The changes I was referring to are actually for the better, and not for the worse. By the time I finished summarizing some of them for Costin, the text was too long for a single comment, and had to be broken up into two sections.
The post below has been adapted from those comments, and may serve as a overview of some of the more important changes that have occurred in the brief time since I started paying close attention events in Europe.
Three years ago I was just getting started in this transatlantic gig, so it may be that things haven’t changed all that much, really, but rather the amount of data available to me has changed.It’s hard to tell, because I’ve had to absorb so much new information about Europe since then. All the political parties, the politicians, the legal structures in different countries, the opinions expressed in the media — enormous quantities of material to take in.
In 2007 it seemed that only the Danes were truly alert to the necessity for pushback against Islam. No other country came close to Denmark.
However, there have been major encouraging developments in the meantime. I’ll just list a few off the top of my head:
| 1. Geert Wilders and the PVV Geert Wilders’ name was in the news back then, but the PVV was not the potent political force that it is today. After the recent election which catapulted it into a strong third place, the PVV can wield real, effective power against the further Islamization of the Netherlands. This is the most important political development in the West since 9/11. 2. The emergence of the English Defence League Three years ago Britain seemed more hopelessly mired in political correctness and dhimmitude than any other Western nation, and the British public was supine in the face of the officially-sanctioned genocide being waged against them. Even a year and a half ago, there was no sign of a popular pushback. Now the EDL is a formidable political force, and its organization has been entirely at the grassroots level. It’s a staggering development. 3. Sverigedemokraterna Three years ago the Sweden Democrats were completely marginal in Swedish politics, and were seen as Nazis by the establishment. That last part is still true, but the average Swedish voter seems to have seen through the media lies, because SD is almost certain to pass the 4% threshold and enter parliament in September. This, like the emergence of the EDL, is an amazing breakthrough in a country that seemed utterly lost to dhimmitude. 4. The Lega Nord The strength of the Northern League in Italy continues to grow, and Berlusconi’s ruling coalition is considerably more dependent on the Lega than it was three years ago. 5. The SVP The Swiss People’s Party has moved from a barely noticeable fringe group to one of the largest parties in Switzerland, and the minaret ban is just the most visible evidence that Swiss public opinion has bypassed the MSM to learn about what the SVP really stands for. 6. Pro-Köln |
| Germany has the hardest job of all when it comes to resisting Islam, because whenever someone tries to take action, the media all over the world shriek about “the danger of a Nazi revival” or something similar. Yet, despite all this, a true Counterjihad movement has formed at the grassroots level in Cologne and North Rhine-Westphalia. 7. Fremskrittspartiet The anti-immigration Progress Party in Norway has emerged as a real player and has gained considerable public support. In the most recent elections, the decline of the traditional right and the strength of the communists prevented Fremskrittspartiet from gaining decisive influence, but it will definitely be a player in the future. 8. Perussuomalaiset The growth of the True Finns continues, despite official and unofficial repression. The trial of Jussi Halla-aho has brought home to many Finns the totalitarian nature of the Multicultural establishment, which seems determined to make Finland just like Sweden, the Netherlands, and Britain. 9. The emergence of a popular French resistance France is still lagging behind the Netherlands, but a real resistance has emerged in the last two years. The Front National is no longer the only right-wing game in town: the Bloc Identitaire has been formed to assert a traditional French identity and resist Islamization. 10. The burqa bans The various burqa bans — France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark come to mind — were inconceivable three years ago. Under the universal Multicultural regime, politicians dared not touch the issue, but the political winds have shifted in the meantime. |
Those are just the first ten encouraging signs that I could think of. I’m sure that more can be added.
29 comments:
I still am not optimistic about the fate of Europe. It, and the West, are split against itself. Muslims are allied to the communist/socialist/fascist factions that are now ascending due to the ongoing credit collapse which will run at least until 2017.
I still am not optimistic about the fate of Europe. It, and the West, are split against itself. Muslims are allied to the communist/socialist/fascist factions that are now ascending due to the ongoing credit collapse which will run at least until 2017.
In every case, it seems like the first step is getting past the media, which seems intent upon brainwashing us and shutting us up while we are led to the slaughter.
11. All the MSM in Europe - and we know what they stand for, don't we - are in free fall. Free blogs pop up all over the place, so the genie is out of the bottle.
12. The EUSSR is in shambles and so is the Euro currency. Printing more bank notes will just postpone the inevitable breakdown of the wellfare system (i.e. the Muslim invasion).
And the SVP in Switzerland isn't just about stopping the mahoundianization/opensewerization of the country... This bit of their Wikipedia entry is quite interesting:
Another key concern of the SVP is what it alleges is an increasing influence of the judiciary on politics. According to the SVP, this influence, especially through international law, increasingly puts the Swiss direct democracy in question. Public law which is legitimate by direct democracy standards should be agreed upon by the federal court. The international law, which, according to the SVP is not democratically legitimate, shall always be subordinate to the Swiss law. The SVP also criticizes the judiciary as undemocratic because the courts have made decisions against the will of the majority. Therefore, the SVP promotes the preservation of voting procedures in the question of the naturalization of foreigners, even after the federal court ruling, which deemed such a procedure as unconstitutional. According to the SVP, the racism penalty and anti-racism commission should be abolished in the interest of freedom of speech.
The SVP actually even wants a referendum on subordinating international law to Swiss ones, giving Swiss voters the final say on any laws governing their lives. That way, initiatives such as the minaret ban would never risk being "overturned" by any international court of inhuman rights (as if those dhimmis really had any legal right to do this anyway.)
One more interesting aspect of the SVP is how non-mahoundian immigrants who acquire Swiss citizenship have come to support it in ever increasing numbers, since they see it as the party that will keep Switzerland as it is, rather than be open to the idea of turning it into an alpine version of Yemen, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Somalia or Morocco (as Swiss Foreign Minister's Micheline Calmy-Rey's Socialist Party members are.)
On a side note, PC and MC talk don't make its way into the mouths of SVP members. Case in point? In a debate (I'd rather call it an attempt to debate on one side, a storm of spit and screams on the other) aired by Al Jazeera between counter-jihad hero Oskar Freysinger and Britain-based, sharia-peddling inbred bedouin savage Azzam al-Tamimi, Freysinger actually brought up that name connecting mahoundianism and the Nazis that most Western politicians would never dare to mention, Amin al-Husseini, in response to the bedouin savage's charges that Freysinger was as dangerous to Europe as Hitler, by talking about, of course, how it wasn't Switzerland, but mahoundians that sided with Hitler during World War 2. Part of this exchange can be viewed in this excellent essay by Hugh Fitzgerald.
As far as the economic crisis is concerned, there's no doubt in my mind that it is a boon to the counterjihad. In hard times people always look to their own and resist the encroachment of ousiders. Furthermore, reduced tax revenue forces the establishment to focus on the money that is squandered on work shy immigrants.
One avenue which could bring huge gains, if pursued, is the establishment of nationalistic nongov. organizations and parties in the former communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe.
Since those countries are vaccinated against totalitarianism and they know when the media lies to them, they must be made into the vanguard of our "take back the west" movement.
These countries are part of the EU for the most part and they send delegates to Brussels. It is not inconceivable that an Eastern European could become the next EU president.
Arius: I still am not optimistic about the fate of Europe.
However bleak Europe's outlook might be, it is important to remember that Islam's position is even more grim. Regarless of any immediate gains they may be making, the Muslim world is on a head-on collision course with one very harsh reality.
I'm going to post a comment I wrote elsewhere on the 9-11 atrocity's fifth anniversary. It echos a conclusion drawn by Wretchard in his magnum opus, "The Three Conjectures":
-----------------------------
What no one can possibly comprehend or predict is the absolutely psychotic insanity of Islam. While Robert Browning's aphorism remains true that "Man's reach should exceed his grasp", Islam and the terrorists specifically take this well beyond its logical limits.
If there is a single hallmark of Islamist terrorism it is that of over-reaching itself. Just as the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, so do the terrorists always rush the gate, jump the gun or however you wish to put it. Look to Nasrallah's recent dust-up with the Israelis for solid proof of this.
It is this one defining characteristic that will bring the Global War on Terror to a head much sooner than a generation from now. Somehow, some way, the terrorists will finally find a way, be it with atomic bombs, biochemical weapons or inflicting some other massive and catastrophic loss of innocent life, that will overcome the West's reticence to inflict wholesale destruction upon the Muslim world.
This is the Muslim holocaust that I continue to predict. The nature of whatever atrocity that will precede this is as irresistible to the terrorists as it is repellant to us in the West. It is much like the fable of the scorpion who rides upon the frog's back only to sting him to death mid-river and thereby drown himself. It is the scorpion's nature as surely as hurriedly and ill-thought-out crimes against humanity are part of terrorism.
Islam's fixation upon death precludes rational elements of thought that we take for granted here in the West. Due to this, the correct emphasis upon long-term planning and a proper degree of goal orientation are simply lacking or intentionally discarded in how terrorism plots it course. Palestinian destruction of the Israeli greenhouses are a sterling example of this. All claims of becoming a new "Singapore" of the Mediterranean aside, these short-sighted thugs simply could not resist the urge to smash all things Jewish and thereby lost an entire agricultural industry that was handed to them on a silver platter.
Islam, as a whole, is batting aside the golden opportunity we in the West are offering it to survive, silver platter and all. As Wretchard in his superb essay, "The Three Conjectures", put it; This is Islam's "golden hour". They can cast aside this last opportunity for reconciling itself to coexist with the West only to die one and all, or they can reach some sort of rapprochement that preserves them. It is impossible to believe that, once again, they will not miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, even one wherein their lives, one and all, hang in the balance. Islam's collective martyrdom is as assured as the sun's rising in the east.
-----------------------------
Worst of all is that absolutely nothing has happened to change my appraisal of Islam.
As Wretchard noted:
The most startling result of this analysis is that a catastrophic outcome for Islam is guaranteed whether America retaliates or not. Even if the President decided to let all Americans die to expiate their historical guilt, why would Islamic terrorists stop after that? They would move on to Europe and Asia until finally China, Russia, Japan, India or Israel, none of them squeamish, wrote -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column.
I would also like to add another seemingly insignificant item to this list:
• The Scandinavian cartoonists like Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks. With such diminutive weapons as an obscure Danish newspaper like Jyllands-Posten, they have almost effortlessly exposed Islam for the Neanderthal and barbaric thugs that they are. This is no small feat and clearly deserves some recognition.
mriggs: Furthermore, reduced tax revenue forces the establishment to focus on the money that is squandered on work shy immigrants.
What happens when it is precisely those "work shy immigrants" that are vital to the re-election of these scum bag European "establishment" parliamentarians? What then?
Is it even possible to imagine that these blood-sucking apparatchik governmental lice could put the well being and cultural survival of their own indigenous peoples over that of their personal careers?
The exact opposite is what's happening all through the Western world and it will not change save, most likely, at gunpoint. These "public servants" serve the people in that same way that their employer governments "serve the people." THEY DON'T.
This is what happens when governments stop serving the people and people start serving their governments.
Cobra, I'd agree with you, but Eastern Europeans think that the EU and Western Europe is all sweet and spice and all things nice, sadly. We don't bite the leftist claptrap per say, but we are prone at ingesting some of the crappy myths that lead the West to suicide. Sure, it will take a generation or two, but in the end, the result would be similar. But that won't happen, since in 10-15 years a lot of the OECD countries will go bankrupt.
Besides, the politicians of any country are easily bought off.
Zenster: "What happens when it is precisely those "work shy immigrants" that are vital to the re-election of these scum bag European "establishment" parliamentarians? What then?"
There's not that many of them, not yet at least. When the majority of voters realize that the lion's share of their tax money is being flushed down the multicultural toilet, that's when things change.
I would like to add that counterjihadists need a positive outlook to be successful. Without a belief in victory, defeat looms. This is not metaphysics, this is psychology. Remember that the enemy, the islamists, believe in victory for their side as an inevitability. This imbues them with morale and fighting strength which we must match.
RV,
That where good and smart people come and try to right the ship, so to speak...
I’ve read many times on various blogs and internet discussion forums that Muslims will be able, at some stage in the future, to seize control in Europe based solely on their overwhelming large numbers, their aggressive manners and the average Europeans ‘supposedly’ lack of ‘balls to stand up for themselves’. I for one don’t think it’s as simple as that. Huge numbers of civilians have little or no influence on the events during an armed conflict. They are normally the first to flee as they don’t have weapons, proper military training and often don’t possess the willingness to take part in an armed conflict. They end up as genuine refugees as opposed to the vast majority of people who come to Europe to apply for asylum.
As to the question whether Europe will fall to Islamists sometime in the future or not it’s worth keeping in mind that during civil wars or national unrest it’s normally those who control the armed forces that prevails. If it came down to it would be fairly simple for a small well equipped and professionally trained army to quell an insurgency or a potential coup d’etat. There are countless of examples of that throughout history so it shouldn’t really be a groundbreaking revelation. Remember that only a couple of weeks ago the Thai army effectively killed the red shirt protest in Bangkok.
I also believe that if the sovereignty of any European nation was at stake, the generals of that nation would not hold back any punches but deal with it swiftly and comprehensively (no matter what the EU may have to say about it). After the victory the decision makers (not necessarily the elected politicians) would introduce measures that would guarantee that such a scenario never was allowed to take place again.
And by the way, the armies of Europe are at the moment overwhelmingly white European and they will probably also continue to be so in the future.
Kritisk borger: I think your assessment is both accurate and highly relevant. The allegiance of the armed forces is what will decide. Of course, the multicultis will try to put their ideological kin in charge of the armed forces wherever possible, but this will hardly be very successful when push comes to shove. More importantly, events must be manipulated in such a way (through provocation and intimidation) that it appears that the islamists are the ones directly threatening the state. The biggest mistake would be for the counterjihadists to attempt a premature coup d'etat. This could put the armed forces leadership into the islamists' camp.
mriggs, kritisk --
In general, I agree with what both of you are saying. However, there are some interesting wrinkles in certain countries that bear close observation.
Sweden is a good example. Its military has been so degraded in recent decades by financial constraints and PC ideology that it is considered a joke, even by many Swedes. A well-funded and determined effort by Muslim fanatics -- especially if they were in alliance with the extreme left -- could temporarily neutralize the Swedish military if they decided on an organized civil insurrection.
I'm not saying that the Swedish army would be a pushover. But in another decade or so, it would likely not have an easy job of it.
Compare it to the situation in Switzerland, which is quite different. I saw soldiers armed with automatic weapons at the airport, the railway stations, and on the streets. They were a welcome sight!
A nation's military can go in and probably quell any uprising... but would it dare to do so, when the nation's oil supplies are controlled by other nations, who might just be symapthetic to the Muslim insurgents?
@ Green Infidel
If you might be thinking about the USA, the answer is most certainly they would dare to do it. The USA could be self sufficient for oil for many, many years if we eased our self-inflicted ecological requirements. This we would surely do if we were cut off by the rest of the world, and we would once again be a self-sufficient nation, not a bad idea at all.
Baron,
Both the Swedish and Norwegian army have started to make the transition from conscript armies to professional armies (enlisted soldiers). If I’m not totally mistaken the Swedish army has actually stopped or will stop the mandatory national service in the near future. The quality of the military training given to enlisted soldiers is also a lot higher than the training previously given to conscripts. The enlisted soldiers are also generally more motivated to serve in the armed forces than conscripts so it’s fair to assume that they are overall better soldiers.
Yes, political correctness has been allowed to permeate Swedish society, but I don’t necessarily believe that that’s the case with the armed forces in the country. I definitely know that it’s not the case with the Norwegian army. I spent 15 months in the armed forces in Norway in 91/92 and the officers that I came across were definitely not political correct, I would say that most of them were ‘gun nuts’ who loved military life and had fairly high testosterone levels.
You also have to remember that all soldiers in the NATO alliance have to be trained to a minimum NATO standard level.
It’s also worth mentioning that Norwegian Special Forces soldiers have been operating in Afghanistan alongside British and American Special Forces on highly dangerous missions. I know that the Norwegian Special Forces were awarded highly sought after American military medals for bravery in Afghanistan. They were among the very few foreign military units to do so.
There have also been a lot of speculations as to whether they took part in clandestine military missions inside Iraq. These speculations are a direct result of Norwegian politicians’ reluctance to reveal any information about them in the press due to the ‘sensitivity’ of such missions and the potential barrage of left wing criticism that would ensue if such information ever were to be released.
It also worth pointing out that Norwegian authorities do go a long way in honouring American military requests, even though this is not talked about in the Norwegian media.
What you also have to keep in mind is that in both Norway and Sweden there is a very high percentage of private gun ownership. This is due to the popularity of organized shooting clubs and the very high numbers of licensed hunters. Every autumn in both countries the elk hunt starts and hunters heads for the woods shooting at pretty much everything that moves. It’s common knowledge to stay clear of the forest when the hunt is on. People get accidentally shot and killed every year.
So yes I do believe that the Norwegian army would be more than capable to quell and insurgence if it ever came to it. And I also do believe that Norwegian military officers would not hesitate to use force in such a scenario. I believe that the same goes for Sweden too. Most military officers are conservatives and it makes no difference whether they’re Norwegian, Swedish or Americans.
Dr. D,
With all the guns and militias, as well as (sometimes) trigger-happy cops you have in your country, I'm not sure you'd need to count on the military anytime soon.
I was thinking more of Western Europe, which has already proved itself incapable of dealing with immigrant disturbances in France, Oldham (England) or Malmo (Sweden) among others...
The view from Baron and Kritisk seems to be that there will come a point where all this will become too much, at which point the military enters... my question is - will this point ever come, or will it "shift" to tolerate more and more immigrant disturbances, until an Islamic state is formed? (at first, with sweeteners to pacify the majority of infidels - later, with increasingly-harsh controls).
kritisk --
First of all, I was only talking about the Swedish military. I know firtually nothing about Norway's military, but I've read a little bit about Sweden's.
Secondly, I wasn't referring to the quality of individual soldiers, nor to their political opinions -- just to their numbers and their equipment. I'm certain that they are well-trained and dedicated. But are there enough of them to put down a real civil insurrection, especially if it were to consist of an alliance between the more violent anarchists and the Muslims?
Maybe they have enough force to do the job. But I read the statistics not too long ago, and Sweden's military strength has been cut to what seems a dangerously low level.
Baron,
I don’t know what’s going to happen in the future, whether a continuation of the current situation will be the outcome, a Muslim takeover, an Indigenous victory followed by a swift Muslim exodus or something else.
My key point is that it’s not a case of numbers that’s going to dictate who’s going to win if it comes down to a violent struggle. It’s going to be a question of who controls the armed forces. In my opinion it doesn’t really matter that much whether there’s a big Muslim population who supports sharia in Sweden or not. The civilian Muslim population can do very little against a well trained and well equipped army hell bent on crushing a violent insurrection. You have to remember that the majority of the Muslim population in Sweden will not take part in an armed struggle; it’s only going to be a small group of fanatics who’re going to undertake such a mission if it ever comes down to it.
Yes, a civilian Muslim can express his disapproval of the army’s’ actions, he can take to the streets and protest but there’s very little that he can when the army decides to open fire on the demonstrators. I recon a dozen highly organized and well trained soldiers would have no difficulties in taking out a couple of hundred civilian demonstrators if they decided to do so. And I believe that the outcome of such tactics would have a devastating effect on other protestors moral and eagerness to continue opposing the regime.
And if anarchists and fanatical Muslims were seriously preparing a hostile takeover the intelligence services would get wind of it and ensure that proper steps were taken to eliminate this threat before it could be put into life.
And at the moment there are no Muslim militia groups organising a hostile takeover in any country in Western Europe. There isn’t any massive training camps were Muslims are taught military tactics. The Muslims who are active in Europe today are exerting political pressure on the authorities by utilizing various anti-discrimination laws and ‘western guilt’.
There isn’t any organized Muslim military threat behind the Muslim political advancement in Europe. Think about it, when was the last time that fanatical Muslims carried out a terrorist act in Europe? And how many times do we read about such attacks being stopped by the various intelligence services before they can even be carried out?
Yes, Muslim youths are heavily involved in crime, but they wouldn’t stand a chance against proper military units. Most of them would run away with their tail behind their legs if the military started killings say a dozen of their mates and made it clear that the same thing would happen to them if they didn’t change their ways.
I’m worried about the growing numbers of Muslim in the west and the elite’s cowardly appeasement, but I’m not worried about the Muslim military strength at all, because it simply doesn’t exist.
kritisk --
Thanks for the very interesting analysis. You may well be right; I certainly hope you are.
Not a problem at all Baron.
Anyway this is just my personal opinion. No one knows what will happen in the future , I just hope that it won’t involved a third world war and millions of innocent lives lost.
Baron, as long as the Swedish army is mostly Swedish, it will not fire among the Swedes, but the Muslims. Heck, in 1989 my country's army had direct orders to open fire on the population and the soldiers refused to shoot and the army joined the people and fought the state security. And this was done under the threat of being court martialed and getting a brief execution.
May I interject something into this very interesting discussion?
To the south of Europe lies a well-armed military force with the largest military numbers in NATO and the built in strategic gift of Muslim control of a well-trodden gateway into the heart of Europe.
I'm speaking, of course, of Turkey, now controlled by an Islamist government that seems to be already entertaining fantasies of reproducing the old ottoman conquests.
Attacks on jihadi Muslims in Europe might very well be the excuse ( if any is actually needed) for Turkey, perhaps in conjunction with Iran and Syria to attack Europe.
I personally wonder if Europe has the military numbers to cope with this if it happens.
If it occurs during the next two and a half years, I doubt the US will get involved.
Regards,
Rob @Joshuapundit
Freedom Fighter: I'm speaking, of course, of Turkey, now controlled by an Islamist government that seems to be already entertaining fantasies of reproducing the old ottoman conquests.
While going to war with Turkey would be no trifling matter, it is still vital to recall the utterly miserable track record of Muslim militaries.
Those who have not read Norvell B. De Atkine's excellent work, "Why Arabs Lose Wars", would be well advised to do so. As an object lesson, consider this:
Two large armies in the MME (Muslim Middle East), Iraq and Iran, fought for eight long years only to reach a blood-drenched stalemate that had included gas warfare and using ten year-old boys as human minesweepers.
Western forces rolled up Iraq's sidewalks in three short weeks.
This is what happens when your selection of officers is based on who comes from the "finest families" instead of those who have any experience in battle.
Why do you think Islam uses terrorism? They know that a snowball in Hell has a better chance of making it through.
REACTIVATING -- If I may; what are your thoughts on this subject now, some 7-8 months later?
V
Post a Comment