Monday, May 12, 2008

Counterjihad Vienna 2008

Counterjihad Vienna 2008

The latest of a series of Counterjihad meetings, “Defending Civil Liberties in Europe”, convened over the weekend in Vienna, Austria, and has just concluded.

Participants converged on Vienna from fifteen European countries: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Flanders, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK, as well as the USA.

Needless to say, that’s where the Baron has been for the last few days. When he gets home he’ll give you his report.

The event was a working meeting, with a series of workshops aimed at specific objectives. Some of the materials used for the conference can be found at Mission Europa, and the conference results will be posted there as they come in.

The keynote speaker on Sunday evening was Serge Trifkovic, the author of 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. Mr. Trifkovic kindly sent us an advance copy of his speech, which is posted below.


by Serge Trifkovic

Vienna, May 10, 2008

“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.


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…”
- - - - - - - - -

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Dymphna said...

Please note the several areas of subject matter in this post.

Comments should be germane to what is on offer in this particular post.

Thank you.

Steven Luotto said...

Serge Trifkovic is a giant.

"For all the outward differences, they share with the mullahs and sheikhs and imams the desire for a monistic One World."

It's a religious struggle... and there are a lot more "muslims" than we think.

Conservative Swede said...

An amazing speech, powerful and clear! In my view Serge Trifkovic stands out as the intellectual leader we need in a time of difficulties. This speech will surely inspire to courage and action, and it has already inspired me.

Trifkovic makes very clear the extent and depth of the suicide mentality of the West, and the historically unmatched betrayal of our ruling elites. He makes clear the nature of Islam, of course. And how these things together puts us in a situation of a fight for our civilizational survival, like never seen before in history.

In a discussion with Stephen Gash in another thread, I asked the question: What can be done now? Trifkovic's general approach and list of proposals for changed legislation are excellent. Our message at this point has to be in the context of a narrative that can be comprehended and adapted by the neoliberal/neocon mindset ingrained in ordinary people. Thusly neither Islam (a religion) or Muslim immigration (people of an ethnic supergroup) are directly targeted. Instead it's Jihad that is target; Jihad, which is the most significant and urgently threatening expression of the political side of Islam and it's most pious adherents. Making Jihad being seen as treasonous, dangerous and criminal in the common sense of justice, and by consequence in the legislation, is a reasonable and realistic goal as a first step.

I've been thinking along this line myself, and then the next step would be Sharia. Not Islam as such, not mosques (and definitely not the Koran), but Jihad and Sharia. In a climate where Jihad and then Sharia are seen as criminal--as the subversive political ideologies and methods threatening "our" liberal values, that they truly are--and the laws are enforced, well then in practice most mosques will have to close down, won't they? And our adherence to liberal values of religious freedom and human rights is still unsoiled.

In such a situation the migration of Muslims will already have been reversed, even without any special legislation addressing Muslims immigration. We wouldn't be done quite yet, but the tidal wave would have changed, and we'd have fair wind. So the rest would be the "easy" part. The difficult part is to get there of course. Looks almost impossible, even after being inspired by Serge's excellent article.

My recent discussion with Stephen Gash was about how almost impossible the situation looks. Stephen and Anders Gravers, SIOE/SIAD, have bravely done a giant effort in organizing street manifestations all across Europe. The remaining feeling after that, as expressed by Stephen is that you are up against "everybody else". Even in Denmark the demonstrations were met by all sorts of obstructions--including from the police, supposed allies, etc, And Anders almost got murdered in the process.

Serge has provided us with a program, but what the heck should be our strategy?

The one source of inspiration, in the events of the West, we have today is the changing political landscape in Europe. Denmark was the pioneer. Italy just came. And we have Norway, Austria, Switzerland and others coming up. I had the idea of writing a paper about this for the conference, but the idea came too late and something came in between. I will write it soon, however. But nevermind the details for now. There is a definitive change happening, and my idea is that we should focus on the countries that have passed the needle's eye, i.e. right now Italy and Denmark. While these changes are good and definitely something to celebrate, it's far from enough (e.g. illustrated by the difficulties SIAD have had in Denmark, the way Anders Fogh turned against Geert Wilders, etc.) To paraphrase Churchill, it's just the beginning of the beginning.

But a beginning means that things are moving, so there we have some metal to forge. Denmark is already doing fine in their process, even though it's going painfully slow. An interesting target right now would be the new government of Italy. If we could have a lobby group in Italy pushing them to bit by bit adapt Serge's program as well as good legislation that is already in place in Denmark. The new Italian government will of course do many good things by themselves, but the awareness about Islam--sorry Jihad--is lacking in the public debate and in the declarations of the new government.

My idea is that many European countries are moving towards Denmark/Italy sort of governments without our help, and that it's once they have gotten there that we can play a key role, and use our scarce resources in the most effective way. This in combination with the human mindset making the power of the example so decisive, makes me think that this would be a good strategy. Instead of targeting people in the streets and a media ignoring our manifestations, we should try to target the political parties that are in a position as those in the new Italian government. In such a situation there will also surely be one or two newspapers that are ripe for being targeted with op-eds and letters to the editor. We should work hard where there is at least an ounce of fair wind. Not only because it makes it easier for us, but because it gives better results.

Street manifestations are a tougher way to go but equally important. But as we all know, the key to success here is the media attention. And I do not know the magic formula for how to get it. But the way I see it, the many manifestations by SIOE/SIAD is an extensive knowledge database that should be analyzed, in search for a future strategy for street manifestations. In what countries did the SIOE/SIAD manifestation get the most media attention? I suggest focusing on those. Were any tricks learned of how to pull strings to get media attention?

These are my best ideas so far. Let's see what came out of the workshops of the conference.

In the meantime I will start learning Italian.


Diamed said...

Wonderful speech. His anger with the elites and their globalism, and his defense of the natural, normal, and healthy wish to preserve your own people in your own ancestral homelands, is a major step forward towards recognizing the real battle---Islam is practically a sideshow. I quoted segments of his speech to others in excitement.

Armance said...

Maybe I'm exaggerating or I'm too emotional, but I haven't had this feeling since Oriana Fallaci's "The Rage and the Pride". Of course, they have different writing styles and the context is different, but I have the same feeling of having read a powerful manifesto.

Dymphna said...

The Baron said the speech went over very well. He'll have a detailed report for you on Wednesday or Thursday, depending on how late he gets back... doubt it will be Thursday on Europe's time.

Lombard1985 said...

I am utterly blown away. Bravo, Serge Trifkovic, bravo indeed!

A very informative speech, and I particularly like his blueprint of measures that need to be taken in every European state.

Once again, Bravo!

Bela said...

We are not alone:

Who we are:

We are ex-Muslims. Some of us were born and raised in Islam and some of us had converted to Islam at some moment in our lives. We were taught never to question the truth of Islam and to believe in Allah and his messenger with blind faith. We were told that Allah would forgive all sins but the sin of disbelief (Quran 4:48 and 4:116). But we committed the ultimate sin of thinking and questioned the belief that was imposed on us and we came to realize that far from being a religion of truth, Islam is a hoax, it is hallucination of a sick mind and nothing but lies and deceits.

Read more....

Ypp said...

I respectfully disagree about neo-conservatives. The liberal war of theirs is the only sort of war the West can fight now, and it is better than appeasement. I believe, much of protest against the war is because it broke the pleasant but deadly feeling of the "end of history". People, at least in US, started having children, because the history is not going to end! It is also unclear how much of protest against jihad originates from the frustration of broken comfort.

Charlemagne said...

I agree completely that we must change our laws or create new laws as a line of defense against losing our cultures but the big question is "how?".

It is very very difficult to get the masses of citizens alerted to and willing to act against, or for, something until the problem we are mobilizing against approaches the level of existential threat. Most people are far too ignorant, not stupid just willfully uninformed, to know and understand the threat we face. They are far too consumed with the normal banalities of modern Western life to actually take an interest in anything other than the latest episode of American Idol. I work at a Fortune 500 company and am constantly dismayed at the utter ignorance of supposedly college educated individuals.

We are on the cusp of electing the most Leftist candidate to ever actually get the nomination. Ignorant Americans are far too enamored of Mr. Obama to actually understand how far he would move us down the road to European style socialism. Conservatives are realists and in the opinion of soft Lefties are "mean". Perhaps we need the threat of Islam to bring us to our senses.

Until the time comes when enough Europeans and their North American cousins feel threatened the problem only grows. It took in excess of 10 MILLION illegal aliens in the US for this to finally become a major issue and we're still arguing about the correct course of action. Most people don't even recognize the threat to our civilization posed by massive 3rd world immigrations and regard it as an annoyance if they even think about it at all.

Take a look at our House and Senate. Some of the most destructive men ever elected are still in office in spite of the massive harm they have inflicted on our nation, Ted Kennedy, architect of the 1965 immigration reform act to name just one.

I am all for the proposals offered by Mr. Trifkovic, I only ask, how?

Armance said...

"I am all for the proposals offered by Mr. Trifkovic, I only ask, how?"

I guess the response is a combination of Serge's Trifkovic speech and CS's suggestions. Of course, these points should be detailed in more practical ways, but this is why the anti-Jihadist movement exists, right?

- first, the anti-Islamic movement should continue to work and organize - both through demonstrations (the visibility in the public space) and (even more important, in my opinion) continuig to form, enlarge and strengthen a network of people. A difficult task: the Westerners are divided, easy to offend and often vain. The quarrels and contradictions even within a small group of people are sometimes depressing.
- gaining the media attention, step by step. CS pointed out well that the anti-Islamic movement should take advantage on the political climate within some countries. Of course, it is useless to have unrealistic expectations: sometimes Berlusconi's people seem to me more concerned with the appearance in the tabloids than with taking real measures (the same way that Sarkozy proved to be a bubble), but the recent developments in Italy indicate a slight change in the public's opinion (as earlier in Switzerland). It's a situation to take advantage on. People might become gradually more sensitive to these issues.

Regarding the media and the public attention, letters to the editors, etc: take into account that both the today's media and the readers/viewers are sensitive to the emotional subjects. In Italy, the starting point of electing the mayor of Rome, Alemanno, was a murder perpetrated by a Romanian (one of the many murders and wrongdoings brought by immigration, but that one was particularly infuriating): the 46 years old wife of a respected Italian Army officer was raped and beaten to death by an immigrant. The reaction of the public was - for good reasons - a general rage. In the case of the Islamists, it is good to approach subjects such as honnor killings, wife beatings, etc. - cases of savagery, because in these situations people's moral feelings are touched. This is a reason for further discussions: how many honor killings take place in the Muslim community? For what reasons? Is there a pattern of behaviour? Etc. You can find facts like that in the Muslim communities living in the West on daily basis.

Félicie said...

I am very ignorant about economics, so maybe this musing is naive. I was wondering whether there are any companies or businesses left who do not depend on globalization. Or better yet, those whose interests oppose globalization. Local farmers? Someone else? If these exist, perhaps we could turn to them as a source of sponsorship.

Anonymous said...

Great speech, must-do strategies. Too bad none of our so-called "leaders" are listening.

AE said...

The essence of the topic is covered exact and clear. The problem is that. when it ought to be translated in every western language and printet on the frontpage of all newspapers, it is only a bunch of seekers of truth and the likes that ever hear about the speech. Maybe also some muslims looking for ways to counter the truth, while the main body of the western population just go on not wanting to know about any threats. The big and urgent question is what we can do about the necessity to get them informed? It seems that our democratic ways works against our needs.

Sagunto said...

Can't wait to read the Baron's report on this important speech.

Meantime I want to take issue with the ambiguous phrasing "..neoliberal elite class".

This, in an international setting, is a very annoying choice of words. I have accustomed myself to translate the US "liberal" into "socialist" or "progressive", so I must assume that when ST speaks about it, he means the same: progressive leftists.
To coin the term neo-liberal however is highly unfortunate because in Europe this is a slogan used by leftists to label free market capitalists.

Why not use the unambiguous "progressive elites" instead? Because that's the unifying aspect about all of them, not neo-liberalism (any which way you'd translate it across the Atlantic): progressivism (think Wilson) and the top-down revolt to create a superstate.
Christians can be progressive (espec. protestants, so why the exclamationmark Mr. Trivkovic? Mr. Donner is an old school calvinist, a minority in the Netherlands but a vocal minority), Socialists are progressive by default, Social Democrats by and large are progressive, and so on. The only ones not on the progressive bandwagon have been the conservatives or classical liberals (today's libertarians in the US). Neo-conservatives are not conservative at all, they're renegade Trotskyites, i.e. neo-leftists, sharing many traits with the Progressives of the Wilson era.


Vlad Z. said...

"The refusal of theWestern elite class to protect their nations from jihadist infiltration is the biggest betrayal in history."

I enjoy this blog immensely. But I do not agree that the jihadi infiltration of America is the same as that in Europe, despite the many people who wish to equate it.

America is not being deconstructed using Moslems, as Europe is, but rather by using Mexicans and other Hispanics. To some extent the Islamic threat is much, much easier for itellectuals and various flavors of liberals to counter. It has a strong ideological component. It has key writings that may be referred to.

It bears a resemblence to the fights against both fascism and communism, in which leading intellectuals debunked first the ideas of the proponents, the ideology, and then the actions.

Intellectuals find themselves completley disarmed by the Mexican invasion, for the most part. Because other than a tiny minority on a few university campuses there is no radical ideology being espoused, no text to refer back to.

It is entirely a movement of nearly illiterate poor people. The left's emotional commitment to uplifting the poor, in a generic way, puts them in a quandry when confronting the Mexican Conquesta of the USA. The right's deep populism and suspicion of elites tempers their criticism.

9/11 was a terrible tragedy, but it is said many more Americans have died at the hands of illegal Mexicans since then. Which is not even to mention the profound coarsening of our society that results in something less than death. The uninsured, the teen pregnancy, the epidemic of adolescent rape, the latino gangs, the no-go zones in many cities.

These are the fruits of Islam in Europe, but the fruits of the Mexifornication of America.

Yet, we have no conference to discusss it and the Jihadi-fetishists in America keep distracting us by pointing at Europe and pretending that their problem is our problem.

It is not. It is similar, but ours is different. There are 2 milllion Muslims in a nation of 300 million. Less than 1%. They are not a demographic threat, at least not yet. Hispanics are 15%, and estimates of the number of illegal invaders alone go as high as 25 million.

Thats 25 times more ILLEGAL Mexicans tha total Muslims.

I'm not so worried about Jihad as the USA ending up Mexicanized.
We do not even have a vocabulary to resist this invastion, despite its huge success.

America is a "candy store with a broken lock" too, but it's not the Arabs who are taking the candy!

Sagunto said...


Of course there are huge differences between the US and different countries in Europe, largely because there are considerable differences between the nations, like the welfare-system for instance, that in many European countries supports Muslims who oppose integration. Perhaps the difference is sometimes exaggerated, but in the US, at least they partly integrate more through work. I hear this all the time when the situation in Europe is sketched in near-apocalyptic terms compared to the US. I don't believe the gist of this argument, for an Islamist with a job is no less inclined to spread Islam at the cost of "infidels", but I do believe that - also due to less conspicuous numbers you also mention - the Islamist aim to dominate US society will take longer and go somewhat less noticed than in Europe today. Although it must be said that, given the minimal proportion they represent in US society, they make a lot of noise, wouldn't you agree? One can only imagine what this will lead to when their numbers grow.
On the "intellectual" level it cannot be denied that Islam in the US takes advantage of exactly the same progressive ideology among the elites, as Islam in today's Europe does, and that is of course the doctrine of multiculturalism that has almost become synonymical with self-righteous Islamophilia in Europe.

I know there's no Mexican manifesto in print about the global take-over of Western society, but nevertheless I'd be curious to know about Mexican community leaders, dividing up the whole world in Mexicans and non-Mexicans, advocating the abolishment of the Western rule of Law and democracy as we know it, replacing it with something like the "Mexican Sharia," which would eventually lead to the arbitrary burritoing-to-death of mexican women accused of adultery, and so on..

I don't want to deny the US has a big problem with Mexican immigrants, but the cardinal difference with the much larger ideological threat of Islamization is precisely that of ideology. Islam, since its inception as a warring State, has aimed to replace all that we call civilization; I honestly don't think one can say that of Mexicans.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Profitsbeard said...

The surge" is Iraq (or anywhere else) is meaningless "deck chair shuffling" until the west's leadership understands this "Serge".

Churchill understood.

Trifkovic understands.

Our current historically-naive buffoons at the helm have barely grasped the first step toward our Civilization's salvation:

Read the damned Koran and BELIEVE it.

In the tactical sense.

ISLAM is a subversive, anti-human rights, utterly-intolerant ideology intent on establishing a global theocratic tyranny.

If it can be put in one sentence, like that, it should be able to be understood by anyone with a shred of self-preservational instinct left.

What shrivelled the West's leaders' natural immune systems?

An AIDS of "multi-culturalism"?

Islam does not suffer this folly gladly.

In that, it remains stronger tha the West.

And, until this inner-corruption is reversed, we will lose ground.

And lose freedoms.

Dymphna said...


9/11 was a terrible tragedy, but it is said many more Americans have died at the hands of illegal Mexicans since then. Which is not even to mention the profound coarsening of our society that results in something less than death. The uninsured, the teen pregnancy, the epidemic of adolescent rape, the latino gangs, the no-go zones in many cities.

These are the fruits of Islam in Europe, but the fruits of the Mexifornication of America.

I agree, but I would put the problems of Mexican illegal immigration at the chronic level and the political aims of Islam at the acute level.

The Mexican deluge is causing great economic damage as the downturn in wages is affecting our young people coming out into a depressed, crowded work space. But this damage is also done by the larger companies pushing for the work visas for foreign professionals. American engineers are having trouble finding work.

Meanwhile, we have a prejudice against blue collar workers and our schools don't have enough money or resources devoted to vocational education. "No Child Left Behind" has no provisions for them.

Thus, the rotting infrastructure and resulting bridge collapses, etc.

The unprecedented mass migrations are putting pressures on most developed countries and we aren't prepared to deal with the problems.

Conservative Swede said...


I'm not so worried about Jihad as the USA ending up Mexicanized.
We do not even have a vocabulary to resist this invasion, despite its huge success.

You have very much reason to be worried about both. But it doesn't matter which it is, because none of them are the real source of the problem. The real source of the problem is the suicidal mentality of the West. And then this happens to turn out differently depending on geographic location and what neighbour countries you have. And 1% is not so small, it's on the level of Norway, Spain and Italy. And the Jihadist networks are very busy in the USA, they consider your country an attractive target. But the overall point is that the original populations are disappearing, in America and Europe alike. And yes, the USA is ahead in this, especially in the south. But the source of the problem is the same all over the West, and it's the same fight.

And regarding vocabulary I actually disagree. I was actually coming to this thread now to say the opposite. Trifkovic said that people are not ready for legislation to halt Muslim immigration. Agreed. But it's easier to present the idea of stopping all Third World immigration, using common sense arguments. Regarding Muslims that requires scholarly arguments which are out of reach for ordinary people. And it would break the divine law of anti-discrimination. So would singling out Third World people, but that's not how it is presented. In a European context it's presented as stopping specific sorts of immigration doors, such as phony refugee immigration. And as stopping all immigration, except for movements within the European Union. Ordinary people know we have had too much immigration, but they do not know much about the doctrines of Islam and what consequences they have. And the argument of illegal meaning illegal and that it should therefore be treated as illegal, i.e. enforcing the law, is probably the easiest common sense argument that could be made.

So yes, the program of Serge needs to be broadened, both for programmatic and strategic reasons. The halting of all Third World immigration should be on the program (even though it won't be formulated exactly so) already at this point. The mental affliction of the West, as well as the strategic idea of making arguments that could be swallowed by ordinary people, were core aspects of Serge's speech -- and this is way to address it!

See Denmark as the model example here. Each country has its own legislative and cultural background, so nothing can be copied exactly. But the general approach can be adapted. And Denmark didn't target Muslim immigration as such, it addressed and substantially decreased Third World immigration in general. Not by formulating it so, but by choking phony refugee immigration and the family (re)unifications. And the whole point for an anti-Jihadist is that the choking of Third World immigration implies the choking of Muslim immigration. We have to set up realistic goals. And anyone who wants to specifically stop Muslim immigration, while keeping the usual levels of other Third World immigration is a dreamer out of touch with ordinary people.

And regarding vocabulary. In spite of the many problems with Muslims, it is the Poles that are targeted as the problem in popular opinion in Great Britain, and in Italy it's the Romanians. Such is the climate of political correctness. The most alien misfits (such as Muslims) are the most sacred ones, so people in general won't dare criticizing them. So we have every reason to believe that when the reaction comes at breadth in the USA, it will be the Mexicans that are targeted at the first stage. You wouldn't be that different from Europeans, would you?

The aspect in which you lack vocabulary though is about your identity. Who's an American really? If you do not even know who's an American, how could you even see that true Americans (the demos that built the country) are less then 50% of the population in California at this point?

In Europe we do not have this problem. In spite of phony elite language among politicians and in the media, everybody knows exactly who is who. Who's really a Swede, an Italian, etc. When the original population of a European city has become the minority, there's no doubt about it.

Sagunto said...


It might very well be that in spite of what Zeke thinks, a fully developed vocabulary already exists to describe the problem today's America is having with Mexican mass immigration.

It just depends on what Zeke would consider to be a real American. Should some wasp ideology somehow come out, then the full "progressive" vocabulary that was once directed against the mass-immigration of Irish immigrants, is available for recycling once more.


Armance said...

I am wondering: are there any trustworthy statistics (academic studies, researches, etc.) about the costs and the benefits, economically speaking, of an immigrant? I have the sensation that the figures would show a big discrepancy between the costs and the benefits, in favor of the former. It might be a good argument against immigration.

Afonso Henriques said...

Conservative Swede said:

"Thusly neither Islam (a religion) or Muslim immigration (people of an ethnic supergroup) are directly targeted. Instead it's Jihad that is target; Jihad, which is the most significant and urgently threatening expression of the political side of Islam and it's most pious adherents."

I agree we shall leave islam and muslims alone and in piece. Because they are different that does not mean they are bad. Or inferior or superior.
But Jihad, by the muslims, is not a big threat.
The threat is the jihad of European blood, namely Multiculturalism, Leftism and yes Conservative Swede, Communism (shoot me, if you can!) and Anarchism.

We can not blame on the ethnical minorities because some members of our ethnicities push them to abuse on us. The threat is in Europe, and as I see it now, mainly in Brussels. Despite this, I agree with your strategy. It seems that some of your logic is still there.


About the text, I like it but not that much.
I think it would be useless when directed towards the average guy. At least as far as I understand it.

I really think that anti-jihadists are getting it wrong.
Why are you still believing that the front line is North-Western Europe?

It is in the South East Europe that problems have really arouse:
Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Turkey, Cyprus, Greece, Israel and Lebanon.

This is the REAL front line and we, as non muslims are LOOSING BIG TIME!!!

What happens in Brittain, Denmark, Switzerland or Italy is irrelevant now, it will only be relevant in the (near) future. What happens in those places, is what really matters now.
If muslims win in Bosnia, Lebanon, Kosovo, Gaza, Macedonia, Lebanon once more. What message are we passing?

Afonso Henriques said...

Felice, I've been studying "Introduction to Economy" for three years. I am no expert because here, the program is "socialist" at best and my teacher is a former Communist.
However, and for what I understand, in five to ten years time all we (West/European Civilisation) will be against Globalization because China and India will compete with us and also all the third world will be able to produce at low cost prices because they do not have to respect "Human Rights". If the third world do not need the West, I mean, if India and China can fund the Third World and the Third World supply China and India, globalization will turn against all of us.

Also, when the third world people are to be hungry, we will be here to feed them.

As I've said, I am no expert.

Dymphna said...

@Armance said...
are there any trustworthy statistics ...about the costs and the benefits...of an immigrant? I have the sensation that the figures would show a big discrepancy between the costs and the benefits, in favor of the former. It might be a good argument against immigration.

I just googled "costs and benefits of immigration" (w/o the quotes); got 418,000 hits. So there is a lot of information and opinion out there.

The benefits of immigration have to be categorized.

1. People with skills/professions that are lacking in the host country are an asset to the country in general.

2. Illiterate people with no skills who are desperate enough to accept slave wages are a benefit only to the businesses and individuals who hire them. Othewise, they are a drain. And the old misrepresentation that they do jobs "no one else would do" is wrong. They take away jobs from the resident underclass.

Here's an analogy. Like all analogies, it's not perfect, but it'll do:

If you think of it in terms of a family unit, where a man and woman have a total IQ (just to pick one easy point) of, say, 240 or so. Above average, iow.

This couple decides to have a child. The baby comes and the total IQ in this unit is cut by a third, because the infant doesn't have an IQ in any meaningful sense, and won't have for some years.

However, the benefits of this dumbing down seem worth it to the unit as a whole because (a) they chose to do this; and (b) the *potential* to raise the group IQ (maybe even further than it was if the kid is a genius) exists. So if your kid is Bill Gates, you're set for life.

But what if the couple ends up somehow with quintuplets? They are now overrun with babies. There is no way they'll cope without a great deal of outside help. This is a family in crisis who will stay that way for some years.

Will five kids lower their standard of living? No doubt. Will they think it's worth it in the long run? Some will rise to the occasion, some will crack under the strain.

OTOH, having quintuplets every year is an absolute guarantee for family and community chaos.

Afonso Henriques said...

"The aspect in which you lack vocabulary though is about your identity. Who's an American really? If you do not even know who's an American, how could you even see that true Americans (the demos that built the country) are less then 50% of the population in California at this point?

In Europe we do not have this problem. In spite of phony elite language among politicians and in the media, everybody knows exactly who is who. Who's really a Swede, an Italian, etc. When the original population of a European city has become the minority, there's no doubt about it."

Is this all that difficult to understand?

Dymphna said...

Con Swede--

As usual, a very good analysis. Your strength is the ability to think strategically and in the long run.

I would like to have your opinion on something.

Profit's Beard brought up "the surge" in Iraq as an exercise in futility, which is may very well be. The situation is too complex/chaotic to see clearly.

However, given the power plays that Iran is making thru its sock puppets -- Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, the AQI operatives in Iraq -- do you think an armed military presence from the West plonked smack dab in the middle of things can serve to deter Iran seriously or even slow them down?

Please take into account the seeming madness of the mullahs against their own people if you choose to answer.


Félicie said...

Afonso:"in five to ten years time all we (West/European Civilisation) will be against Globalization because China and India will compete with us and also all the third world will be able to produce at low cost prices because they do not have to respect "Human Rights". If the third world do not need the West, I mean, if India and China can fund the Third World and the Third World supply China and India, globalization will turn against all of us."

I agree that the globalization is turning against us. What I meant to ask is where we could find allies? Who are the influential people and institutions that would support us? It would seem to me that we need the popular support of the army (have no idea how to canvass it - maybe through clergymen assigned to the army?) and the monetary support of rich companies and individuals. Who would these companies/individuals be? They must be someone whose business interests are threatened by globalism. Should one look among some national industries? For example, the rich guy who is suing the British government over the Lisbon Treaty. Who is he? What's his interest? Could we find other like him?

Armance said...

"Who would these companies/individuals be? They must be someone whose business interests are threatened by globalism. Should one look among some national industries? For example, the rich guy who is suing the British government over the Lisbon Treaty. Who is he? What's his interest? Could we find other like him?"

I think this is an excellent idea. Somebody should think about ways to find sponsorships.

Armance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Armance said...

"2. Illiterate people with no skills who are desperate enough to accept slave wages are a benefit only to the businesses and individuals who hire them. Othewise, they are a drain. And the old misrepresentation that they do jobs "no one else would do" is wrong. They take away jobs from the resident underclass."

For example, I've found this (regarding the US):

"Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household."

If people don't care too much about cultural matters, there are two things left they are concerned about, for the sake of their survival: 1. their safety; 2. their wallet. Something like "We simply cannot afford more immigration".
Unfortunately, searching on the Internet I've found out that even these simple, basic figures are denied by the MSM, with the argument "We cannot know the benefits of immigration in the long run" (e.g. The Wall Street Journal and BBC). This is depressing. Really, the MSM is ready to deny any commonsense evidence and to write any idiocy in their pro-immigration babbling.

Afonso Henriques said...


I would say that every business men whose business is 100% from the land where he's from, and who sells only to his Nation is a potential ally against Globalization.

Also, every Nationalist party with sucssess is based in "anti-glibalizationists".

Those who want to preserve their uniqueness (Swiss banks) are anti Globalization, though this type usually exports.

I think that in ten years all the West will be anti globalisation but now, those who are - I think - are not very important.

Your logic is absoluteley correct, but I can not help you any further, sadly.


Conservative Swede said...

Sagunto: It just depends on what Zeke would consider to be a real American. Should some wasp ideology somehow come out, then the full "progressive" vocabulary that was once directed against the mass-immigration of Irish immigrants, is available for recycling once more.

This illustrates very well the identity problem that America has. While the European national identities are age-old and just there, as self-evident as the uniqueness of the different languages that we speak across Europe.

America started off as something as charming as an ethnic mix of different Northern European people. This has become both her strength and her weakness. Americas identity has never been fixed, it's always been expanding. Black people became included in the demos. Irish and Italians, etc. It's almost as if we could say that "ethnic inclusiveness" became the identity of America.

But if America comes to a point when she will have to search back to it's roots, and she's bound to, the thing to be found is the concept of WASP. Unlike the provincial European identities, WASP is more inclusive, a higher order ethnicity. WASP is a concept the carries the whole soul of the ethically mixed America, the very dough that rose into the pastry of modern America.

But the for the very same reason--how it's a higher order concept--WASP gets associated with white race (and thereby white nationalism). And race is discredited and taboo today thanks to an Austrian guy with mustache. So it becomes a forbidden thought for an American to seriously ponder about his original identity. So ironical, isn't it?

For a European this is not even something we need to ponder upon. We just know. It's so obvious and ingrained into us and everything around us. We can pretend that we do not know, but we do. The Americans do not really know, and it's taboo even to search for the answer.

For an identity as the American, the forever expanding ethnic inclusiveness, at some point the expansion has the end. And in times of Jihadist Muslims and Atzlanist Mexicans we are soon there. And once the expansion ends, what will happen to the identity, if the expansion was the identity? I can only conclude that Americans will reach an identity crisis.

Sagunto said...


I see what you mean, and I agree wholeheartedly with your observation that there's a huge difference between a large number of European countries and the US when self-evident ethnicity is concerned. On these matters - of ethnicity and a positive identity - I find myself in almost complete agreement with a number of remarks made by Paul Belien (BJ) that deserve to be quoted in full:

On localism as both the level at which the counterjihad will be fought and the authentic source of resistance:
".. It combines a strong attachment to local communities with a clear affirmation of the right of these communities to “defend the territory” and preserve their own, traditional, ethnic identity.."

And then to be absolutely clear about what he considers to be ethnic identity:
"..Ethnicity, however, is not by definition a racial concept; it is a cultural one. Ethnicity is about the spirit, the culture that we share. For the above parties this culture is precisely the culture of limited government, of the common values of Western civilization, the adherence to home.."

And then he somewhat rhetorically asks:

"..Is all this bad because it is indigenous rather than ideological?.."

Well, of course not.
When one tries to explain one's own local culture and identity, the most accurate depiction of it will be something like the usual comment: "It's just the way we do things around here". More of a praxis than a distinct concept. That's precisely where I think ethnic identity, as described by Belien, is a far better reflection of local reality than the more artificial concept of race, that after all for most of its time in use has been the favorite plaything for progressive and revolutionary leftists for more than 150 years, starting with Marx/Engels as noted by Prof. Watson in his gem of true scholarship: "The Lost Literature of Socialism".

The WASP thing could also be viewed from the angle of Protestantism, i.e. all of the calvinist sects that persecuted others and were persecuted themselves in Europe, and immediately started persecuting people like for instance in Maryland, who happened to be Catholics (actually the higher order ethnicity as far as religion and culture is concerned). So perhaps it started charming in theory, but in reality it has never been a pretty sight. What did happen however was that the sectarian demand for the State not to interfere on religious matters was something quite distinct from the ideas of the French "Enlightenment" philosophes about laïcité which put this into the hands of a more and more centralized State. There's an important trait of American identity - the seemingly self-evidence of some sort of protestantism, which in the past was enough to assume some form of common ground. Also a trait however, that resulted in some dreadfully degenerate forms (I believe Mencken called it "voodoo Christianity") of "Chistianity", i.e. of protestant social reform movements, like for instance the "Social Gospel Movement".

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Charlemagne said...

The USBIC, US Business and Industry Council, is an organization of American businesses fighting against the pro-outsourcing/offshoring policies of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and US Chamber of Commerce. It is mostly made up of small to medium size businesses that do most or all of their business in the US and are most threatened by unfair competition.

For complete stats on the harm done to the US by immigration, illegal and legal, visit the Center for Immigration Studies.

Dymphna said...


Interesting comment on religions in America.

I don't think other countries have experienced the recurring phenomenon of "Religious Awakenings" that the US has had. I had a good paper on it, a pdf downloaded from the internet that dealt with at least four of them. Unfortunately, our cat has a penchant for paper, and what is left of my information is missing the URL.

It's not an area most Americans are familiar with since the last one was around the turn of the previous century --and our strong suit is *not* history -- but it wouldn't surprise me to see another come along if enough people feel threatened.

These awakenings were more of an "enthusiast" nature -- they weren't violent or disruptive. Akin, I guess, to the evangelical Christian movement taking place in parts of Mexico and South America, not to mention China.

In the US, they were at least partly due to the religious dissenters who colonized this country, and to the influx of various peoples of differing religions. The mix was like a bubbly yeast loaf, which tends to run over the edges of the bowl.

IOW, here, it's the nature of things. Part of the culture.

Sagunto said...


"..Interesting comment on religions in America.
I don't think other countries have experienced the recurring phenomenon of "Religious Awakenings" that the US has had. [...]
It's not an area most Americans are familiar with since the last one was around the turn of the previous century --and our strong suit is *not* history -- but it wouldn't surprise me to see another come along if enough people feel threatened.
These awakenings were more of an "enthusiast" nature -- they weren't violent or disruptive.."

So your cat's got a taste for politico-religious matters too? Perhaps she'd like to comment on the matter ;-)

Allow me to expand just a bit.

Other countries have experienced "Religious Awakenings" just like the US has had, and many more at that. In Europe there were several periods of reformation of the traditional medieval faith, in the centuries before the protestant attempt at reformation and the subsequent Counter-Reformation that (alas for medieval christianity) succeeded in large part.

In the Netherlands there were several movements for religious awakening, like that of the so-called "Modern Devotion" ( Devotio Moderna; in Dutch: Moderne Devotie) a revivalist movement in the Netherlands in the Roman Catholic Church, led by Geert Groote (Deventer, 1340-1384). Later on, Erasmus was greatly influenced by it. Thomas a Kempis, a late medieval Roman Catholic monk and modern devotionist, wrote "De imitatione Christi" published circa 1418; a widely read and highly influential work (the number of known editions exceeds the 2000).

The protestant "Social Gospel Movement" in the US around the previous turn of the century, ranks among the extremely sad and very disruptive examples of the dangerous mix of enthousiastic Evangelism and progressive political action. It was the "spiritual" undercurrent/harbinger of the "Progressive" movement under Wilson, that was extremely disruptive when the original free spirit of the US Constitution is concerned. It was anti-democratic, higly belligerent abroad (to foster a centralist reorganization of society at home), it predated lots of traits one later finds in Italian fascism (read Woodrow Wilson's book "The State"), and eugenics was never far from this progressive agenda. Do you know that the protestant revivalist and socialist Francis Bellamy invented the infamous salute (part of the original Pledge of Allegiance) of the stiff right arm extended at the American flag, decades before Hitler adopted it? You can read about "military socialism" in the work by his cousin, Edward Bellamy also a social calvinist, who wrote "Looking Back" in 1888.

With these movements, activist protestantism, through progressivism, degenerates into a religon of state worship, as it did under Wilson.

For this "Social Gospel Movement", not an innocent phenomenon of religious enthusiasm at all - though many initiatives were zealously pursued with "good intentions" at heart, the words of C. K. Chesterton seem particularly suited, when he writes about "the suicide of thought" in his book Orthodoxy (1908):

"..The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and THE VIRTUES DO MORE TERRIBLE DAMAGE. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone.." [emphasis added, Sag.]

Keep an eye on those wandering virtues, 'cause it wouldn't surprise me either when another "religious" awakening comes along, though you won't find it in the much maligned evangelicals, but in today's heirs of progressivism.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Afonso Henriques said...

"Do you know that the protestant revivalist and socialist Francis Bellamy invented the infamous salute (part of the original Pledge of Allegiance) of the stiff right arm extended at the American flag, decades before Hitler adopted it?"

I heard a slightly different History...

I was told (and evidences were showed) that it was the Romans and the Persians who invented it, thus the salute being called the Roman Salute.

The Persians did it when praising to the fire of "Zarathustra" and later the pagan/early christian elites absorbed this Persian costume trouth Mitraism that was very popular as a kind of "secret society" among European elites in the II century.

The Romans did it in celebration of Solius Invictus, the main Pagan festival that happened in 25th of December. Also the Roman legions did it in order to pledge alliance to the Emperor and the Gods. This was expanded to all of Europe and the nobility act of lifting the sword in the enemy direction was derivate from this.
The Knights Templairs and others are said to have done this salute in their secret rituals (heavily influecned by Mitrianism) and it is said t ohave became popular among the other knighthoods.
After that, it appears again in the French Revolution and Mussolini tries to revive it as a "Great Roman Salute".
Hitler just imitated Mussolini.

In some countries (my own) the especial unities of the armies have to pledge alliance to the flag while doing the Roman Salute.

It's a Roman tradition that has been tainted by Germans. Or Socialists if you prefer.

It is not the pure symbol of evil, you know?

Conservative Swede said...


You quoted Paul Belien:
"..Ethnicity, however, is not by definition a racial concept; it is a cultural one. Ethnicity is about the spirit, the culture that we share. For the above parties this culture is precisely the culture of limited government, of the common values of Western civilization, the adherence to home.."

Belien's whole reasoning is based on the false choice between culture and race.

Ethnicity is a hodgepodge of many things. There's common cultural, genetical and historical heritage, among other things. But never purely one or the other. However, ethnicity is a sort of higher order family. No matter how the composition of the hodgepodge, if ethnicity is worth anything it's cohesive (the common identity being the glue). If it isn't, it will dissolve and that ethnicity won't exist anymore. And if it is, it becomes a sort of higher order family, where people will be related to each other. And there's the genetical aspect, and it goes far back in history. We could of course turn away from our common history, but that is also how ethnic groups become decomposed.

Race has never been a guiding principle for ethnicity. So if the false choice posed by Paul Belien indeed has to be answered, then his answer is correct. Culture has the highest weight. But culture is not pure spirit. If it's going to exist at all in the earthly sphere it has to be carried by a group; a group that is a sort of a higher order family, a group where the people are related to each other and back in history, a group where people stick together, an ethnic group. If the family goes, so does the culture. You cannot have the one without the other. Only in highly ideologized Utopian fantasy worlds (to which both culturalism and racism belong).

So when the original people in California, Marseille and Malmö fades away, so does the culture. And it doesn't matter with whom they are replaced: Muslims, Mexicans, or whatever. Only in a fantasy world can a culture be carried on without the connection to people of flesh and blood. And the main problem we are having today is that too many people are zealous about carrying on such an experiment.

Sagunto said...

"..Belien's whole reasoning is based on the false choice between culture and race.."

I figured you'd say something along those lines and I didn't reckon you'd be in complete agreement with Mr. Belien ;-)
Doesn't matter. I've made my point, you made yours and we happen to disagree. That's allright then, now let's see if we can get back to/get on with the counterjihad, and work together (whenever that occasion would occur) in spite of differences of opinion.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Anonymous said...

Serge Trifkovic said we should focus
"...on the Islamic activists’ threat to the neoliberal values"

That's right. We need all the allies we can get, so it is suicidal for us to alienate those multiculturalists who could become our allies. We can find common ground if we recall that there is a good side to multiculturalism. The good side of multiculturalism is called "pluralism" or "freedom." The good side of multiculturalism is that it permits dissent and diversity. The main problem with multiculturalism in the context of worldwide jihad is that multiculturalism sometimes becomes so inclusive as to accept even those who would destroy it and substitute a dead monoculture.

So to expand the ranks of our allies, we should stop insulting multiculturalism and instead point out the threat Islam poses to multiculturalism. Anything else is suicidal at this point. If you want to criticize multiculturalism, criticize particular aspects of it, or distortions of the true impulse behind it. But don't alienate the half of society that leans left. That's just foolish and will help Islam take over.

PatrickHenry said...

It may be too late to save Europe from the plague the EU brought to all of your beautiful countries. I'd like to see you liquidate all of your holdings, come over to the United States "On Vacation" and STAY, especially the SWEDISH FEMALES...we won't rape you like the muslims do; we'll worship you!!!!!

And we'll legalize you too, and then you can help us force out the mexicans and teach us how the muslims slowly lulled your citizenry to sleep until their growth became malignant. The United States still has a chance to turn the tide back and preserve a fortress of freedom and with your help we can keep the plague from overtaking North America...unless you want to make a last stand there, and if you ask, a lot of us will come over again to pitch in and help you win a world war once again!!!

Where is Gaea?

Conservative Swede said...


The United States still has a chance to turn the tide back and preserve a fortress of freedom and with your help we can keep the plague from overtaking North America...

I think it's really the other way around. America is ahead of Europe in the replacement of the original population. And the fact that the percentage of non-Muslim Third Worlders is higher, just means that the situation won't be reversed. California is now Latina America, and the other southern states will follow suit.

Europe has an existential problem thanks to the high degree of Muslims. Either we reverse the mass migration of Muslims, or we cease to exist. Thusly, the problem will be fixed in Europe. Also we know who we are. Americans do not know who they are. If you: 1) do not know how you are, and 2) are unable to perceive Mexicans as an existential threat, then you will be Mexified!

Furthermore. For a European immigrating to America you'll have to count on getting treated like dirt. It's a needle's eye to pass through. If you're not a top professional don't count on getting in at all. And even if you are, count on working like a slave for a company under an H1B visa. America only likes, and treats well, illegal immigrants. Preferably from a Third World country.

America is a hyper-left-liberal multiculti state that is falling apart. Why would anyone want to start a new life there? The only advice that would makes sense is to go to e.g. Chicago, overstay your tourist visa, get hooked up with the Poles, earn lots of money. After two years, start a new life somewhere completely different (why not in Poland?)

Conservative Swede said...

That is, I cannot see how the Americans will have the heart to expel the Mexicans once O'Cain McBama has pushed it through to make them legal. So it seems likely that Aztlan will succeed (no matter what the political map says). Also, becoming Latin America is not bad enough for triggering an existential awakening among a people who do not know who they are.

And what do I mean by that? I can express it in a question: Who are you if the United States would be dissolved? If you tie your identity to a state, then you are nothing if that state cease to exist. In Europe we are nations independent of our states. Then the nation can revolt against the state, when the state has become corrupted beyond recognition.

Europeans do not have the awareness nor the heart yet to expel the Muslims. But it's bound to happen. We will suffer more. But as far as I can see, we also have the better chance of coming out of this intact (but as always in Europe, things will turn out differently in different countries).

Americans can still turn things around. But that will require:
1) Stopping O'Cain McBama now!
2) Realizing who you are: White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

For Europeans looking for a new life: go to another European country. I would suggest e.g. Denmark, Italy, Poland or Czech Republic. Move away from the worst places, but stay around and fight!

Dymphna said...

@Conservative Swede:

Furthermore. For a European immigrating to America you'll have to count on getting treated like dirt.

Say what??

That has not been my experience with people from Europe at all. They are welcome here.

Read John Derbyshire on his trek to citizenship. BTW, he's married to a woman from China who has also become a citizen. So I guess, based on some of the comments I've been reading here their children are thus mixed-race half-breeds. Personally, I think the Chinese/Anglo-Saxon DNA mix that Derbyshire and his wife created is a lot stronger than continued inbreeding.

I agree that the immigration situation in the US is whacked, but so is anything our Imperial Congress gets its hands on, from education to taxes to the environment to business regulation. They violate our Constitution every single time they're in session.

I'm just hoping that things heat up enough on any one issue to overturn the present incumbency system. It's corrupt.

What gets chosen is up for debate. If the economy tanks and Obama McCain still insists on raising taxes, there will be sturm and drang in D.C. and Congress will be running around like headless chickens. Which they are.

Conservative Swede said...


There is an important distinction between America and Americans here. Almost like night and day.

I will have to elaborate more on another occasion.

X said...

The difference between a state and a nation, perhaps? ;)

The United States are young but they have a nascent national identity beyond the State and the Federal Government. I know, CS, you like to point out that the US has no national identity beyond ideas but that seems to neglect that the United States isn't, strictly speaking, a single state. The individual states do have national identities; they aren't strong, probably never have been very strong but, the fact that there are cultural differences between a Kentuckyan and a Minnesotan tell me there are "nations", in the old sense, lurking there somewhere.

Acharya S said...

This is all great. The one thing I don't see here that really needs to be emphasized is that the Western leaders are kissing Muslim ass because of the trillion$ in OIL MONEY. European governments long ago sold out to the Saudis, et al., in exchange for oil - that's why they're taking in all this Muslim riffraff. Read Bat Yeor's Eurabia.

One of the first things everyone needs to do is to get off the oil standard - become energy independent. We already have the technology. Without cutting Goliath off at the knees, you won't be able to win! Stop filling the pockets of these sociopaths. Without the gold, they cannot take over the world. The Saudis are funding the Islamic fundamentalism in a large part of the world.

NO MORE OIL DEPENDENCE. That will solve half the problem.

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.