses morphing “into a vile and wretched populace.” On present form, within a century the native Western majorities will melt away: “child-free” is a legitimate yuppie lifestyle term, on par with “fat-free” and “drug-free.” But whereas the threat of extinction of an exotic tribal group in Borneo or Amazonia — let alone a species of spotted owl or sperm whale — would cause alarm and prompt activism among neoliberal elites, it is deemed inherently racist to mention the fact that Europeans and their trans-Atlantic cousins are, literally, endangered species.

There will be no grand synthesis, no civilizational cross-fertilization, between the West and Islam. Even the ultra-tolerant Dutch are beginning to see the light, pace Geert Wilders, but they are hamstrung by guilt-ridden self-haters and appeasers, whose hold on the political power, the media, and the academe is undemocratic, unnatural, and obscene. If Europe is to survive they need to be unmasked for what they are: traitors to their nations and their culture. They must be replaced by people ready and willing to subject the issues of immigration and identity to the test of democracy, unhindered by administrative or judicial fiat.

If the coming war against jihad is to be won, the first task is to start talking frankly about the identity and character of the enemy and the nature of the threat. The obligation to do so is dictated by morality no less than by the need for self-preservation. “If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles,” says Sun Tzu. Well, we know the enemy. We know his core beliefs, his role models, his track-record, his mindset, his modus operandi, and his intentions. We also know his weaknesses, which are many, above all his inability to develop a prosperous economy or a functional, harmonious society.

The main problem is with ourselves; or, to be precise, with those among us who have the power to make policy and shape opinions, and who will reject and condemn our diagnosis. Having absorbed postmodernist relativism, certain only of uncertainty, devoid of any faith except the faith in their own infallibility, members of the Western neoliberal elite class treat the jihadist mindset as a problem that can and should be treated by treating causes external to Islam itself. The result is a plethora of proposed “cures” that are as likely to succeed in making us safe from terrorism as snake oil is likely to cure leukemia.

Abroad, we are told, we need to address political and economic grievances of the Muslim impoverished masses, we need to spread democracy and free markets in the Muslim world, we need to invest more in public diplomacy. At home we need more tolerance, greater inclusiveness, less profiling, and a more determined outreach to the minorities that feel marginalized. The predictable failure of such cures leads to ever more pathological self-scrutiny and to ever more morbid self-doubt. This vicious circle must be broken.

BREAKING THE DEADLOCK

The deadlock on the Somme in 1916, or at Verdun a year later, could not be broken with the ideas and modus operandi of Messrs. Haig, Foch, Cadrona or Hindenburg. It could have been unlocked, however, had Lidell-Hart, de Gaulle, or Guderian held the old guard’s ranks and positions. Winning a war demands “knowing the enemy and knowing oneself,” of course, but it also demands “thinking outside the box.” This cliché is apt: the magnitude of the threat demands radical responses that fall outside the cognitive parameters of the elite class.

Let us therefore start our specific policy recommendations with the complex and emotionally charged issue of “human rights” versus national security.

DEFINING ISLAMIC ACTIVISM — Instead of seeking a ban on all Muslim immigration right away, which is not a realistic goal at this moment, Western anti-jihadist activists should campaign for changes in immigration legislation of their home countries to include clauses that would exclude Islamic activists before they come, and have them deported if they are already infiltrated into the country.

This demand needs to be made acceptable and attractive to a wide cross-section of the electorate regardless of political and ideological preferences. Therefore it should be focused on the Islamic activists’ threat to the neoliberal values themselves:

• Discrimination against other religions (with special emphasis on the rising European phenomenon of Islamic anti-Semitism), outlooks (inc. atheism) and lifestyles;
• Discrimination and violence against women (esp. wives and “disobedient” daughters);
• Discrimination and violence against homosexuals;
• Threats of violence in any form and for whatever alleged “offense” or “insult” (e.g. drawing cartoons, making documentaries, writing books);
• Apology or justification for all of the above.

It is essential to focus on the despicable acts themselves, and then drawing the direct line to the commands of Islam’s scripture and its founder, rather than doing it in reverse, as some well-meaning but politically less astute anti-jihadist activists do.

This definition of Islamic activism would be a major step in the direction of denying actual or potential jihadists a foothold in Europe and the rest of the West. In the U.S. the broad model is provided by the old 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, the McCarran-Walter Act), mandating the exclusion or deportation of any alien who engaged or had purpose to engage in activities prejudicial to the public interest or subversive to national security. “Ideological” grounds for deportation were on the US statute books until 1990, when they were repealed by Congress. After the Russian revolution foreign communists were singled out for deportation. One night alone in January of 1920, more than 2,500 “alien radicals” were seized in thirty-three cities across the country and deported to their countries of origin.

DENYING CITIZENSHIP TO ISLAMIC ACTIVISTS — I submit to you that all Western countries need laws that will treat any naturalized citizen’s or legally resident alien’s known adherence to an Islamist world outlook as excludable – on political, rather than “religious” grounds. It is politically feasible to articulate the demand that citizenship of a democratic Western country should be denied to all Islamic activists.

In the United States a foreigner who becomes naturalized has to declare, on oath, “that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” A declaration of this kind, of not a solemn oath of allegiance, is expected from naturalized citizens in most European countries.

For a Muslim to declare all of the above in good faith, and especially that he accepts an “infidel,” i.e. non-Muslim document or law as the source of his highest loyalty, is an act of apostasy par excellence, punishable by death under the Islamic law. The sharia, to a Muslim, is not an addition to the “secular” legal code with which it coexists; it is the only true code, the only basis of obligation. To be legitimate, all political power therefore must rest exclusively with those who enjoy Allah’s authority on the basis of his revealed will — and for as long as they remain infidel, both Europe and America are illegitimate. So how can a self-avowedly devout Muslim take the oath, and expect the rest of us to believe that it was done in good faith? Because he is practicing taqiyya, the art of elaborate lying that was inaugurated by Muhammad to help destabilize and undermine non-Muslim communities almost ripe for a touch of Jihad. (Or else because he is not devout enough and confused, but in that case there is the ever-present danger that at some point he will rediscover his roots.)

AUXILLIARY MEASURES — Those who preach or promote jihad and advocate the introduction of sharia can and should be treated in exactly the same manner that adherents of other totalitarian ideologies had been treated in the free world during the Cold War. It will be a long and hard struggle to open the eyes of legislators and legal regulators that Islam itself is a radical, revolutionary ideology, inherently seditious and inimical to Western values and institutions, but it can be done. Other necessary measures would then follow, but to that end anti-jihadists should start articulating and advocating them now:

1.		Seek zero porosity of the borders. Preventing illegal immigration is a desirable objective per se; in the context of stopping terrorists it is mandatory. No anti-jihadist strategy is possible without complete physical control of borders. This is an issue on which a majority of the electorate of each and every Western country will agree — much to the chagrin of the liberal elites. Anti-jihadists should insist that all illegal immigration is a major security threat and that it can and should be subject to the letter of the law, and not to the suicidal dictates of the “human rights” lobby.
2.		Demand mandatory cooperation of state agencies at all levels in identifying, registering and apprehending illegal immigrants and in assisting in their deportation — starting with those from nations and groups at risk for terrorism. It is a curious phenomenon in most Western countries that at various levels of state administration (e.g. welfare officers and social workers) and law enforcement (e.g. police forces in major cities) we encounter varying levels of tolerance, and even encouragement, of illegal immigrants’ continued presence in the community. Again, this demand for simple compliance with the law by tax-funded public officers would be politically popular.
3.		Discard the irrational ban on “profiling.” Not all Muslims are terrorists, of course, but all transnational terrorist networks that threaten Western countries’ national security and way of life are composed of Muslims. It is time to accept that “profiling” based on a person’s appearance, origin, and apparent or suspected beliefs is an essential tool of trade of law enforcement and war on terrorism. Just ask the Israelis!
4.		Subject the work of Islamic centers to legal limitations and security supervision. All over the Western world, Islamic centers have provided platforms for exhortations to the faithful to support causes and to engage in acts that are morally reprehensible, legally punishable, and detrimental to the host country’s national security. They have provided shelter to the outlaws, and offered recruitment to the leaders.
5.		Treat affiliation with Islamic activism as grounds for denial or revoking of any level of security clearance. Such affiliation is incompatible with the requirements of personal commitment, patriotic loyalty and unquestionable reliability that are essential in the military, law enforcement, intelligence services, and other related branches of government (e.g. immigration control, airport security). Presence of practicing Muslims in any of these institutions would present an inherent risk to its integrity and would undermine morale.

Acceptance of these proposals would represent a new start in devising long-term defense. The proposed measures recognize that we are in a war of ideas and religion, whether we want that or not and however much we hate the fact. They reflect the seriousness of the struggle. This war is being fought, on the Islamic side, with the deep condition that the West is on its last legs. The success of its demographic onslaught on Europe enhances the image of “a candy store with the busted lock,” and that view is reinforced by the evidence from history that a civilization that loses the urge for self-perpetuation is indeed in peril.

CAN THE CANDY STORE WITH A BUSTED LOCK BE SAVED?

The above proposals are not only pragmatic, they are morally just. They will elicit the accusation of “discrimination” from the self-hating segments of the elite class, even though no such label is applicable. Targeting people for screening, supervision and exclusion on the basis of their genes would be discriminatory indeed, but doing so because of their beliefs, ideas, actions, and intentions is justified and necessary. Orthodox Islamic beliefs, ideas and intentions as such pose a threat to the European civilization, culture, and way of life.

The elite class rejects this diagnosis, of course, but among reasonable, well-informed citizens the debate must be conducted on terms liberated from the shackles of the elite class. Geert Wilders certainly shows the way. We should act accordingly, and never, ever be afraid of causing controversy. That means being subjected to the threat of legal proceedings by the neoliberal state — or to the threat of death, by those whom the neoliberal state continues to protect to the detriment of its own citizens.

Western leaders did not agonize over communism’s “true” nature during the Berlin air lift in 1949, or in Korea in 1950, but acted effectively to contain it by whatever means necessary. Yes, back then we had a legion of Moscow’s apologists, character witnesses, moles and fellow-travelers, assuring us that the Comrades want nothing but social justice at home and peaceful coexistence abroad. They held tenured chairs at prestigious universities and dominated all smart salons, from London and Paris to New York. They explained away and justified the inconsistencies and horrifyingly violent implications of the source texts of Marx and Lenin. They explained away and justified the appalling fruits: the bloodbath of the Revolution, the genocidal great famine, the show trials and purges, the killing of millions of innocents in the Gulag, the pact with Hitler, the works.

Today their spiritual heirs in politics, the academy and the media establishment act as Islam’s apologists, character witnesses and fellow travelers. They flatly deny or else explain away, with identical scholastic sophistry and moral depravity, the dark and violent implications of the source texts, the Kuran and the Hadith, the deeply unnerving career of Muhammad, and centuries of conquests, wars, slaughters, subjugation, decline without fall, spiritual and material misery, and murderous fanaticism.

NIL DESPERANDUM!

Some eighty years ago Julien Benda published his tirade against the intellectual corruption of his times, The treason of the intellectuals. For generations prior to the 20th century, Benda wrote, members of the Western intellectual elite ensured that “humanity did evil, but honored good.” The “Treason” of the title occurred when they gave up promoting lasting civilizational values in favor of short-term political preferences. Benda wrote at a time when fascism, nazism and bolshevism dominated Europe’s scene. Today the “treason” of the elite class takes a different form. It upholds the allegedly universal values of multiculturalism, inclusiveness and antidiscriminationism to the detriment of the particular value of our civilization and all its fruits. The propensity of the elite class to the betrayal of our culture remains the same, however.

The fact that normal people don’t realize the magnitude of the problem works to the advantage of the people like Solana, Soros, Blair, Prodi, or Hillary Clinton. Their ideas, which but two generations ago would have been deemed eccentric or insane, now rule the Euro-American mainstream. Only a society inured to the concept of open borders can be unblinkingly told that Islam is good and tolerant, that “we” (the West) have been nasty and unkind to it over the centuries — remember the Crusades! — and that “terrorism” needs to be understood, and cured, by social therapy that is independent of Islam’s teaching and practice.

At the root of the domestic malaise is the notion that countries do not belong to the people who have inhabited them for generations, but to whoever happens to be within their boundaries at any given moment in time — regardless of his culture, attitude, or intentions. The resulting random melange of mutually disconnected multitudes is supposed to be a blessing that enriches an otherwise arid and monotonous society.

A further pernicious fallacy is the dictum that we should not feel a special bond for any particular country, nation, race, or culture, but transfer our preferences on the whole world, “the Humanity,” equally. Such notions have been internalized by the elite class in America and Western Europe to the point where they actively help Islamic terrorism. In America the process has been under way for decades. By 1999 then-Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott felt ready to declare that the United States may not exist “in its current form” in the 21st century, because the very concept of nationhood — here and throughout the world — will have been rendered obsolete.

A generation earlier such uttering from a senior government official would have caused a scandal. By the end of the 20th century such declarations bothered only the unsophisticates who persist in assuming that the purpose of what Dr. Talbott was doing at the Department of State was to ensure the survival, security and prosperity of the United States within the international system, rather than its eventual absorption by the system. But his was an exultant prophecy, not an impartial assessment. The ideological foundation for Talbott’s beliefs was stated bluntly: “All countries are basically social arrangements, accommodations to changing circumstances. No matter how permanent and even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary.” To the members of his class, all countries are but transient, virtual-reality entities. Owing emotional allegiance to any one of them is irrational, and risking one’s life for its sake is absurd.

The refusal of theWestern elite class to protect their nations from jihadist infiltration is the biggest betrayal in history. It is rooted in the mindset that breeds the claim that “force is not an answer” to terrorism, that profiling is bad and open borders are good, that “true” Islam is peaceful and the West is wicked. The upholders of such claims belong to the culture that has lost its bond with nature, history, and the supporting community. In the meantime, thanks to them, the quiet onslaught continues unabated, across the Straits of Gibraltar, through JFK and O’Hare, Heathrow and Schiphol. Far from enhancing diversity, it threatens to impose a numbing sameness and eradicate the identity of target-populations, to demolish their special character and uniqueness.

That supporting community, the real nation, is still out there, in North America and Europe alike, working and paying taxes and grinning and bearing it. When it is told of Islam’s “peace and tolerance,” it grumbles about someone’s stupidity or ineptitude, but it still does not suspect outright betrayal. The betrayers, meanwhile, promote an ideology of universal human values, of a common culture for the whole world. They may not even realize why they abet Islam. For all the outward differences, they share with the mullahs and sheikhs and imams the desire for a monistic One World. They both long for Talbot’s Single Global Authority, post-national and seamlessly standardized, an Ummah under a fancy secular name.

Those Americans and Europeans who love their lands and nations more than any others, and who put their families and their neighborhoods before all others, are normal people. Those who tell them that their attachments should be global and that their lands and neighborhoods belong to the whole world are sick and evil. They are our enemies and jihad’s indispensable objective allies.

The elite class, rootless, arrogant, cynically manipulative, has every intention of continuing to “fight” the war on terrorism without naming the enemy, without revealing his beliefs, without unmasking his intentions, without offending his accomplices, without expelling his fifth columnists, and without ever daring to win.

It is up to the millions of normal Europeans and their American cousins to stop the madness. The traitor class wants them to share its death wish, to self-annihilate as people with a historical memory and a cultural identity, and to make room for the post-human, monistic Utopia spearheaded by the jihadist fifth column.

This crime can and must be stopped. The founders of the United States overthrew the colonial government for offenses far lighter than those of which the traitor class is guilty.

Suggestions for the Future

Published at the Gates of Vienna blog in September 2008; republished with some changes here.

This essay overlaps to some extent with the essay Recommendations for the West from 2006. How should we respond to the threats our civilization is facing? First of all, ordinary citizens should take steps to protect their own security since crime and violence is spreading fast throughout the Western world. Second, we need to reclaim pride in our heritage, which has been lost or taken from us in recent years, and restore a proper teaching of this in the education system. We should assume that our leaders are not telling us the full truth about the scale of mass immigration.

Journalist Nick Fagge wrote the following in newspaper the Daily Express in October 2008:

“MORE than 50 million African workers are to be invited to Europe in a far-reaching secretive migration deal, the Daily Express can reveal today. A controversial taxpayer-funded ‘job centre’ opened in Mali this week is just the first step towards promoting ‘free movement of people in Africa and the EU’. Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will ‘need’ 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the ‘demographic decline’ due to falling birth rates and rising death rates across Europe. The report, by the EU statistical agency Eurostat, warns that vast numbers of migrants could be needed to meet the shortfall in two years if Europe is to have a hope of funding the pension and health needs of its growing elderly population. It states:…’Having sufficient people of working age is vital for the economy and for tax revenue.’ The report, by French MEP Francoise Castex, calls for immigrants to be given legal rights and access to social welfare provision such as benefits. Ms Castex said: ‘It is urgent that member states have a calm approach to immigration. To say ‘yes’, we need immigration …is not a new development, we must accept it.’“

Unlimited mass immigration would destabilize cities that are already swamped in crime. Besides, we are real, physically existing peoples, nations, and countries, not walking tax revenue. We are told that the ongoing mass immigration from alien cultures is “good for the economy.” This is demonstrably false and resembles the “Big Lie” technique employed by the Nazis. Even if it were true, I would still reject this argument. I am not willing to give up our existence as a people in the hypothetical hope that doing so would earn us a few more electronic toys, of which we already have plenty. The notion that man is homo economicus, the economic man, nothing more than the sum of his functions as a worker and consumer, is widely shared by left-wingers and many right-wingers today. It is one of the most destructive ideologies of our time and needs to be defeated while there is still something left of European civilization to preserve. You cannot put a prize tag on your cultural identity and the heritage of your ancestors. I want my children to grow up in a country that is theirs, with a sense of belonging to a community with deep historical roots.

One “anti-Jihadist” in Scandinavia once indicated that it was OK with a Muslim majority in Europe as long as these Muslims respect “human rights.” They won’t, of course, but that’s not the point. The “debate” we have is between those who believe we should accept unlimited mass immigration and those who believe we should accept unlimited mass immigration as long as those who replace us believe in “human rights,” where the former group views the latter as “racists.” At no point is there any debate of whether native Europeans have the right to preserve our cultures and historical identities.

Globalism is the enemy within which needs to be defeated. Globalism does not refer to the impersonal forces of technological globalization (although committed Globalists like to pretend that it does, because this makes their ideological program seem “inevitable”), but to a Utopian ideology stating that erasing all national cultures and states (especially Western ones) is a positive good which should be promoted at all costs. Opposition to this should be banned as “discrimination,” “racism” and “nationalism” (the terms are used as synonyms).

I’ve engaged in long discussions as to whether or not our current weakness is caused by deeper-lying, structural flaws in our civilization or whether it is promoted by certain powerful groups with a dangerous agenda. My answer is that it is both. The ideology of Globalism is indeed promoted by certain elite groups much more than by the average citizen, and these ideas are enforced from above. This is happening all over the Western world, but it is particularly dangerous in Western Europe because of the legislative powers of the EU.

Although Leftists tend to be more aggressive, perhaps the dividing line in the internal struggle in the West is less between Left and Right and more between those who value national sovereignty and European culture and those who do not. Upholding borders has become more important in the age of globalization, not less. We need to reclaim control over our borders and reject any organization, either the EU, the UN, various human rights groups or others who prevent us from doing this. We must remind our political leaders that we pay national taxes because they are supposed to uphold our national borders. If they can’t do so, we should no longer be required to pay taxes. National taxes, national borders could become a new rallying cry.

There are both left-wing and right-wing Globalists. They have different agendas, for instance with left-wing Globalists putting emphasis on silencing free speech and promoting “international law” through the United Nations and similar organizations, while right-wing Globalists concentrate more on the free flow of people across borders, just as they want free flow of goods and capital across borders. The Presidential election campaign in the USA in 2008 between Obama and McCain is a race between a left-wing and a right-wing Globalist. Both want open borders, if only for slightly different reasons, and tend to think of countries as ideas, not as entities populated by distinct peoples with shared values and a common history.

An ideological “war within the West” has paved the way for a physical “war against the West” waged by Islamic Jihadists, who correctly view our acceptance of Muslim immigration as a sign of weakness. Perhaps we will need to resolve the war within the West before we can win the war against the West. When Europeans such as Polish king Jan III Sobieski led their troops to victory over the Turks in the 1683 Battle of Vienna, they fought for a number of things: Their country, their culture and their religion. People don’t just need to live; they need something to live for, and fight for.

We are against Islam. What are we for? I would suggest that one thing we should fight for is national sovereignty and the right to preserve our culture and pass it on to future generations. We are fighting for the right to define our own laws and national policies, not to be held hostage by the United Nations, unaccountable NGOs, transnational progressives or self-appointed guardians of the truth.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the West is the sick man of the world. We provide our sworn enemies with the technology and medicine to multiply, give them the transportation and legal rights to move to our countries (after showing them through TV and movies how much better life is in our part of the world). On top of this, we pay them to colonize our countries and harass our children while our leaders ban opposition to this as intolerance, discrimination and racism. When did the West stop thinking? Where did we go wrong? Here is the answer an American friend of mine gave:

“Well, there’s Marxism of course, which was extremely damaging in all its forms. There were the two world wars which killed so many of our people and caused a lack of cultural confidence. Then there was the Pax Americana and the unprecedented safety and affluence it brought to the Western World. We have now had two generations of Westerners, almost three, who have never known real poverty, hunger, war, or ‘the knock on the door in the middle of the night.’ Without a need for survival skills, we had the time and the money to focus on ever-more insane political and cultural ideologies…I think I remember reading something about how the Indian Hindu empires became ripe for conquest by Islam — ‘They focused on becoming good, instead of remaining powerful.’ I can’t remember the source on that though. But that’s what we are now — obsessing about how to be good, not on being powerful. And our ‘goodness’ isn’t worth much if the rest of the world is focused on becoming powerful. Also, you have to remember, a lot of people are making money out of these insane ideologies. The ‘diversity’ industry in the U.S. is worth billions — people with little skills or ability are being given comfy well-paid jobs because of it….And because of anti-discrimination laws, every organization, whether for profit or not, must have a ‘diversity’ plan to point to if they ever get sued for ‘discrimination.’ It’s literally a recession-proof captive industry. Anyways we’re sick and the whole world knows it. They are coming here to feed off our sickness.”

The West is rapidly declining as a percentage of world population and in danger of being overwhelmed by immigration from poorer countries with booming populations. People of European origins need to adjust our self-image correspondingly and ditch the current ideology of deranged altruism. We are not all-powerful and are not in a position to help everybody in developing countries out of poverty, certainly not by allowing them to move here. We need to develop a new mental paradigm dedicated to our own survival.

We should take a break from mass immigration in general. Any future immigration needs to be strictly controlled and exclusively non-Muslim. This break should be used to demonstrate clearly that the West will no longer serve as the dumping ground for excess population growth in other countries. We have cultures that we’d like to preserve, too, and cannot and should not be expected to accept unlimited number of migrants from other countries.

In my view, the best way to deal with the Islamic world is to have as little to do with it as possible. We should completely stop and if necessary ban Muslim immigration. This could be done in creative and indirect ways, such as banning immigration from nations with citizens known to be engaged in terrorist activities. We should remove all Muslim non-citizens currently in the West and change our laws to ensure that Muslim citizens who advocate sharia, preach Jihad, the inequality of “infidels” and of women should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to their country of origin.

We need to create an environment where the practice of Islam is made difficult. Much of this can be done in non-discriminatory ways, by simply refusing to allow special pleading to Muslims. Do not allow the Islamic public call to prayer as it is offensive to other faiths. Boys and girls should take part in all sporting and social activities of the school and the community. The veil should be banned in all public institutions, thus contributing to breaking the traditional subjugation of women. Companies and public buildings should not be forced to build prayer rooms for Muslims. Enact laws to eliminate the abuse of family reunification laws. Do not permit major investments by Muslims in Western media or universities.

American columnist Diana West wants us to shift from a pro-democracy offensive to an anti-sharia defensive. Calling this a “War on Terror” as President George W. Bush did in 2001 was a mistake. Baron Bodissey of the Gates of Vienna blog has suggested the slogan “Take Back the Culture,” thus focusing on our internal struggle for traditional European culture.

People should be educated about the realities of Jihad and sharia. Educating non-Muslims about Islam is more important than educating Muslims, but we should do both. Groups of dedicated individuals should engage in efforts to explain the real nature of Islam, emphasizing the division that Islam teaches between Believer and Infidel, the permanent state of war between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb and the use of taqiyya and kitman, religious deception.

As Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch says, we should explain why Islam encourages despotism (because allegiance is owed the ruler as long as he is a Muslim), economic paralysis, intellectual failure (the cult of authority, the hostility to free and skeptical inquiry) in Islamic countries. Let Muslims themselves begin slowly to understand that all of their political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures are a result of Islamic teachings.

Fitzgerald also suggests exploiting the many fissures within the Islamic world: Divide and conquer. Divide and demoralize. Islam has universalist claims but it talks about Arabs as the “best of peoples,” and has been a vehicle for Arab supremacy, to promote Arab conquest of wealthier non-Arab populations. In addition to divisions between Arabs and non-Arab Muslims, we have the sectarian divide between Shias and Sunnis, and the economic division between the fabulously rich oil-and-natural-gas Arab states and the poor Muslim countries.

Both the sectarian and economic divisions within Islam are best exploited by infidels doing nothing. If the Western world stops giving Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and the Palestinians “aid,” which has in reality become a disguised form of jizya, this will clear the psychological air. And it will force the poorer Arabs and other Muslims to go to the rich Arabs for support.

Right now, Muslims can enjoy the best of both worlds, and follow primitive religious laws while enjoying the fruits of 21st century civilization. We need to drive home the utter failure of the Islamic model by making sure that Muslims should no longer able to count on permanent Western or infidel aid in their overpopulated, self-primitivized states, whose very unviability they are prevented from recognizing by this constant infusion of aid.

We need to deprive Muslims as much as possible of Western jizya in other forms, which means ending foreign aid, but also institute a Manhattan Project for alternative sources of energy, in order to become independent of Arab oil.

As Mr. Fitzgerald asks: “What would the rich Arabs do if the Western world decided to seize their property in the West as the assets of enemy aliens, just as was done to the property owned not only by the German government, but by individual Germans, during World War II? And what would they do if they were to be permanently deprived of easy access to Western medical care?”

We must reject the “You turn into what you fight” argument. Those who fought the Nazis didn’t become Nazis during the Second World War. The truth is, we will become like Muslims if we don’t stand up to them and keep them out of our countries, otherwise they will subdue us and Islamize us by force. The West isn’t feared because we are “oppressors,” we are despised because we are perceived as weak and decadent. Jihadist websites have said that China is not the enemy at the moment. China, too, is an infidel enemy, but Muslims respect the Chinese more than Western nations. We can live with having enemies. The important thing is making sure that our enemies respect us, as Machiavelli indicated in The Prince.

We should implement a policy of containment of the Islamic world, but for this to work we will sometimes have to take military action to crush Muslim pretensions to grandeur. The Buddhists of Central Asia undoubtedly held the “moral high ground” in relations to Muslims. They are all dead now. At the very least, we must be prepared to back up our ideological defenses with force on certain occasions.

Several objections could be raised against the containment option. Some claim that it is too harsh and thus won’t be implemented; others say that it is insufficient and won’t work in the long run. It’s true that in the current political climate, expulsion of sharia-sponsoring Muslims isn’t going to happen, but the current ruling paradigm won’t last. It is likely that we will get civil wars in several Western countries because of the ongoing mass immigration. This will finally demonstrate how serious the situation is and force other Western nations to act.

I have heard comments that it isn’t practically doable to contain the Islamic world behind some artificial Maginot Line. When the Mongols could simply go around the Great Wall of China in the thirteenth century, it will be impossible to contain anybody in an age of modern communication technology. No, it won’t be easy, but we should at least try. Containment isn’t necessarily the only thing we need to do, just the very minimum that is acceptable. Perhaps the spread of nuclear technology will indeed trigger a large-scale war with the Islamic world at some point. The only way to prevent this is to take steps, including military ones, to deprive Muslims of dangerous technology. Jihad is waged by military, political, financial, demographic and diplomatic means. The defense against Jihad has to be equally diverse.

In the post What Can We Do?, Gates of Vienna republished an essay by reader Westerner which was originally posted at American writer Lawrence Auster’s website. Westerner argues that the separationist policy proposed by Auster and others of rolling back, containing, and using military force to quarantine Muslims would not be sufficient to make the non-Islamic world safe, because Islamic regimes would still exist and continue to seek ways to harm us. He therefore proposes a policy aimed at crushing Islam.

Nevertheless, my general policy recommendation is to advocate separation and containment. The crucial point is to stress that Islam cannot be reformed nor reconciled with our way of life. There is no moderate Islam. There can be moderate Muslims, but they can turn into Jihadists tomorrow or they can lie to deceive the infidels, which is widely practiced in Islam. There is no way for us to know. Those who want to understand this can read my online essay about “moderate Islam“ as well as the essay “Why We Cannot Rely on Moderate Muslims.”

According to blogger Conservative Swede, “In fact it is easier to argue for a stop of ALL immigration, to the general public, than a specific stop of Muslim immigration (maybe not in America, but surely in Sweden and the rest of Europe). People simply know very little about Islam. They need to be educated first, and already that is a big effort. So this is the first step. Before this has been achieved, before the awareness about the true face of Islam is firmly represented among the general public, it becomes pointless to push for deportation of all Muslims at the arenas directed at the general public. The first and current step is about educating people about Islam.” He puts emphasis on the need for breaking the spirit of our Jihadist enemies and finding ways of symbolically defeating them.

I have been criticized because my talk about containment and the need to limit even non-Muslim immigration smacks of the siege mentality of a friendless West. Advocating a policy of much stricter immigration control in general isn’t based on isolationism, it’s based on realism. We’re in the middle of the largest migration waves in human history. The simple fact is that far more people want to live in the West than we can possibly let in. Technology has made it easier for people to settle in other countries, and easier for them to stay in touch with their original homeland as if they never left. We have to deal with this fact by slowing the immigration rates to assimilation levels; otherwise our societies will eventually break down.

I’m advocating isolation of the Islamic world, not of the West. Even if we cannot allow all non-Muslims to freely settle in our lands, this does not mean that they have to be our enemies. Jihad is being waged against the entire non-Muslim world, not just the West. We should stop trying to “win the hearts and minds” of Muslims instead cooperate with other non-Muslims. It is important to stress here, however, that this cooperation should be based on mutually shared strategic interests, not on a Western mission to “save the world.”

We live in a world demographically — and perhaps soon economically — dominated by Asians, yet too many Westerners are still mentally stuck in an age where we had a dominant position. The Chinese look after Chinese interests, Indians after Indian interests, etc. This is how it should be. Only Westerners are supposed to worry about global interests. We should stop trying to save others and start saving ourselves, while we still can. Only by letting go of illusions of hegemony can we regain our sanity. The Western world order is dead. The sooner we realize that, the better are our chances. Instead of complaining about “decline” we could use this situation as an opportunity to define a new civilizational mission dedicated to our own survival. If cultural confusion is a cause of our low birth rates, it is possible that a new sense of purpose could lead to a rise in birth rates. The battle for Western hegemony is already over. The battle for Western survival is about to begin.

As I have pointed out several times in my essays, Islam is a secondary infection which feeds off our weakness. Muslims would never have been able to challenge us as much as they do now without finding willing collaborators within our ranks who viewed them as potential allies in the fight against their own civilization. Many immigrants are tools for our elites as well, a protected class being used as a battering ram for the “creative destruction” of established Western nation states. The groups that hate our civilization the most, along with Jihadist Muslims, are white Marxists, while some of the people who defend it are immigrants who were not born into it. We thus face the possibly unique situation of a civilization being attacked by insiders and defended by people who were not born into it.

We need to keep our eyes on the ball. Imagine if you have a zebra in a cage. A social engineer comes up with the brilliant idea that we now live in the age of globalization and that all creatures therefore have to learn to live together in harmony. If they refuse, they should be forced to participate in this noble project under the enlightened guidance of educated social engineers. The zebra is forced to share his cage with a lion. When he tries to protest, the social engineers tell him that he is an evil racist who suffers from lionophobia, which is promptly banned by law. Young zebras are taught through the education system and the media to feel weighed down by guilt because lions have suffered much injustice in the past. They are consequently prevented from identifying threats and responding to them in a sensible manner.

The experiment ends badly and many zebras are slaughtered. The question is: Who are really the bad guys in this case? I would blame the social engineers more than the lions. If a lion kills a zebra, he is only following his nature. Similarly, it is in Islam’s nature to attack others. If Muslims follow Islam’s nature, why should we be surprised? After all, they have been doing this for 1400 years. Yes, we should be angry with them, but we should first and foremost be angry with those who fed us false information, flooded our countries with enemies and forced us to live with them. They constitute enemy number one. We should never forget that. This analogy is not perfect since we are not dealing with animals but with human beings who can think for themselves. Nevertheless, we need to keep this in mind.

I believe we need to think of two distinct fights: The fight for the West and for European civilization, and the fight against Islam. They overlap on a number of occasions, but they are by no means identical. Moreover, just because Muslim immigration is uniquely harmful doesn’t mean that all other forms of mass immigration are unproblematic. Personally, I have two goals, listed here according to their relative importance:

1.		Defend European civilization and the peoples who have historically created it
2.		Fight Islam on a global basis

For my part, I have always, and will always, support priority number two, as long as this doesn’t conflict with priority number one. I will be happy to help Hindus in India or Buddhists in Thailand in the fight against Jihad, but that doesn’t mean that I will allow unlimited numbers of Asians settle in my country. This would spell the end of my nation, and that would obviously conflict with goal number one. There is a school of thought which says that it’s bad if native Europeans are displaced by Muslims, but OK if we are displaced by others. I would prefer not to be displaced by anybody. The defense of European civilization, which is what Western civilization actually is, is inseparable from the defense of the peoples who have historically created it. And no, we are not “socially constructed.”

The United Nations is heavily infiltrated by Islamic groups. We should starve it for funds and ridicule it at any given opportunity. As an alternative to the UN, we could create an organization where only democratic states could become members. The most important principle at this point is to contain the Islamic world. We simply cannot allow our enemies to have influence over our policies, which they do through the UN.

Europeans need to totally dismantle the European Union and regain national control over our borders and legislation. The EU is so deeply flawed and infiltrated by pro-Islamic thinking that it simply cannot be reformed. No, the EU isn’t the only problem we have, but it is the worst, and we can’t fix our other problems as long as the EU is in charge. And let’s end the stupid support for the Palestinians that the Eurabians have encouraged and start supporting our cultural cousin, Israel. Europe’s first line of defense starts in Jerusalem.

Europeans should adopt legislation similar to the First and Second Amendments in the American Bill of Rights, securing the right to free speech and gun ownership. The reason why European authorities are becoming increasingly totalitarian in their censorship efforts is to conceal the fact that they are no longer willing or able to uphold even the most basic security of their citizenry, far less our national borders.

We need to ditch the welfare state, which is probably doomed anyway. The welfare state wasn’t all bad, but it cannot compete in a world of billions of capitalists in low-cost countries. It creates a false sense of security in a dog-eat-dog world and breeds a passivity that is very dangerous in our struggle for survival. We should use the money to strengthen our border controls and rebuild credible militaries. Western Europeans have lived under Pax Americana for so long that we have forgotten how to defend ourselves. This needs to change, and soon.

I recently read the book The Shock Doctrine by the prominent left-wing intellectual Naomi Klein. That is, I made an attempt to read it. I gave up after a few chapters. Klein talks about how clean slate ideologies are dangerous, and mentions in passing some crimes committed by the Soviet regime and the criticism which followed its collapse. Then she says:

“The process has sparked heated debate around the world about how many of these atrocities stemmed from the ideology invoked, as opposed to its distortion by adherents like Stalin, Ceausescu, Mao and Pol Pot. ‘It was flesh-and-blood Communism that imposed wholesale repression, culminating in a state-sponsored reign of terror,’ writes Stéphane Courtois, co-author of the contentious Black Book of Communism. ‘Is the ideology itself blameless?’ Of course it is not. It doesn’t follow that all forms of Communism are inherently genocidal, as some have gleefully claimed, but it was certainly an interpretation of Communist theory that was doctrinaire, authoritarian, and contemptuous of pluralism that led to Stalin’s purges and to Mao’s re-education camps. Authoritarian Communism is, and should be, forever tainted by those real-world laboratories. But what of the contemporary crusade to liberate world markets?”

Klein claims that not all forms of market systems have to be inherently violent. They can leave room for free health care, too. She condemns “authoritarian interpretations” of Communism, but not necessarily Communism as such. Exactly where we can find examples of non-authoritarian Communism she doesn’t say. That’s as far as self-criticism has progressed in the political Left a generation after we “defeated” Marxism.

The economist Milton Friedman, along with F. Hayek, is one of the villains of Naomi Klein’s book. According to her, Friedman has stated that “only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.” Friedman believes that during a crisis, we only have a brief window of opportunity before society slips back into the “tyranny of the status quo,” and that we need to use this opportunity or lose it.

This is actually sound advice and in my view the strategy Western survivalists should follow. When I first started writing as Fjordman I focused on how to “fix the system.” I’ve gradually come to the conclusion that the system cannot be fixed. Not only does it have too many enemies; it also contains too many internal contradictions. If we define the “system” as mass immigration from alien cultures, Globalism, Multiculturalism and suppression of free speech in the name of “tolerance,” then this is going to collapse. It’s inevitable.

The goal of European and Western survivalists — and that’s what we are, it is our very survival that is at stake — should not be to “fix” the ideology of Multiculturalism but to be mentally prepared for its collapse, and to develop coherent answers to what went wrong and prepare to implement the necessary remedies when the time comes. We need to seize the window of opportunity, and in order to do so, we need to define clearly what we want to achieve. What went wrong with our civilization, and how can we survive and hopefully regenerate, despite being an increasingly vulnerable minority in an often hostile world?

If or when the European Union collapses, we need to stage trials against the creators of Eurabia and denounce the lies told by our media and academia. Their ideology needs to be exposed as evil. The political elites implement the agendas of our enemies and ignore the interests of their people. Change will come when they fear the consequences of their betrayal more than they fear Muslims. We need to regain control over our national borders and legislation, and we need to reclaim control over the media. Those who control the media, control society.

It is easy to blame others, but we have to accept responsibility for our situation. Yes, we have indeed been betrayed by our leaders, but that’s only part of the problem. People tend to get the governments they deserve. Maybe we get weak leaders because we are weak, or because they can exploit weaknesses in our mentality to get us where they want; anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, our excessive desire for consensus and suppression of dissent, the anti-individualistic legacy from Socialism and the passivity bred by welfare state bureaucracy. Muslims are stuck with their problems and blame everybody else for their failures because they can never admit they are caused by deep flaws in their culture. We shouldn’t make the same mistake. Europeans export wine; Arabs export whine. That’s the way it should be.

In his book The River War published in 1899, Winston Churchill wrote about the cursed effects of Mohammedanism (which is what Islam is):

“The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

This description remains correct today. Nevertheless, bad as it is, Islam isn’t the cause of our current weakness. In addition to plain decadence, there is a widespread feeling in much of Europe that nothing is worth fighting for, certainly not through armed struggle. There are no Great Truths, everything is equal. Maybe Europe’s faith in itself died in Auschwitz, but it was severely wounded in the trenches of the First World War. It was WW1 that radicalized Europe, triggered the Russian Revolution and the rise of Soviet Communism, and filled Germany, including a young corporal named Adolf Hitler, with a desire for vengeance and much of the ammunition they needed for their rise to power in the 1930s.

I have heard claims that European civilization will not survive the twenty-first century. A century is a very long time, we should remember that. Would anybody (except a Churchill) in the early twentieth century, when Europe was strong, have predicted that it would now be in the process of being overpowered by Algerians and Pakistanis? Things change. They can change for the worse, but also for the better. Our ancestors, better men and women than we are, held the line against Islam for more than one thousand years, sacrificing their blood for the continent. By doing so, they not only preserved the European heartland and thus Western civilization itself, but quite possibly the world in general from Islamic dominance. The stakes involved now are no less than they were then, possibly even greater.

It is difficult to predict the future, apart from the fact that there will be a lot of turbulence. As American scholar Daniel Pipes puts it, the decisive events have yet to take place, perhaps within the next decade or so. The situation is historically unprecedented: “No large territory has ever shifted from one civilization to another by virtue of a collapsed population, faith, and identity; nor has a people risen on so grand a scale to reclaim its patrimony. The novelty and magnitude of Europe’s predicament make it difficult to understand, tempting to overlook, and nearly impossible to predict. Europe marches us all into terra incognita.”

Some people claim that Europe isn’t worth fighting for and that many people here deserve what’s coming. Some of them probably do, yes. The catch is that the people who deserve most to be punished for the current mess are the ones who are least likely to pay the price. The creators of Eurabia will be the first to flee the continent when the going gets tough, leaving those who have never heard of Eurabia and never approved of its creation to fight.

Edmund Burke believed that if a society can be seen as a contract, we must recognize that most parties to the contract are either dead or not yet born. I like that idea, which means that when you fight for a country, you don’t just fight for the ones that are there now, but for those who lived there before and for those who will live there in the future. If we don’t want to fight for what Europe is today then let us fight for what it once was, and maybe, just maybe, for what it may become once more. There was real greatness in this continent once. It seems a long time ago now, but we can get there again. Meanwhile, let us work to ensure the survival of European civilization, which is now very much in question.

This concludes Defeating Eurabia. The entire book will eventually be available as a downloadable PDF. When it becomes available, the download information will be provided here.