Monday, August 31, 2009

“The Forces That Continue to Cook up This Soup”

Our Danish correspondent Signe has translated an article from Jyllands-Posten about the latest Muslim offensive in the ongoing war of Islam against the Danes. She says, “We can never know what this will lead to, but the gang war, the burka ban proposal, and the deportation of Iraqis seem to be the major issues in Denmark right now.”

For the full text of the lawyer’s letter, see Saturday’s post.

Saudi Arabian lawyer: Ultimatum for Danish newspapers

An apology must be issued from those newspapers that reprinted cartoonist Kurt Westergaard’s famous drawing of the prophet Mohammed

The Mighty MoOn behalf of an unknown number of the prophet’s descendants, the lawyer, Faisal A.Z. Yamani in Jeddah has sent his letter to the editors-in-chief of the newspapers that published the cartoon. He demands that they apologize and publish a disclaimer by the end of September.

“It must be a clear, public and unconditional correction and apology for the offence and damage that Your newspaper caused, when it reprinted Mr. Westergaard’s cartoon last year,” says Faisal A.Z. Yamani.

Apology in four languages
- - - - - - - - -
He encloses the text for the apology that the newspapers must publish on one of the first three pages. It must be printed in as many as four languages: Danish, English, French and Arabic. Furthermore, there must be a front page link to the apology.

The lawyer also demands that the newspapers first and foremost remove the Mohammed cartoon from all websites that they own or control. Besides this, the editors-in-chiefs must promise that they will never again publish similar cartoons or material about the prophet Mohammed. Faisal A.Z. Yamani also mentions that obedience from Danish newspapers will help end the boycott of Danish products that is still occurring certain places in the Middle East.

No hesitation

Editor-in-chief Siegfried Matlok from Der Nordschleswiger merely shrugs at the demands. There will be no apology in his newspaper.

“We are not hesitating. The newspapers once decided independently from each other to publish the cartoon and I assume that we stand together concerning the principle behind the publication. However, I am worried that there are not only threats launched at the newspapers but also threats of new action against Denmark,” he says.

He is puzzled that the threat surfaces one and a half year after the publication.

There must be some forces that continue to cook up this soup. Respect for Muslims in Denmark and the world, but we cannot accept this,” says Siegfried Matlok. [emphasis added]


Previous posts about Saudi lawfare against the Danes:

2009 Aug 29 The Prophet Retains Counsel
    30 Danish Dailies Respond to Saudi Lawfare
    31 A Letter to Kurt from the Prophet

26 comments:

sitamnesty said...

It's time to fight back and strike right in the heart of the evil source.

That's piece of cake using a terrible, tremendous, horrible, yet cheap and commonly available M3D (Massive Muslim Mind Destruction) weapon : a stamp.

Print this article with the caricature, directly from your browser, and snail-mail it to that clown lawyer as an answer to his ridiculous threat.
His snail-mail adress is on page
http://tinyurl.com/M6l5NE


After opening a pile of such letters and facing Mo caricatures again and again and again and again and (so on...), good chance is he will die from a brain blow-up due to over-hating !

Dazed and Confused said...

Ah the good old religion of peace! I suppose that this is Illegal then!

Jedilson Bonfim said...

Editor-in-chief Siegfried Matlok from Der Nordschleswiger merely shrugs at the demands. There will be no apology in his newspaper.

Good, double good, triple good. Give those inbred bedouin savage lower forms of life an inch, and they'll end up demanding ten miles. Give them the nail from a pinky finger, and they'll demand a whole arm with half a ribcage attached to it. The way to go about this is really to flip them off.

Baron Bodissey said...

Jedilson --

You are correct, but only partially.

It’s important to remember that this is a probe. It’s not intended to get the infidel papers to give in, it’s designed to probe our journalistic defenses and see how expensive they can make the process.

That’s why the ONLY successful legal outcome will have to involve double indemnity (or something similar) imposed on the plaintiffs for bringing a nuisance action and abusing the Danish legal system.

If they cause the newspapers to spend a few hundred thousand kroner dealing with this crap, then they will have won. Then it will be on to round 2, more burkinis or halal food or prayer rooms or minarets.

To all Danes who read this: please write to several major newspapers plus your member of parliament and demand that the plaintiffs be ordered to pay double court costs for their impudence.

It’s the only effective way to win this one.

Zenster said...

Baron Bodissey: That’s why the ONLY successful legal outcome will have to involve double indemnity (or something similar) imposed on the plaintiffs for bringing a nuisance action and abusing the Danish legal system.

This is why I suggested the exact same thing with my comments in the original post. Danish juridicial authorities need to invite this bipedal slime mold to press these charges on Danish soil with the express intent of making the plaintiff financially liable for the cost of proceedings to all parties, including the court itself.

Several expensive slap-downs of this typical Muslim bully boy behavior would see a swift end to such lawfare. By inflicting the Death of a Thousand Papercuts™, Libel Tourism or forum shopping is just one more form of stealth jihad.

It's long past tea to dump cold water on the tripe volcano that is Islam.

Jedilson Bonfim said...

I really hadn't looked at things from that perspective, but Zenster and Baron, you guys are absolutely right. Unless tapeworm Faisal and his buddies end up paying for this, they won't have lost.

IgnorantInfidel said...

What happens if all the news papers display all the cartoons on a single page with the question: "are the the cartoons you find objectionable?

Zenster said...

Jedilson Bonfim: Unless tapeworm Faisal and his buddies end up paying for this, they won't have lost.

Wittingly or not you have gotten to the bedrock of this entire situation. Islam continues to evade paying the piper for its incessant evil. While individual Muslims bear a horrible cost in terms of tyranny, oppression, despotism, Islam and its incipient power structure gets a free ride. It also must not be forgotten that thundering Muslim silence about the abject barbarism of that power structure carries a degree of blame.

Imagine that hours after the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, a wealthy enclave of highly placed Muslim politicians and clerics had been leveled with over 200 fatalities and another 4,000 wounded.

Imagine that hours after the 9-11 Atrocity, the core of a major Muslim city had been struck killing some 3,000 and injuring hundreds more while demolishing a vital economic complex.

Imagine that hours after the 2002 Bali Atrocity, a prosperous Muslim seaside resort had been obliterated with over 200 people torn apart and over another 200 maimed or wounded.

Imagine that within hours of the Madrid Atrocity, several commuter trains in an Islamic capital were blown off of their rails killing almost 200 and injuring nearly 2,000 more.

Imagine that hours after the Beslan Atrocity, a Muslim children's school had been bombed killing hundreds of young boys and girls plus another one hundred adults and injuring several hundred more.

Imagine that hours after the London Atrocity a large Muslim city had its subway system crippled killing almost 60 people and injuring another 700 more.

Imagine if adequate military intelligenge gathering had been employed to assure that a vast majority of those killed in retaliation came from the ranks of Islam's clerical, financial, political and scholastic aristocracy.

Does anyone honestly think that, confronted with swift and deadly reprisal, Islamic jihad would be such an ongoing problem for the West, as it is today? If, with each new atrocity, there was a direct and proportionate retaliation that left the Muslim world reeling in equal degree to our suffering here in the West, the Arab street might have an entirely different opinion of those well-off clerics and politicians screeching all of the time about, "JIHAD!, JIHAD!, JIHAD!"

Now, imagine that with each renewed terrorist atrocity a force multiplier had been added that eventually saw 10X, 100X and 1,000X fatalities for each single one of those in the West. After the first few reprisals against these murderous terrorist attacks Muslims would have been racing down to the nearest mosque to slit their jihadist imam's throat.

Instead, the West demonstrated its usual decency and humanity only to have it weaponized and turned back against us with traditional Muslim ingratitude. The time is long overdue to begin making sure that Islam tastes its own bitter medicine and pays for each dose of it in their own bloody coin.

Robin Shadowes said...

There is a possible way to avoid all the blood-shed both in terror-attacks and their retaliations as Zenster describes in his post. And that is namely to use the same persons hit-list of mahoundian top brass and take them out one and another. Imagine a well-planned orchestration of multiple assassinations taking place within 24 to 48 hours at most, as not to allow the hydra to grow new heads instead of the old ones. That would save a lot of kuffar and mahoundian lives alike.

DP111 said...

There is no need to make bloody retaliation. All that will do is to make us like them.

What hurts the Jihad i.e., the most important aspect of Islam, is stopping Islam's expansion. This is what really hurts Islam and its adherents.

All we have to do is to state openly and with humility, that the continued large scale presence of Muslims in the West, with their atttendant life styles that are in open conflict with Western values, is leading to huge strains within society. Such strains will eventually lead to fracture -civil war. Therefore, with compassion for all, and to prevent unnecesary loss of life, it is best that Islam/Muslims are separated from the West. To this end, we will offer financial assistance to Muslims who need it.

In Islam, preventing the expansion of Islam, is the worst of all scenarios for Islam, and is cause sufficient to wage offensive Jihad. Unfortunately for Muslims, any such recourse by them would be fatal. If OTH they resort to terrorism, it will only justify our original decision.

Common humanity requires that we undertake this before it is too late. If we dont do this, and civil strife starts up in the West (Britain and the Netherlands are on the brink), then it will lead to a fissure with the Islamic world that will last a thousand years(just as before).

WAKE UP said...

"On behalf of an unknown number of the Prophet's descendants..."

Well, he got that bit right - with that many underage concubines, how can anyone tell ?

Jedilson Bonfim said...

Zenster:Does anyone honestly think that, confronted with swift and deadly reprisal, Islamic jihad would be such an ongoing problem for the West, as it is today?

No, it wouldn't. Sobieski at the Gates of Vienna, Jefferson bombarding the living crap out of the Barbary Pirates and the IDF during the Six-Day War have shown that this is the only course of action that makes sense if the West is to survive.

Appeasement, walking on egg shells to avoid "hurting mahoundian feelings", titanic-loads of bogus mahoundian asylum-seekers being allowed to settle in the West (with the accommodation of each and every one of their demands, in order to recreate in civilization exactly what they left behind in mahoundistan and used as an excuse to obtain refugee status, following that), endless mosque- and madrasah-building and Barack Hussein's surrender speeches at that Egyptian "university" (where, by the way, geocentric astronomy is still taught in order not to contradict Mein Qurampf/The Glory-Ass Quran) have only produced more demands, more boldness from mahoundians and more threats. That's why not only must this endless stream of Chamberlainesque measures be stopped, but also reversed and replaced with swift and bold actions against the mahound-worshipping scourge, as Zenster suggested. But I wonder if, aside from Tom Tancredo, Geert Wilders and Pia Kjærsgaard, there are a whole lot of Western political leaders willing to follow the right path in any way, shape or form.

John Sobeiski said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Free Hal said...

Hi Baron,

I think you may be right as regards, America, where democracy will probably continue.

But as regards the European state/s this is directed at, I disagree with you and agree with Zenster. This is more Islamic incompetence.

It’s stupid to colonise the land of genocide (Europe) without overwhelming force, something which Islamic society can’t marshal.

When society collapses, the mass violence somewhat obscures the finer points of defamation law, so it’s difficult to see what the Islamic paymasters are hoping for apart from further aggravating European infidels.

There seems to be a tendency in muslim countries to want infidels to attack European muslims, presumably because it attracts attention, and the lives of fellow muslims don’t matter.

The real victims of these sorts of manoevres are the people who want to prolong the unsustainable welfare-democratic order.

Best wishes,

Hal

Baron Bodissey said...

Hal --

I think you are overlooking the expected effects of mass conversion to Islam. And the Muslims may not be wrong in their expectations of this -- much of Europe exists in a spiritual vacuum, and Allah abhors a vacuum.

Absent a compelling alternative -- which is no longer provided by European (and much of American) Christianity -- susceptible secular people will be drawn to Islam. Especially those who are viscerally repelled by the disgusting hedonistic behavioral sink into which much of Western popular culture has fallen -- to them, Islam may suddenly appear as the pure, pristine, righteous alternative.

Then there are the hard-core leftists who become Mohammedans so that they can join the baddest bunch of gangsters on the planet, and continue to stick it to the capitalist oppressors, but this time under the banner of the star and crescent instead of the hammer and sickle.

All of the above processes are well underway, but they are difficult to quantify.

There may be less incompetence at work here than you would think. The Islamic world on average has a lower IQ that of the West, but its best thinkers are very shrewd indeed, and they have been watching us carefully for a long, long time while we have been ignoring them.

Zenster said...

DP111: There is no need to make bloody retaliation. All that will do is to make us like them.

This is an incorrect assertion that has been thoroughly disproven. The West defeated Nazi Germany with becoming Nazis just as it vanquished Imperial Japan without stooping to Japanese barbarism. Western powers have the ability to repay Islam, its troublesome jihadist aristocracy in particular, in its coin without becoming terrorists ourselves.

What hurts the Jihad i.e., the most important aspect of Islam, is stopping Islam's expansion.

I disagree. What hurts jihad the most is making it lethal to pursue. Anything less will not deter its adherents from waging it. Let's pretend that jihad is a genetic predisposition. Once enough of those carrying jihad's marker disappear from the gene pool, it will lose its popularity. The only difference is that jihad is a meme.

Little else, besides making it very painful or deadly, will dissuade jihadists. Islam's glorification of death cannot wholly negate jihad becoming a genetic or memetic box canyon. Large groups usually develop an aversion to whatever chlorinates their gene pool.

This is why I mentioned applying a force multiplier so that enough adjacent Muslims gain a "healthy" aversion towards cohabiting with jihadists. Dealing with shari'a probably requires similar measures.

This is what really hurts Islam and its adherents.

Again, loss of expansion is not "what really hurts Islam and its adherents". Suffering and death is what "hurts Islam".

All we have to do is to state openly and with humility, that the continued large scale presence of Muslims in the West, with their atttendant life styles that are in open conflict with Western values, is leading to huge strains within society. Such strains will eventually lead to fracture-civil war. Therefore, with compassion for all, and to prevent unnecesary loss of life, it is best that Islam/Muslims are separated from the West. To this end, we will offer financial assistance to Muslims who need it.

While I admire the humanity of your proposition, the historical record has disproven it innumerable times. No culture on earth has successfully ejected its Muslim invaders without using overwhelming force of arms.

Your lack of comment may mean that you missed the post by El Inglés titled, "To Push or to Squeeze". In it he makes a compelling argument against any easy ejection of Muslims from the West.

In Islam, preventing the expansion of Islam, is the worst of all scenarios for Islam, and is cause sufficient to wage offensive Jihad. Unfortunately for Muslims, any such recourse by them would be fatal. If OTH they resort to terrorism, it will only justify our original decision.

In case it escaped your notice, we are already in this situation. Our attempts to regulate Islam by assimilating it or exposing it to modifying forces has led Muslims to begin killing us (again). We need to make indulging in this Islamic propensity a fatal proposition.

Isolating Islam will not work as Muslims will infiltrate our borders to kill us. We cannot build a Berlin Wall around dar al Islam. Such containment would be costly and ineffectual at best and suicidal at worst. The only way to prevent jihad and terrorism is by making it a source of swift and fatal retaliation for all involved.

Free Hal said...

Hi Baron,

Thanks for your reply.

Mass conversion from:
(a) people who are “viscerally repelled by the disgusting hedonistic behavioral sink into which much of Western popular culture has fallen”, and;
(b) “hard-core leftists”.

I think this isn’t happening and won’t make any difference.

Conversion is hard to measure, and just because I don’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

But there’s this figure from Beglium: a conversion rate of 1,000 – 1,200 falling 50% to 500 – 600 in 2008. This is amongst a population of 10½ million. I.e. a tiny rate, and falling. See http://www.levif.be/belga/generale/78-6-60081/baisse-du-nombre-de-convertis-a-l--039-islam-en-belgique.html . Theodore Dalrymple’s essays suggest that conversion mainly takes place amongst Afro-Caribbean men.

The bottom line is that mass conversions aren’t mass enough to make much impact before European society breaks down in, say, 20 years’ time.

I am “viscerally repelled by the disgusting hedonistic behavioral sink into which much of Western popular culture has fallen”, as are most people I know. None of us would consider converting to Islam, which is worse. UK crime rates, educational failure, and unemployment levels are 3 or more times higher for UK muslims than the UK average.

I know of no hardcore leftists who have converted. They are cynically aware of the islam’s incompatibility with their beliefs. I think the tide is the other way: leftwing people (Bruce Bawer, Pat Condell) slowly moving from undignified silence, through occasional disapproval about “Islamism”, to hostility to Islam in general.

And conversions don’t alter the brutal European division between muslims and non-muslims. Or the European tendency to flip out during civil breakdown. Repressive lawfare exercises like Yamani’s, and western leaders’ witless accommodation, only ratchet up the tension.

Finally, the shrewd Islamic thinkers, whoever they are, don’t alter what comes up when you Google “Why Arabs Lose Wars”. I doubt any of them can alter the eye-watering consequences when the continent of Napoleon, Rommel, and Marlborough, goes nuts.

Best wishes,

Hal

Baron Bodissey said...

Hal --

I generally agree with what you say, but you’re looking at right angles to the direction I’m looking.

Conversion is hard to measure, and just because I don’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

Precisely. No good reliable statistics can be had. We can only look at anecdotal evidence and make guesses.

But we know that huge numbers of prison inmates are being converted on both sides of the Atlantic; the evidence for this is extensive. And these constitute some of the most violent and dangerous young men in their respective societies, so they are significant beyond their numbers.

The bottom line is that mass conversions aren’t mass enough to make much impact before European society breaks down in, say, 20 years’ time.

I disagree. We are looking at the effect on the margin. If a dedicated core of young violent converts is willing to die for the cause, they can trump the passive frightened acquiescence of millions of effete secular Europeans who want only to save their skins.

I am “viscerally repelled by the disgusting hedonistic behavioral sink into which much of Western popular culture has fallen”, as are most people I know. None of us would consider converting to Islam, which is worse.

So am I. But I’m a Christian, so I don’t need to grab onto Islam to help me repel this sewer. But most atheists or agnostics cannot muster the level of dedication that Pat Condell can, because it’s hard to be totally idealistic without believing in a transcendent reality. IMHO.

I know of no hardcore leftists who have converted.

There are some. That Belgian woman who blew herself up, can’t remember her name. Women are especially susceptible.

Finally, the shrewd Islamic thinkers, whoever they are, don’t alter what comes up when you Google “Why Arabs Lose Wars”. I doubt any of them can alter the eye-watering consequences when the continent of Napoleon, Rommel, and Marlborough, goes nuts.

This is a different war. Muslims are winning it now, because most of the West refuses to acknowledge the war, let alone fight it.

That’s why the current Islamic strategy is so shrewd.

Free Hal said...

Hi Baron,

Thanks for your reply.

Our perpendicular approaches may be because democracy is likely to continue in America but not in Europe.

The relevant question is how bloody it will be. I think European elites, and Islamic paymasters, are working to make it as bloody as possible – not a good thing.

Actually one good reliable statistic is to be had. I provided it in my last comment: 500-600 converts in a Belgium population of 10.5 million. That’s half of 1% of 1% of the population.

The number of converts, even if it is statistically significant which I don’t think it is, won’t deter Europeans from reverting to violent form when things break. And it won’t overcome the military disparity between the two sides. E.g. at the Battle of the Pyramids Napoleon reported 29 men killed, whilst the Mamluks lost about 3,000 cavalry alone.

If there were a high conversion rate, the divide between Europeans and muslims in Europe wouldn’t be so sheer as PC studies repeatedly confirm, e.g. “Parallel Lives”.

A violent nature doesn’t make a convert influential. He may be good at, and prone to, knife-fighting, but lacks the discipline for post-Spartan warfare, i.e. anything beyond a highland charge. Apart from a few cult figures, ex-prisoners are generally insignificant.

And willingness to die doesn’t mean you can’t be killed. Europeans are very talented at violence when their civil societies go bust. The liberal view that one taste of socialised medicine and Europeans are immune to violence ignores centuries of form. The collapse of the welfare drip-feed will have the opposite effect.

Islamic strategy is only shrewd if one sees supine welfare democracy lasting forever, which it can’t. Welfare dependence, fiscal collapse, and ethnic division – any one of these is fatal, but all three make the “perfect storm” (Steyn).

In America, where state dependence is still at sustainable levels, democracy looks set to survive a few more decades.

In genocidal Europe, close to collapse, the question is how violent things will be. I think it’s important not to get sidetracked. The only relevance of repressive tactics like Yamani’s is to aggravate things further.

Best wishes,

Hal

DP111 said...

Zenster

The problem we have is with the demographic growth of Muslims who are legally in the West. Many of them are born here and are citizens. The war with Nazi Germany or Japan does not apply in this case. We have an internal problem that is not going to go away so easily.

What hurts jihad the most is making it lethal to pursue.

Again you are going down the route of war, when the real and most dangerous threat to our existence as a civilisation, is the peaceful demographic Jihad that is ongoing. Besides as long as they are not here, they do not have the access to do physical harm. What then hurts the Jihad in the general sense, is that they no longer have access to Infidels and Infidel property, to wage it.

Again, loss of expansion is not "what really hurts Islam and its adherents". Suffering and death is what "hurts Islam".

Yes, that hurts everyone, not just Muslims. However, Islam is expansionist by nature. If it cannot expand, it will turn on itself, as it was doing, until we, in a fit of absent mindedness, opened the gates to large scale Islamic immigration. In the most strategic sense, removing access to Infidel lands and people, hurts Islam far more, while not requiring us to wage war, with all the attendent internal stresses that now ensue. Second, Islamic world has suffered a great deal in the last decade, but they see it as a sign that they are not sufficiently Islamic. But that is not relevant. I do not wish to see death and loss of life. Islam is a way of life for them, and so long as they cannot gain access to the West, such as to pose a demographic threat, they should be allowed to live in peace. War is an option that can always be used, as and when required.

No culture on earth has successfully ejected its Muslim invaders without using overwhelming force of arms.

As long as Muslims are not too large in numbers, then if a government could state that Muslim presence was leading to a civil war, Muslims will then find it difficult to continue their presence -many will leave voluntarily. Once the population of Muslims start to go down, that will inevitably reduce the militant aspect of Islam in the country (terrorist, as well as the more dangerous Islamic cultural demands). One of the reasons why so many Muslims retain their original nationality is that they are not sure when they will be asked or forced to leave.

Isolating Islam will not work as Muslims will infiltrate our borders to kill us. We cannot build a Berlin Wall around dar al Islam.

That has always existed and can be dealt with in the normal military way, exacting heavy penalties, unless you are proposing a radical solution. The real problem though is an internal one, and this has to be addressed in a sensitive manner. It has to be done with good manners, kindness and compassion, or else we will fail to convince anyone but the already converted. What El Inglis writes, as well as the proposals of Laurence Auster, are way down the line, when a general concensus already exists that Islam and Muslims, and the West have to live as neighbours with good fences rather then in the same house, as at present.

Once a general concensus exists, then all else will follow step by step, from a government that goes with the general consencus, to all the rest. However, till we get to political situation that removals can even be considered, a kind, compassionate and very liberal approach, is the only way to bring people along to our way.

Watching Eagle said...

Well,

The first thing to realize is that for any of the strategies to succeed. we must DEAL FIRMLY with the "Peacenik" PC MC Left. The most mild suggestion I have is to put all such Leftists in exile (anyone who thinks that 'Western Hegemony' is the scourge of the earth, and that eliminating it will cause the 'worker's paradise', should be exiled for sedition -- if they actively hinder the survival of Western Societies). We can even exile them to countries with Shariah, so they can celebrate 'diversity'.

In fact, people like Chomsky, Mooore, Zinn, and Co. are more dangerous to Western society than MOST Muslims (right now), because they make it impossible for Westerners to defend themselves. If you don't eliminate Leftist traitors, no strategy for stopping the 3rd. jihad will work.

Now to the ideas of Free Hal:

First, the fertility rate of native Europeans (in Eu-27) is such that the native population under 20 drops by 30% every 20 years!! If the Muslims gradually take over by Al-Hijra Modern day trojan Horse

they will face the problem of a DECLINING tax base (no need for excessive slaughter). [Read this book}.

Now, concerning the growth of Muslims in the EU, there are now 30 Million Muslims in the EU as of 2009 (not 15 to 20 Million in 2002)

Simple calculation: with 17.4 Million Muslims in 2002, a net Muslim immigration of 1.3 Million a year, and a natural increase of 2% per year-- 1.3 * 7 = 9.1 Million.

500K (avg. Natural Increase for period) * 7 years = 3.5 Million.

17.4 Million + 9.1 Million (Muslim Immigration from '02-'09)+ 3.5 Million = 30.0 Million.

real numbers

As you can see in the above link, the real story is that the Muslim population in France will have increased from 8% in 2000 to 15% in 2010-- and other EU countries likely had proportional increases during the same period.

At this rate-- if immigration does NOT increase-- there will be 50 Million Muslims in the EU by 2020 (10% of the entire population). If the EU adds Turkey, Albania, and Macedonia, it will have 140 Million Muslims (at least by 2020)- almost 25% of the EU's population will be Muslim-- and 40% of the population under 25 -- in 11 years!!

Worse yet, there is reason to believe that Muslim migration to the EU will increase in the coming years. Look here:

Muslim-EU plot

When you read between the lines, you can see that NORTHERN (and Western) Africa (overwelmingly Muslim) is where they plan to open up the 'job centers'.

This means that the majority of settlers will come from the greater Sahel, followed by Egypt.

The problem is that the Western people live in the 20th. Century bubble, and haven't thought about how to eliminate the PC MC Leftists from our society.

Watching Eagle said...

More to the point, the mantra of Multi-culti is "who are we to say that the 'other' is wrong about ____? That's their culture.

With this kind of brainwashing, in 20 years people under 30 will not know of a time in which the West was without Islam. And as I said, al-Qeada can simply establish front groups than lead gang-style fights in the EU, with PC MC Leftist government support.

Concerning the EU welfare state, the PC MC Leftists will cut benefits to the native elderly to absorb the costs of new 'migrants'. This Islamists are getting better at promoting the deen of al-islam under the banner of "civil rights" and "diversity".

I doubt that you are right about the USA welfare state surviving longer, due to our HUGE deficits.

But I am afraid that if we don't deal with the homegrown traitors, there will be so much conceded to 'include' Islam in our culture that their will be little left to fight for.

Check this article out:

Noami Wolf-nuanced female freedom-- liberation of the veil

Now, Wolf is plain flat wrong (woefully misinformed) when she says that "the Western Christian tradition portrays... even married sexuality, as sinful." It DOES NOT.

But LOOK at this article: DID you EVER THINK a feminist would say this???

This is NOT mere boot-licking dhimmitude, folks. This is strong delusion based on ferocious anti-western hatred, and the need to be "anti-western imperialist" at ANY cost. The PC MCs will accept ANYTHING, as long as Islam wants it, "in the name of diversity".

Finally, in order to save Western Civilization, we must be able to declare that our Civilization is INSTITUTIONALLY and Exclusionally UN-Islamic.

(Try this and watch PC MC Leftists not just go ballistic, but drag you to the secular inquisition for the 'heresy' of racism.)

The fact that politicians cannot say, "our culture is, and should be, institutionally UN-Islamic" means that we have already lost our cultural identity and are no longer free (in a relevant, political sense). If we can't EXCLUDE Islam, it will (due to the unfailing struggle of PC MC elite 'camels') come to be 'included' in EVERYTHING. After all, that's all Islamists want.(!!)


We had better get an organized plan to dismantle the Criminally Treasonous Anti-Social Oligarchies -- Misnamed "advanced social democracies" and restore pre-Cultural Revolution Western Society [as much as possible]. Otherwise, the fix is in for a peaceful and gradual transition to Shariah in the West.

ANTI-ISLAMIST said...

also I, poor vacuous anti-theist, am viscerally
repelled by the disgusting hedonistic behavior of today,
which almost entirely emanate from a pious and godfearing U.S.A.
with a worshipping population majority calling itself christian,
who like lain and Baron Bodissey,
still believes in a santa claus as well as a rewarding pie
up in the heavenly sky. That is why they,
living in their transcendental reality,
unlike atheists and agnostics but perhaps like former leftist Pat Condell
can be totally idealistic,
never getting tempted to submit their spiritual splendidnes
to a darkdeeding another heavenly beduin
than Abraham and his progeny.

Free Hal said...

Hi Watching Eagle,

Watching Eagle: “The first thing to realize is that for any of the strategies to succeed. we must DEAL FIRMLY with the "Peacenik" PC MC Left. The most mild suggestion I have is to put all such Leftists in exile”.

Your approach seems consistent along these lines. I agree with you that an internal problem is much worse than an external one.

But I disagree because the PC MC left are dealing very firmly with themselves, by collapsing the European PC MC utopia.

The fiscal problem, i.e. unpayable state debts and entitlements, are completely unsustainable in Europe. In the UK, usually blamed a less generous welfare payer, future entitlements, including pensions, are currently at about 7 to 8 times GDP.

The economic problem, i.e. the wider economy, can be summarised in European external debt levels at about 3 times GDP. No-one believes Europe will pay it’s external debts, or meet its welfare promises. But Euro governments will default on their debts before their welfare promises because their electorates will demand that.

Add the welfarised European incapacity for self-reliance, and the deep divide between European secularism and Islam, and you have collapse looming.

“Collapse” doesn’t just mean a trimming back of pensions and healthcare. It means zero NHS, zero pensions, zero dole, zero schools, zero road maintenance, and probably zero police and army. No state provision because there is no state and little economic activity. Plus the brutalism that accompanies civil breakdown. Just watch the PC MC left wake up when that happens!

So when I hear another Euro PC lemming yelling that the cliffs aren’t high enough, I laugh, and mentally tick off one more Lefto working to defeat their own cause more comprehensively than you or I could hope for.

The problem isn’t that angry former Leftoes, betrayed, bewildered, and looking for someone to blame, will be too passive but that they will be too violent. And self-segregated Islamic populations will be an irresistible target to them. Plus the crippling effect of that disorder and violence.

I see no way to prevent the breakdown of Europe, or the consequent volatility. But we can devise ways to prevent ourselves getting mired in violence and poverty, and that is what I think clear-sighted people should focus on.

Best wishes,

Hal

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

So, essentially, the problem is self-correcting in the long term? Interesting thesis... with that in mind the building of networks of people capable of remaining in contact after any such collapse would be absolutely essential. Also buying old diesels capable of running on spit and motor oil.

John Sobeiski said...

It is becoming more and more apparent that there is a need in Europe to move away from oil dependence. With the bail out that the Saudis have made as an investment in Mercedes, that is even further from a reality.

The technology exists right now to do away from carbon based fuels all together. This comes in the form of Hydrogen Fuel Cells, and when coupled with electrolysis of water, it creates a self-sufficient circle so Europe will have no need of oil. Many a thesis has been published on just such an infrastructure.

The governments of Europe are scared to oppose Islam in any way for fear of a backlash from the Saudis. If they were to stop the flow of oil to some european countries then it would severely cripple the economies of those countries.

If we can do away with oil dependency then Europe will have much more room to move in respect to policy and the rights of the individual.