The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.
A shorter version of this essay was published yesterday at Big Peace.
The Western defensive alliance NATO was a product of the Cold War. While it may have been a useful tool back then, the organization has so far proven utterly incapable of dealing with the tidal wave of Islamic aggression and Third World invasion through mass immigration that is engulfing the Western world. It is likely that there will soon be a concerted push by Morocco to retake the Spanish-ruled enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla. How will NATO react to such a blatant attack on one of its member states? Will it respond in any meaningful way at all?
An attack on Ceuta would be highly symbolic since the European global expansion started in this exact place in the fifteenth century. After the Reconquista, the Portuguese occupied the strongholds because this region was used as a base for Jihadist Muslim attacks against Christians in the Iberian Peninsula. Ceuta was captured by the Portuguese in 1415. Only a few years later, Henry the Navigator arranged for organized explorations of the African coast. The rest is history, but that history is now being reversed by a declining Europe and a resurgent Islam.
It is becoming increasingly evident to intelligent observers that the experiment with secularism in Turkey is failing and that the country is reemerging as a hostile Islamic power, the way it has been for most of the past 1,000 years. There are clear parallels between how the USA currently acts toward the Turkish neo-Ottomans and how Western European powers acted vis-à-vis the original Ottomans in the late 1800s. For example, there is the unholy practice of using smaller nations as bargaining chips to appease Muslims. The difference is that the USA treats all of Europe the way the British and French used to treat the Balkan Christians, by consistently pushing for Turkish membership in the European Union. NATO has actively supported the Islamization of Europe through its military actions in Serbia and Kosovo.
- - - - - - - - -
The USA has been trying the remake Europe and the world in its image at least since the days of Woodrow Wilson. This policy entails breaking down traditional European social structures and encouraging Third World mass immigration, just as US authorities have been doing for decades in North America. Native Europeans need to be “cured” of their cultural identities. American authorities are just as much behind this Globalist Multicultural program — perhaps more so — as their Western European counterparts through the EU and its pro-Arab networks.
Appeasement doesn’t work. In the good old days when educated Westerners read their Machiavelli and understood it they knew that being both feared and loved is good, but if you have to choose between the two, it is better to be feared than loved. We can live with having enemies as long as they respect us, yet today we give them no reason to do so.
The foolish policies pursued by Western nations in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot work; it is impossible to export “democracy” to backward Islamic tribal cultures, and it is meaningless to waste young men’s lives and valuable resources on attempting to do this while sharia law is spreading within the West, unopposed and often with the approval of Western authorities.
Western European authorities have already virtually surrendered. In his infamous Cairo speech in June 2009, President Obama made it clear that he will actively aid the Islamization of the Western world and work against all those who oppose this policy. Frankly, the USA is currently surrendering even faster to Muslims and their demands than the Europeans are doing.
It is clear that Turkish PM Erdogan wants a break with the West in favor of an Islamic bloc, which means that Turkey is a Trojan horse within NATO. The question is how to deal with Turkey without strengthening Erdogan’s hand further. The question after that is whether we need NATO at all anymore. NATO is supposed to “protect” us, but from what? The Russians?
It is currently the policy of all NATO member states, from Canada to the Netherlands, to promote the Islamization of Western countries. US General Wesley Clark, who led NATO’s bombing of Christian Serbs in Kosovo, stated flatly in 1999 that “There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multiethnic states.” Yet, courtesy of NATO, Kosovo is now a nearly ethnically pure state of predominantly Muslim Albanians.
Is this policy still the official Multicultural doctrine of NATO, to destroy Christian Europeans wherever they live in favor of “multiethnic states”? If so, who will protect us from NATO?
18 comments:
"NATO has actively supported the Islamization of Europe through its military actions in Serbia and Kosovo." How true. We've been trying to explain this to people for over a decade, but the propaganda effort of the MSM in smearing the Serbs and covering the crimes of the jihadis in Europe has taken its toll.
Many people have learned by now to stop trusting the MSM with regard to most other topics, and it's time to apply that skepticism when it comes to the groundless MSM tales about the Serbs.
Fjordman said...
“The Western defensive alliance NATO was a product of the Cold War. While it may have been a useful tool back then, the organization has so far proven utterly incapable of dealing with the tidal wave of Islamic aggression and Third World invasion through mass immigration that is engulfing the Western world.”
Well it’s the politicians in Europe and America that have the final say when it comes to deploying NATO troops or not, not the NATO generals themselves. NATO will only act on the politicians’ command. One has to remember that the NATO generals are soldiers not politicians.
And NATO has not introduced or suggested any of the current immigration laws in Europe and the US, that’s solely the work of career politicians and bureaucrats in the west. So I think it’s wrong to somehow blame NATO for this.
As to military might, NATO would if they were ordered to do so be very capable of ‘nuking’ the Arab world back to the stone ages in no time. The military strength of the west is far superior to that of the Arab world.
Thanks for the information here, Baron.
Had I known in 1993, as a young US military member deployed to Bosnia, that I was abetting the Islamization of the West against Christians, I would have refused to participate.
But I was young and uninformed and stupid. And I regret it deeply. The only thing that alleviates a little of my guilt is that I did not take up arms against anyone, nor did I participate directly or indirectly in combat. I was a photographer...
Do not count on NATO to help or hinder the expansion of Islam into Europe. If your own governments will do nothing to stop it, then why would you expect a club made up of your own governments to do anything?
But the bottom line is, America doesn't care what you do to yourselves. And NATO can't take a piss without the USA fully funding it and doing all the heavy lifting.
European governments are effectively no different in their relation to the US than Hamid Karzai's government in Afghanistan. They operate on the same principle - nominal independence while in reality acting as client states. The EU is an all-inclusive entity for Western and Eastern European clients of the USA. You can now observe the traditional culture of Poland and its neighbours being flattened out by liberalism. This is what happened to Western Europe in the '60s and '70s under the American aegis.
The "anti-Americanism" of Western Europe will soon be a feature of Eastern Europe too, since it is a consequence of being re-educated along American lines. Fashionable leftism travels direct from New York and Madison-Wisconsin to Helsinki, Warsaw etc. The consequence of not allowing these ideas to infiltrate one's society would possibly be to be considered "anti-American" in the same sense that Burma, Iran, Russia and Cuba are. Woe unto him who makes that mistake.
The number one priority for all NATO allied or occupied countries is to realign into multiethnic states. The purpose of this is to ease the deep anxieties of one country in particular which has historically been multiethnic, has had problems with its minority black population in the past and is absolutely obsessed with race.
The multicultural paradigm that U.S. foreign policy makers adopted in the 1990s requires that people of different ethnic groups be made to live together harmoniously in the same countries. Such interracial and interdenominational harmony as this policy produces must exist everywhere – as it will soon exist perfectly in Future America.
This was a good article, Fjordman, but not entirely successful since many of your readers still have the idea that NATO soldiers are passive spectators, who are all sort of standing around minding their own business, and that their presence is unrelated to the policies pursued by the allied governments (who are all, by some bizarre coincidence, pursuring identical poilicies).
Thanks for this. Like UN this whole NATO stinks to the heavens.
Here in Germany Milosevic and the Serbs were compared to Hitler. I once asked an Albanian if the Serbs truly were the only ones to blame and he (Surprise!) said yes. Serbs= Evil / Muslims= Good
We have many "fugitives" from Albania, Kosovo and Bosnia here in Germany. They do not think about going back to their homelands now, after we arranged peace for them. They just stay here (the beer is better, I guess...)
The worst problem for Germany are the Turkish people. We have a few Millions of them in NRW (our largest state) one of four people has a "migrational background."
When we, as it is our historic duty, defend Israel against the new islamic axis Turkey - Iran, we will have a civil war at hand. Turkish teenagers searching the streets for Jews and Americans (one American was already beaten up by a muslim- Mob).
The other option is to support Turkey against Israel. Despite the moral problem Germany would show that we already are a Land of Dhimmitude.
Chancellor Merkel always said that the existence of Israel is not to be discussed. But after the heroic naval battle of some Turkish idiots (and sadly some German communists who have seats in our Bundestag (Parlament)) everyone cries "Free Gaza" and blames Israel for not giving up its existence.
If a war begins (even between Iran and USA) the darkness that is threatening Europe will come sooner than anyone thought!
NATO should be expanded to include the rest of Eastern Europe and Russia. Then it can focus its attention on the enemies to the south, like China and the Islamic world, rather than the old Cold War paradigm of treating Russia as the primary enemy.
Nothing would weaken US control over NATO than adding the world's number two military power, Russia. It would put Europe in the driver's seat as the balancer between the two superpowers. A united Europe should regain leadership of the West from a declining (and increasingly non-white) US.
Of course Turkey should be kicked out of NATO. But even if they stay they can serve as a PC figleaf for what will essentially be an alliance of all the major white Christian powers.
jeppo: Nothing would weaken US control over NATO [more] than adding the world's number two military power, Russia.
Few things could weaken the entire NATO organization more or compromise Western regional security to a greater degree than admitting Russia into its ranks.
Russia continues to exhibit the exact same sort of triangulation and net exportation of terrorism that it did during the Soviet Communist era. Until that changes, Putin and his beard, Dimitry Medvedev, will continue to undermine American and European interests with their typical duplicity.
It is Magical Thinking™ to assume otherwise.
Well, considering that American and European "interests" at the present moment seem to consist of flooding our countries with millions of low-IQ Third World immigrants, enabling radical Islam at home and abroad, and running up debt like South American caudillos of yore, undermining them doesn't seem like such a bad idea.
For all of Russia's duplicity, I'd prefer nationalist leaders like Putin or Medvedev over globalists like Obama or Sarkozy or Zapatero or Cameron or Merkel etc. etc.
jeppo: ... undermining them doesn't seem like such a bad idea.
Perhaps not but only until you more closely examine the full implications of adopting Soviet-Russo style of governance. However marginally, Western nations (especially America), still have a measure of Free Speech. Agreed that Europe is deconstructing this vital social policy but Russia has made rather clear that it will not tolerate nosy journalists under penalty of summary execution.
Once that part of the slippery slope has been trespassed upon, the rest is all straight downhill.
For all of Russia's duplicity, I'd prefer nationalist leaders like Putin or Medvedev over globalists like Obama or Sarkozy or Zapatero or Cameron or Merkel etc. etc.
Factor in the hopelessness, oligarchic elite, institutionalized kleptocracy, rampant alcoholism, chronic unemployment, substandard quality of life, mass-murdering terrorist attacks and suddenly the Russian model loses a stupendous amount of any appeal it might have had at first blush.
And don't fool yourself. Putin and his cronies bear direct responsibility for this state of things.
Out of some 200 countries, Transparency International ranks Russia as a dismal number 146, bracketed by such fetid African hell holes as Kenya and Sierra Leone. There's a damn good reason for this piss poor ranking and Putin et al play a significant role in it.
America has the prospect of voting BHO out of office in another two years. Putin's cronyism and Medvedev-shaped beard hold no such promise for the Russian people. Considering how this state of affairs has persisted in Russia for a dozen decades or more, I'll keep my money bet on America and Europe. They aren't down for the count, yet.
It's true that Russia has all sorts of social, economic and governance problems. But the fact remains that they remain a basically white Christian nation, and on this basis alone I believe that they should be admitted to the various transnational Western institutions, including NATO.
Russia are already a member of the G-8 and will likely soon join the OECD. So admitting them to NATO would be next logical step towards fully integrating them into the West, which I would define as the greater European world.
And not just Russia but Serbia, Ukraine and a post-Lukashenko Belarus (among others) should be brought into the main Western organizations (NATO, OECD, EU). These post-communist Eastern European peoples would bring a much-needed dose of ethnic nationalism and non-liberal, non-PC realism into a Western world that's clearly lost its way.
Also by admitting Russia the centre of gravity within NATO (and the West as a whole) would shift from the US to Europe, the only large area on Earth that's likely to retain a white majority through the 21st Century. American influence on the rest of the West should be greatly reduced as they rush towards a non-white future and inevitably merge with Latin America. Only a united, powerful and white-majority Europe, with its eastern flank protected by a NATO that includes Russia, will be able to carry Western Civilization forward IMHO.
jeppo: It's true that Russia has all sorts of social, economic and governance problems. But the fact remains that they remain a basically white Christian nation, and on this basis alone I believe that they should be admitted to the various transnational Western institutions, including NATO.
Have you investigated Russia’s microscopic replacement birth rate? With the country's population declining by at least 700,000 people annually, how smart would it be to admit what could become a Muslim majority nation in as little as a few decades?
Russia's overall population is dropping at a rate of 700,000 people a year, largely due to the short life spans and low birth rates of ethnic Russians. The country's 2002 census shows that the national fertility rate is 1.5 children per woman, far below the 2.1 children per woman needed to maintain the country's population of about 143 million. The rate in Moscow is even lower, at 1.1 children per woman.
Why the “short life spans”? Could it have anything to do with poor nutrition, epidemic alcoholism and a case of massive societal depression? Has Putin nothing to do with this?
jeppo: Russia are already a member of the G-8 and will likely soon join the OECD. So admitting them to NATO would be next logical step towards fully integrating them into the West, which I would define as the greater European world.
If Russia could be counted upon to help assist the defense of Europe, why all the vociferous opposition to the missile defense shield that would have protected against Iranian ICBMs? Furthermore, just how comfortable would you be with Russian troops replacing the American ones at bases all through Europe. Do you honestly think that would be a wise decision?
And please don’t give me any folderol about Europe assembling its own defensive military. They can’t even agree on relatively insubstantial matters much less how to fund and assemble a multi-national military force. Russia would be all too happy to have its troops prepositioned throughout the European continent.
Hell, Russia’s own military is rapidly becoming larded with Muslims as it stands. "Experts predict that by 2010 some 40 percent of Russian military conscripts will be Muslim." Is this what you want helping to guard Europe? Face the question squarely.
jeppo: These post-communist Eastern European peoples would bring a much-needed dose of ethnic nationalism and non-liberal, non-PC realism into a Western world that's clearly lost its way.
That is a horse of an entirely different color and not germane to this question. The anti-Moscow sentiment of many previously satellite Eastern European nations would be a healthy antidote to Europe’s continued obsession with Socialism.
jeppo: Only a united, powerful and white-majority Europe, with its eastern flank protected by a NATO that includes Russia, will be able to carry Western Civilization forward IMHO.
The forum has already examined the insane folly of admitting Turkey into the EU. But, somehow, allowing a far more adversarial and quickly Islamizing nation similar admission is no problem.
By selling arms and nuclear technology to terrorists and state sponsors of terrorist activities, Russian remains a NET EXPORTER of terrorism. How you are able to overlook this simple fact even as you clamor for their increased role in defending a Europe that they currently blackmail with natural gas deliveries is beyond me.
"How smart would it be to admit what could be a Muslim majority nation in as little as a few decades?"
You could well be describing France, Belgium, Holland or any number of existing NATO members here. Linking Russia to Europe and the West through NATO might be the best chance of preserving it as a Euro-Christian majority nation, rather than leaving them to form political/economic/military alliances with Muslim-dominated former Soviet republics in Central Asia and the Caucasus.
"Has Putin nothing to do with this?"
I would have thought that poor nutrition, epidemic alcoholism and societal depression were some of the unfortunate legacies of seven and a half decades of brutal Communist rule. If anything, these problems seem to be ameliorating under Putin's rule.
"Why all the vociferous opposition to the missile defense shield that would have protected against Iranian ICBMs?"
Iran doesn't have ICBMs. Russia offered to set up the missile defense shield in Azerbaijan but this was turned down. The original plan to base it in Poland and the Czech Republic was clearly targeted at Russia, not Iran.
"Just how comfortable would you be with Russian troops replacing the American ones at bases all through Europe?"
Who said anything about replacing American troops with Russian ones? Why would this ever be an issue?
"Experts predict that by 2010 some 40% of Russian military conscripts will be Muslim."
Well it's now 2010, so do you have anything more substantial than idle speculation on a Pakistani Muslim propaganda website that not even most of the commenters there believe?
"Russia remains a NET EXPORTER of terrorism."
Oh I don't know. I kind of liked Putin's scorched earth response to Chechen terrorism. I only wish we had leaders in the West with that kind of make-a-desert-and-call-it-peace resolve in the face of Islamic terror.
Just because I want Russia and all other Euro-Christian nations admitted to pan-Western organizations like NATO doesn't mean I endorse their present political leadership. But even still, Putin doesn't look so bad when compared to Obama. It's better to have Russia inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in.
jeppo: It's better to have Russia inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in.
What happens if, once let in, Russia starts pissing inside the tent?
Rest assured that Iran will have ICBMs soon enough.
If "problems seem to be ameliorating under Putin's rule", why is the place still such a corrupt Hell hole?
You could well be describing France, Belgium, Holland or any number of existing NATO members here. Linking Russia to Europe and the West through NATO might be the best chance of preserving it as a Euro-Christian majority nation, rather than leaving them to form political/economic/military alliances with Muslim-dominated former Soviet republics in Central Asia and the Caucasus.
How can you be so sure that Russia isn't already helping to grease Europe's skids in its slide into ill-conceived Muslim alliances?
Where is Russia when it comes to assisting with the multi-national forces fighting Muslim terrorists? Sure, they quash Chechen uprisings in their back yard. But they do this even as they pour gasoline onto the MME (Muslim Middle East) conflagration. Net score is still in the negatives.
Actually Russia is assisting NATO in Afghanistan by opening a new supply route and providing transport helicopters.
jeppo: Actually Russia is assisting NATO in Afghanistan by opening a new supply route and providing transport helicopters.
Only if you term sitting back and watching Western countries spend countless BILLIONS of dollars fighting Islam (however midguidedly), and then stepping in almost TEN YEARS LATER to LEASE FOR PROFIT aircraft as "providing transport helicopters". From your own linked article:
Vyacheslav Dzirkaln, deputy head of Russia’s Federal Service for Military and Technical Cooperation, said Russian An-124 Condor cargo planes had transported over 88,000 metric tonne of cargo for NATO troops in Afghanistan under the Strategic Airlift Interim Solution (SALIS) project.
‘The aircraft leasing mechanism successfully used in the SALIS project could be applied to heavy-lift transport helicopters for NATO forces carrying out missions in remote areas (of Afghanistan),’ Dzirkaln said at a meeting on cooperation between Russia and NATO. [emphasis added]
Go ahead and applaud such mercenary behavior on the part of Russia if you like. But just wait until Europe's tit is in the wringer and see how fast Russia jumps in with any sort of genuine help. Where do you think many of the terrorist's klashnikov rifles, ammunition and RPGs come from?
Russia is working both sides of the GWoT street like the economic and political crack whore it always has been. If you thought the way that Pakistan's ISI tipped off Osama bin Laden to America's cruise missile strike was bad, wait until you see how Russia shops around NATO strategy once it's been let into the tent.
In the adhesion negotiations of Spain with the NATO, Ceuta and Melilla were purposely excluded by NATO (that is, the USA).
The USA has been a consistent ally of Morocco. In 1975, they sided with Morocco against Spain, that had to abandon the Sahara.
That is what we can expect of our American Big Brother. Not to mention the treatment given to the Serbs.
AMDG, that's because the US is the enforcer of the insanity of whites around the world.
Post a Comment