ANTI-DHIMMITUDE IN BRUSSELS

IT'S A PLEASANT SURPRISE to see someone with old-fashioned common sense who has not yet been lobotomized at the altar of political (in)correctness, but instead is publically unwilling to make nice with the parasitic Islamic agenda now swamping the planet. The Jerusalem Post has reported that the Orthodox rabbinic organization in Europe (CER) has boycotted the annual interfaith conference in Brussels in protest against the in clusion of several groups financed by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Perhaps the "sleeping civilization" is slowly awakening to the mountain of evidence that proves without a shred of doubt that the global jihad which has its roots tied to the Muslim Brotherhood from its very inception is being perpetrated by Islamic jihadists all across the globe, and the threat to Western civilization is very real, unavoidable, and is not simply going to evaporate without a concentrated confrontation.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna, a 22-year-old elementary school teacher, as an Islamic revivalist movement following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent ban of the caliphate system of government that had united the Muslims for hundreds of years. Al-Banna based his ideas that Islam was not only a religious observance, but a comprehensive way of life, on the tenets of Wahhabism, better known today as "Islamism", and he supplemented the traditional Islamic education for the Society's male students with jihadi training.

Although officially banned, but apparently not vanquished, by the Egyptian government since 1954, the Muslim Brothers captured 17 seats in the Egyptian Parliament running as independents; they also hold important offices in professional organizations in Egypt.

Today, a very complex financial network connects the operations of over seventy branches of the Muslim Brothers worldwide. During the Muslim Brothers' seventy-plus years of existence, there have been cycles of growth, followed by divisions into factions, including clandestine financial networks, and violent jihad groups, such as al-Jihad and al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya in Egypt, HAMAS in Palestine and mujahideen groups in Afghanistan.

A formal plan for targeting America was devised three years after the Iranian revolution, in 1982. The plan was summarized in a 1991 memorandum written by Mohamed Akram, an operative of the Muslim Brotherhood. “The process of settlement” of Muslims in America, Akram explained, “is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process.’” This means that members of the Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

The boycott, of course, drew typical dawah criticism from Muslim leaders and the European Union hosts of the annual gathering. According to European Muslim Network leader Tariq Ramadan, "Anything which has to do with targeting people for their religion is unacceptable."

Typical Muslim-speak by Brother Tariq touting his glorious perspective yet again. Yet, we also know that when a Muslim anointed one speaks of religious protection, he only means "protection for Islam" because to him, only Islam exists. All other faiths are false, therefore are not true religion. Ah, the cleverness of it all. Islam is so clever, don't you think...

However, many of us in the West and in the East, non-Muslims and former Muslims alike, do observe Islam clearly and plainly without obfuscation. We also hear and see and record the atrocities Islamic converts (rejecting your preferred term "reverts") commit in Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Bosnia, Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Turkey, and Egypt among many others including much of Europe without so much as a stern rejection of the religious desecration, persecutions, abductions, murders and rapes of the culture and peoples who call themselves Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists, atrocities occurring daily with the full force of the Qu'ran and mosque-inspired jihad behind them...

Thank you rabbis, for standing up against this conspiracy...

THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF EXTINCTION

WATCH THIS and never think about your own nuanced heritage in quite the same way. These noble numbers are frightening, especially when readers of this blog know those numbers replacing them. It certainly appears that we are NOT leaving the world a better place than we found it, not at the pace or the direction we're presently navigating. Weep sweet Europe, for your foul leadership has marked you for extinction. History is a cruel reminder of where we have gone wrong in steering this ship of dynasty. Weep, sweet Europe, weep.

Then wipe your tears dry, finally find courage, and firmly stand up with honest resolve against the spiraling weakness growing within your soul. Gird thyself for the future that is already a part of your past. Gird yourself today for a quick glance at tomorrow's thankless task. Open a book, and realize that only YOU can prevent these demographic forest fires and the inevitablle calamities that will follow...

Europe, oh how the mighty have fallen...

With alarming alacrity, young America and sister Canada nip at your heels, and eagerly try to mimic your footsteps. This must not happen. May God help us all. And may God bless Brigitte Gabriel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Walid Shoebat, Oriana Fallaci, Bat Ye'or, Hugh Fitzgerald, Walid Phares, Raymond Ibraham, Ali Sina, Geert Wilders, Brigette Bardot, Jamie Glosz, David Horowitz, Pam Geller, Mark Levin, Micahel Savage, Bosch Fawstin, Tom Tancredo, Frank Wolf, Sue Myrick, and all the thousands, even millions of those grander spirits who have each agreed upon one matter in which I also concur:

I WILL NEVER SUBMIT!

And please, let's turn back this invasion...

THE NOTION OF MINORITY STATUS

WATCHING THE HYSTERICAL REACTIONS to Barack Obama's election win, one would think Obama had been the first person of African descent to ever have an opportunity to succeed any where, any time in history. But one look at the globe would tell us otherwise. People of African descent are in complete and utter control of vast sections of the world. Most if not all of Africa proper is completely controlled by indigenous Africans, depending on how you classify North Africa. This land mass by itself is several times larger than all of Europe. Head over to the new world, we see most of the Carribean islands are controlled by people of African descent. Go to South America, we see a large part of Brazil, Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana. Up in the United States, several of its largest cities are run by African Americans, including the nation's capital.

Read it all.

THE TRAITOR CLASS

Here is a riveting talk in Europe given by Serge Trifkovic at the Antijihad Conference in Vienna on May 10-11, taken from Gates of Vienna.

The Bellicose Augur is running this speech because Serge understands that the real enemy is the dhimmi amongst us, amongst us as traitors. The speech was given on 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.

AN EMINENTLY POSTMODERN LITTLE PHOBIA

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

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

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

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

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

GUILT-RIDDEN FELLOW-TRAVELERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE PATHOLOGY OF THE ELITE CLASS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BREAKING THE DEADLOCK

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

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

DEFINING ISLAMIC ACTIVISM

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

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

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

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

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

DENYING CITIZENSHIP TO ISLAMIC ACTIVISTS

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

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

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

AUXILLIARY MEASURES

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

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

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

CAN THE CANDY STORE WITH A BUSTED LOCK BE SAVED?

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

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

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

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

NIL DESPERANDUM!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you enjoyed Serge Trifkovic's speech, you will want to read his book, Defeating Jihad: How the War on Terrorism Can Be Won—In Spite of Ourselves. The book expands on the material in his speech and presents a clear and straightforward account of the Islamic jihad that our intellectuals and media ignore at the peril of Western civilization. His common sense solutions can be implemented successfully, given the will to do so.

Trifkovic, an editor at Chronicles Magazine, is an excellent writer, political analyst and strategist who needs to be more widely read, especially by our local and U.S. government representatives.

QUESTIONS OF RACE IN EUROPE

Whether one wishes to admit it or not, most of the Muslims who threaten the West with violence, lethargy, and all sorts of agitation in between, are of African or Asian descent. It also appears that the mainstream parties of Europe or, should we say, the established political parties, are the culprits who are always making the issues of immigration and integration about race.

Geert Wilders manages to make the political case against militant Islam without littering the linguistic landscape with the hubris of racist groups but nevertheless, he himself is called a racist by the mainstream parties. This is something folks here in America should be watching closely, as Europe continues to strain at the seams under the weight of its hapless immigration policies.

In Europe there is undeniably a racial aspect to mass migration. However, we believe few nativists of any stripe ever had a problem with well educated, well-papered Japanese who once upon a time established factories and production plants and employed lots of people. While race may not be the bone of contention, there is a race issue l and it is getting worse by the daily influx of thousands of economic refugees and asylum seekers from failed African nations, who come in leaky boats...

Europe is not Africa, the Africans have shown the Europeans they don't want them there. Now these same Africans are following the vilified colonialists to their native countries, to settle amongst them. However, its a one-way street, there is never any reciprocity.

Let's consider the BNP. The British Nationalist Party is shouted down and loathed as a racist gang of thugs. Since when is a desire to preserve your own culture racist? No one would say that about American Indians who are rediscovering their tribal languages. No one would say that about Muslims in Saudi Arabia. The same people who preach multiculturalism in the West see no obligation on the part of others to allow outsiders to flourish in their systems. If Muslims are allowed to maintain separation within the West and fight for sharia law, why aren't we allowed to fight against sharia law without being deemed racist?

The major parties generally think we are just being close-minded or that we are exaggerating the threat we face. They are the ones using the specter of racism for electoral advantage. The others who make it about race are Arabs themselves. Don't they flatter themselves right down to the Qu'ranic institition itself, as the earthly lords of all others, even other Muslims who aren't Arabic by birth and thus, not from the same theologically mandated land as Mohammed?

SHARI'A LAW FOR LEFTY APOLOGISTS

IN A FEBRUARY 26, 2008 article in the Arab liberal e-journal Elaph, Libyan-European liberal thinker and entrepreneur Muhammad 'Abd Al-Muttalib Al-Houni wrote that the recent statements by Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams on implementing shari'a law in Britain constituted dangerous encouragement to fundamentalists in their war against the Enlightenment. He added that such statements could have very grave repercussions for the struggle for freedom in Muslim countries as well.

The following are excerpts from Al-Houni's article:

[...]

"Also, European countries seeking to implement shari'a would need to submit their reservations regarding any international conventions they may have signed. This is because they will have to:

"1) Permit polygamy for European Muslim citizens, and not punish them for it - [even though] this is considered criminal under European law;

"2) Permit European Muslim citizens to beat their wives to discipline them, as the Koran urges;

"3) Allow men to unilaterally decide to divorce without requiring any court proceedings, as this is a right guaranteed [to men] by shari'a;

"4) Give daughters [only] half the inheritance rights that sons have, while widows receive only an eighth of the inheritance;

"5) [Not] consider women's testimony the equal of men's in shari'a courts;

"6) Deprive a divorced woman of custody of her children if she remarries;

"7) Allow European Muslim citizens to marry in traditional marriages without the need to officially register these marriages;

"8) Eliminate adoption, since it is contrary to shari'a;

"9) Force a woman whose Muslim husband converts to another religion to divorce him, because he is an apostate;

"10) Prevent European Muslim women from marrying non-Muslims…"

Adopting Shari'a Would Undermine the Concept of Citizenship

"If [Archbishop Rowan's] intention is to introduce some or all of these laws from Islamic shari'a into Europe's legal systems, it would mean the following:

"1) The concept of citizenship in Europe will change. There will be [different] classes of citizenship and of citizens, with some citizens being exempt from having the general law applied to them because they belong to a particular religion or belief. There will be a Muslim [class of] citizen, a Christian [class of] citizen, a Buddhist [class of] citizen, a Confucian [class of] citizen, and so on. Each will apply his own laws... Thus, faith will not be an individual freedom or belief; it will [come to] have extremely serious public ramifications.

"2) If some or all of these laws were implemented and recognized by European legislative bodies, it would not only seriously damage human rights legislation - it would spell the end [of this legislation]. This is because everything I mentioned above is a negation of human rights principles.

"3) Recognizing all, or [even] some, of these laws would take European societies back to the age before the Enlightenment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As a result, the West would revert to barbarism."

Is the Anglican Church a Partner in Fundamentalism?

"While I maintain that the European countries will never accede to these catastrophic demands—for reasons more practical than humanist—the fact that they were proposed by the British archbishop sends the wrong message to the Islamic world. The gist of this message is that there is no contradiction between Islamic shari'a and Western civilization if [shari'a] applies [only] for Muslim citizens.

ISLAM WILL LOSE, BUT WHAT OF THE WEST

In a recent article published online at Islam Watch by Mumin Salih, an Arabic-speaking Middle Eastern ex-Muslim, the case once again is made plain that the wretched claims of Islam are not to be trusted. Read and be warned.

Islam is currently passing through one of its most dynamic times since its rise fourteen hundreds years ago. This dynamic period started long before 9/11 as a fierce struggle, mainly against the west, but also against any nation or group that dares to stand in its way. Most Muslims take this resurgence phase very seriously and consider it as a decisive battle between Islam and the non-Islam, or the kufr, which Mohammed told them they would win. Even though the west, currently, is largely in denial about this makes no difference to the significance of this conflict to the whole world.

Islam will lose
Virtually unchallenged, Islam has survived and expanded during the last fourteen centuries. The only time Islam had ever faced any challenges was in the first few years, when Mohammed’s claims of being a prophet, were questioned by the Meccan Arabs and then by the Jews of Yathrib. During that period, which spanned over thirteen years, Mohammed failed to win any intellectual debate to prove his claims. That reflected on Mohammed’s failure to attract genuine followers. The few dozens who joined him were mainly friends and beneficiaries. Once Mohammed established his stronghold in Yathrib, which he renamed as Medina, intellectual debates, which had flourished until few years before his arrival, became meaningless and virtually non-existent. Since then, the only challenges Islam ever had were military ones; the opposing forces were more interested in military conquests than in exposing Islam’s ideology.

Knowing the Muslims’ mindset, we can safely say that Muslims may not even bother to consider any critical analysis of Islam that comes from non-Muslims, no matter how genuine and legitimate it may be. If Muslims ever mention such painstaking and authentic works, it is only to dismiss them as the works of the enemy of Islam. On the other hand, the critical analysis of Islam that comes from Muslims is often taken more seriously, although those Muslim critics of Islam will be branded as infidels.

Islam has guarded its ideology by employing a thorough indoctrination program and systematic and extensive brainwashing process of its adherents. The process is so incapacitating that it is incomprehensible to Muslims to contemplate their existence outside their religion.

Over the past fourteen centuries, Islam was never openly challenged or critiqued, because those who knew about its myths, also knew what it meant to disclose them. Those Muslims who did their own critical appraisal of their religion kept their results to themselves since they knew if they didn’t they risk loosing their heads by the authorities, or even by family members or friends who would be happy to do it for the sake of Allah.

Even during the last few centuries, when the whole world started to open up to a new age of enlightenment, Islamic authorities managed to seal the minds of Muslims towards any outside views bout Islam. The tight seal on the Muslims’ minds continues even during our time. Unwanted materials, whether printed or televised, is simply filtered out. For fourteen centuries, Muslims never had a chance to see their religion from any perspective other than their own. Islam survived because it always had a suitable environment of darkness and one-way coaching with no tolerance to different views.

Since the introduction of the Internet all that has changed. Thanks to the power of the Internet, the world is now open to almost everyone, and Muslims can have access to the alternative views about Islam, something considered impossible in the past. The Internet is the first true challenge to Islam because it breaks through all the Islamic security systems. The Internet doesn’t recognize Islam’s demands of submission and total surrender of the mind. Everything about Islam is now subjected to critical scrutiny, people now ask logical questions and demand logical answers. Everyday, the Internet sheds more light on the cult of darkness to expose its myths. This shakes the very foundation of the Islamic ideology. Muslims are slow to come out from the darkness, which is understandable, considering their programmed state of mind. They behave like the battery chickens that are so conditioned to the darkness that when they see the light they feel scared to come out. We are only in the beginning of the Internet age, the process may appear to be slow, but the ball started rolling and more Muslims will wake up to the light of truth and come out to the world of enlightenment and join the other ex Muslims in exposing the myths of Islam.

The West will lose, too
I sincerely hope that time will prove me wrong on this gloomy prediction, but the signs are that the west is already loosing. It did not take more than one generation for the western nations, which emerged victorious after WWII, to lose their momentum and give up any hope of staying in the lead. I write this part of the article with Britain in mind because it seems to be leading the way, but other countries are not far behind.

The decline of the west is mainly an endogenous problem that neither Islam nor any other external factors can be blamed for. But it is a disturbing observation that the west appears to be doomed with or without Islam, although Islam is taking advantage of the process and is working hard to speed it up. The Islamic predators look at the west as a helpless prey and are closing in waiting for the right moment to make a kill. They are hopeful to inherit the west without even having to fight for it, and they do not make a secret of it. A few years ago, colonel Ghaddafi said that Muslims couldn’t take Europe by force in the past, but now they will take it without force. If you don’t believe the Libyan leader’s remarks, you only need to visit a classroom in a British primary school to see how Britain will look like in the future.

Nations behave like individuals because they are made of individuals. An individual’s performance is at its best in times of stress like preparing for exams or entering competitions. Nations too perform best in times of stress like wars or other national struggles. During the last war, the western nations performance was at its peak. People took no chances; they went through some rough time, suffered of hardship, fought wars and lost lives to secure a good future for their children and grand children. Those children and grand children are today’s westerners who have reaped the fruits of their grandfathers’ hard work. Today’s westerners enjoy a freedom and democracy that they never earned and seem to be reluctant to defend.

The west had some very painful experiences because of Islam, like the attacks of 9/11 and the bombings in Madrid and London to mention only few. We all hate painful experiences, but it seems that pain is essential to the survival of individuals as well as nations. It is the uncomfortable sensation of pain that makes a man move away when he sits on a sharp object, otherwise he would bleed to death. It is the uncomfortable sensation of pain that alarms the sufferer to go and seek treatment for its cause. Pain is a warning system that alarms people about the more serious underlying problems that need attention. However, there are people who are careless enough, or stupid enough, not to take action other than swallowing painkillers until they succumb to their ailment.

The bombing of western targets all over the world during the last few decades should have been enough to motivate the west to take action about the roots of the problem, which we all know to be Islam. Instead, the west has opted to taking painkillers in the form of politically correct justifications prescribed to them by the politically correct groups. I am afraid that is a recipe for disaster.

The western societies seem to have an inherent serious problem that makes the westerners turn against their own history, heritage, culture and all their past achievements. They happily declare their cultural surrender as they see everything coming from the outside as genuine and honest, and look down at their own as false and corrupt. They are so consumed with post imperial guilt that they are blinded to their countries’ virtues.

The weakness in the west plays well in the hands of the Islamists and hinders our campaign to enlighten Muslims and defeat their cult. Western converts to Islam are used by the Islamists’ propaganda machine to boost the Muslims’ confidence in their religion. It is a common observation that when Muslims run out of answers to defend the Islamic myths, they produce the most bizarre reason for staying with Islam, they say: “but all those westerners wouldn’t convert unless Islam is right”.

The west has been a safe haven to the radical Islamic organizations that are banned in their own Islamic countries. The western social and political system facilitated some of the most notorious Islamic organizations, to survive, thrive and terrorize the innocents around the world. The remarks made by the head of the Anglican Church about introducing sharia law to Britain are just another reminder that the British problem is largely a self-inflicted one. The response of the British people to their problems is disappointing to say the least. Those who recognize the problem leave everything and emigrate, while the rest turn a blind eye and live in denial. I am afraid that when the nation’s feelings are so numbed, it is unlikely that it will sense any threat or react decisively to any danger.

THE COMING CONQUEST OF ROME

Religion of peaceniks armed with tools to proselytize Infidels

Spain will host OSCE conference on Muslim discrimination.

A juicy headline. Wonderful news. Finally, a serious breakthrough, a fierce blow against the anemic dhimmitude of Europe's socialist leadership. Wait a minute! Oops, reality reveals another wishful misreading of the text. At first glance, the headline seemed to suggest that indeed a miracle had occurred, that some fact-finding authority was finally set to investigate why Muslims seemed to discriminate against everyone under the sun, including those of opposition sects within their own ranks. And Spain was leading the way. Wrong!

Instead, on October 9-10 a conference will be held in the Spanish city of Cordoba under the aegis of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation (OSCE) in Europe to ponder why indigenous peoples are resisting the aggressive Islamization and set asides for the Islamization of their towns, cities, and nations.

"The meeting will investigate the "roots of intolerance towards Muslims..."

Let's see. Here's the voice of Robert Spencer.

"Will the continuing violence committed by Muslims in the name of Islam be on the agenda as one of the contributing factors, and possibly the most important contributing factor, of this intolerance? Will the imperialistic boasts by Muslim leaders about the impending Islamic conquest of Europe be on the agenda?"

Like Spencer, I doubt that either one will be discussed. But why not?

In many articles written by Islamic clerics, the clerics herald the imminent conquest of Rome by Islam, in accordance with the prophecy of Muhammad. The issue is also discussed in Friday sermons. Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, one of the most influential clerics in Sunni Islam, often makes this claim in his religious rulings and on his television programs. The following are remarks made by Al-Qaradhawi and other Muslim clerics:

Al-Qaradhawi: "Islam will Return to Europe as a Conqueror"
In a fatwa posted on thewebsite in response to a reader's question, Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi wrote of the "signs of the victory of Islam," citing a well-known Hadith: "… The Prophet Muhammad was asked: 'What city will be conquered first, Constantinople or Romiyya?' He answered: 'The city of Hirqil [i.e. the Byzantine emperor Heraclius] will be conquered first'—that is, Constantinople… Romiyya is the city called today 'Rome,' the capital of Italy. The city of Hirqil [that is, Constantinople] was conquered by the young 23-year-old Ottoman Muhammad bin Morad, known in history as Muhammad the Conqueror, in 1453. The other city, Romiyya, remains, and we hope and believe [that it too will be conquered]."

"This means that Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor, after being expelled from it twice - once from the South, from Andalusia, and a second time from the East, when it knocked several times on the door of Athens."

Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi qualified his statement: "I maintain that the conquest this time will not be by the sword but by preaching and ideology…"

Al-Qaradhawi made similar statements on other occasions, on his weekly religious program on Al-Jazeera. He declared: "This means that the friends of the Prophet heard that two cities would be conquered by Islam, Romiyya and Constantinople, and the Prophet said that 'Hirqil [i.e. Constantinople] would be conquered first.' Romiyya is Rome, the capital of Italy, and Constantinople was the capital of the state of Byzantine Rome, which today is Istanbul. He said that Hirqil which is Constantinople, would be conquered first and this is what happened…"

"All right, Constantinople was conquered, and the second part of the prophecy remains, that is, the conquest of Romiyya. This means that Islam will return to Europe. Islam entered Europe twice and left it… Perhaps the next conquest, Allah willing, will be by means of preaching and ideology. The conquest need not necessarily be by the sword… [The conquest of Mecca] was not by the sword or by war, but by a [Hudabiyya] treaty, and by peace… Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies. We want an army of preachers and teachers who will present Islam in all languages and in all dialects…"

Another time, Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi said, "The Hadith says that the city of Constantinople, the city of Heracles, will be conquered first. We conquered Constantinople and the second part of the prophecy remains—the conquest of Romiyya. The conquest of Romiyya means that Islam will return to Europe. In one of my previous programs, I said that I think that this conquest would not be by the sword or armies, but by preaching and ideology. Europe will see that it suffers from materialistic culture, and will seek an alternative, it will seek a way out, it will seek a lifeboat. It will find no lifesaver but the message of Islam the message of the muezzin who gives it religion but does not deny it this world, brings it to Heaven, but does not uproot it from Earth. Allah willing, Islam will return to Europe and the Europeans will convert to Islam. Then they themselves will be able to be the ones to disseminate Islam in the world, more than we ancient Muslims. This is within Allah's capabilities."

Saudi Sheikh: "We Will Control the Land of the Vatican"
The Saudi Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd Al-Rahman Al-'Arifi, imam of the mosque of King Fahd Defense Academy,[5] discussed this Hadith in an article posted on the Kalemat website. Under the headline "Don't be sad, Allah is with us," the article read: "… We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it. Yes, the Christians, who carve crosses on the breasts of the Muslims in Kosovo - and before then in Bosnia, and before then in many places in the world - will yet pay us the Jiziya [poll tax paid by non-Muslims under Muslim rule], in humiliation, or they will convert to Islam…"

In a sermon at the Al-Nour Mosque in Khobar, Sheikh Naser Muhammad Al-Naser quoted the sage Al-Albani, who said: "The first conquest was carried out, as is known, by Muhammad the Ottoman conqueror, 800 years after the Prophet told of it, and the second conquest [that of Rome] will be carried out, Allah willing, and it is inevitable…"

In another sermon, Sheikh Al-Naser said: "This Hadith predicts that the two cities will be conquered. The first was already conquered, remained under the control of the Muslims for a time, and then was again stolen [by Ataturk]. There are signs that it will again be conquered and will return to the hands of the Islamic state. Rome also will be conquered…"

PA Deputy Minister: When Islam Reaches Its End, the Sun and Stars will Extinguish

In a sermon at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Palestinian Authority's Deputy Minister of Awqaf, Sheikh Yousef Juma'a Salameh said: "Romiyya is Rome, the capital of Italy, and Constantinople is today Istanbul, known in Islamic history by the name of Islam-Boul… The great conquest [of Constantinople] was carried out two centuries after the Tatars entered Baghdad and after the fall of the Caliphate. The people thought that Islam had reached its lowest point… and forgot that Islam had not reached its end in the world, because on the day it reaches its end, there will be no world: the sun will be extinguished, the stars will go out…"

Sudanese Sheikh: "Rome Will be Conquered"
In a sermon at a mosque in Khartoum, Sudan, Sheikh Muhammad Abd Al-Karim said: "…The Prophet said that the Muslims would take India, saying: 'Allah saved two groups of my nation from the fire of Hell: one group that would attack India and a second group that would be with Jesus the son of Mary [in the battle of Judgment Day].' The Prophet Muhammad told us of the conquest of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine state, and of the conquest of Rome, where the Vatican is situated… Some of what the Prophet said has already come to pass. The Muslims conquered Persia, the Muslims conquered Byzantium… the Muslims attacked India and Allah conquered it for us, until they reached the borders of China. The Muslims conquered Constantinople, where Eastern Christianity is situated, and in the future, a mighty king will arise for the Muslims; through him, Islam will spread and Rome will be conquered…"

I realize most of America is too busy watching Paris, Britney, Rosie, or rushing off to golf, tennis, or car racing events in a frenzy of constitutionally bestowed pursuit of happiness to even notice what the mainstream media is not telling us about the Islamic forces around the world today, while puffing up the smokescreen with a few radicals hijacking the religion of peace, but let's get pell back the onion here.

Nothing any priest has done in secret against the wishes of religion and civilization compares with what the Ayatollah Khomeini (following Mohammed's lead, of course) confirmed as acceptable practice for everyday Muslims, not just the mullahs or muftis with long gray beards. Read this from one of the Grand Ayatollah's books written after the Iranian Revolution in 1979:

"A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, however selling the meat to the next door village should be fine."

Don't stop there. He also penned the words in his Little Green Book:

"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual acts such as foreplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed. A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man's four permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister."

It only gets worse: This Muslim cleric goes on to suggest that if this man does force his penis into her tiny vagina he is obligated to pay for any surgical repairs that may be required. If those repairs are deemed insufficient you may work out a financial settlement to compensate you for his trivial infraction. No big deal. Muslim boys will be Muslim boys. And, after all, she is only a girl. Yes, this is all part of the sharia law these crackpots so stealthly wish to install across the West.

Another technique used by Muslim men is called "thighing". The child's legs are pressed together and the abuser inserts his penis between the thighs of the little boy or girl. As this was how Mohammed had sex with his wife, Aisha, from the time she was six years old the practice, of course, was approved of by Ayatollah Khomeini who in his Little Green Book asserted “It is not illegal for an adult male to 'thigh' or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her.”

This is not inneuendo. Sources all over the web can be found. Muslims do not deny these rules for daily life. They excuse them by pointing out how stable their marriages are as a result of these "holy" admonitions.

But one particular Arab woman vigorously denounces this vile practice in the following video clip from Bahrain TV. Her denunciation of the "thighing" of infants and young girls comes towards the end of the interview. The subtitles are both in a strange English and a language I presume to be classic or contemporary Arabic, while the actual speech of both participants more probably is of some local dialect.


Arab woman fearlessly confronts ruthless misogynistic lies of Arab men

This practice flourishes in Muslim countries where women are ruthlessly oppressed and normal sexual development systematically suppressed. That would include the Arab world, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Deny men wholesome and natural sexual outlets and they will find unwholesome and unnatural alternatives.

The Grand Ayatollah's full ruling on marriage can be found here. The institution of "temporary marriage" appears to be designed to facilitate prostitution. Yes, Islam is a full service religion.

EUROPE THREATENED BY BIGOTS, NOT ISLAM

Bigot. Rhymes with spigot. As in the full flushing spigot of Islamic immigration. This "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, except about one's own people" is the ruthlessness and stupidity that keeps on giving, folks.

Here is the statement by Terry Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, on the march “Against the Islamisation of Europe” today in Brussels:

"European values are under threat, say the organisers of a protest march under the banner “Against the Islamisation of Europe” which was due to place today in Brussels in spite of the ban by the city Mayor. The fact is that Europe and its values are indeed under threat, but the danger is not coming from Islam. Our common European values are undermined by bigots and radicals, both islamists and islamophobes, who exploit fears and prejudice for their own political objectives."

The article continues with the same patronizing superior airs of appeasement:

"The self-proclaimed defenders of European values say that the Mayor has violated their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The freedom of assembly and the freedom of expression are indeed essential preconditions for democracy, but they should not be regarded as a licence to offend. I will not enter into the discussion about whether the march should have been allowed or not, but I note that the protesters’ reading of the Convention is selective to say the least. It is very important to remember that the freedom of assembly and expression can be restricted to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This applies to everyone in Europe including the millions of Europeans of Islamic faith, who were the main target of today’s shameful display of bigotry and intolerance."

Does this stuffed shirt ever leave his office to observe the intolerant slander and murderous assaults on civilization posited by "moderate" Muslims on their own signage when THEY are on parade? Obviously not. The one-sidedness of PC oblivion is never so apparent as when these folk speak of "millions of Europeans of Islamic faith" of whom they reel back in fear and terror. I say, follow the purse-strings. Saudi money has softened the blow of capitulation for these wimps and liars willing to sell out his own civilization to a people who are quite vocal in despising it.

Well, as Robert Spencer of Dhimmi Watch puts it, this is "moral equivalence of the first water." Ever notice that these so-called "Islamophobes" are not flying planes into buildings? Neither are not predicting their conquest of Europe. Nor are not physically attacking people who do not conform to their code of conduct in the great numbers we see under-reported every day in European and Asian media sources.

Stop blowing things up in the name of Islam, and this so-called "Islamophobia" will disappear. That Terry Davis would ignore all this and equate these two is unconscionable.

Read more here.

JIHADISTS CONTINUE SEIGE AGAINST BUDDHISTS

Striking out at the rampant Islamophobia (it's everywhere, you know) displayed by ancient Buddhist carvings, the irrepressible iconoclasts of the Taliban have attempted to continue the work they began when they blew up the Buddhas of Bamiyan. Oh, what fun they'll have in Europe!

Suspected pro-Taleban militants have tried to blow up an ancient carving of Buddha in north-west Pakistan. The giant statue, thought to date from the second century BC, sustained only minimal damage in the attack near Manglore in remote Swat district. The area, however, has seen a rise in attacks on "un-Islamic" targets in recent months. This is the first such attack in Pakistan and is reminiscent of the Taleban's 2001 destruction of the giant Buddhas at Bamiyan in Afghanistan. Dynamite speaks volumes. Officials and witnesses in Swat said armed men arrived in the area on Monday night.

"Militants drilled holes in the rock and filled them with dynamite and blew it up," provincial archaeology department official Aqleem Khan told Reuters news agency, adding, "The explosion damaged the upper part of the rock but there was no damage to the image itself."

Loudmouth says, "I have been to Thailand, and must say that Buddhism permeates the culture of those people. These humble culture is among the friendliest, happiest, gentlest people on this earth. And yet they face a horrible problem with Islamists on their southern border with Islamist Malaysia. But the peaceful, orange-robed Buddhist monks must take up the fight to repel these savages. Contrast with the cowardly politicians of Brussels who capitulate to the Mohammedans in the heart of Europe. Shame. Even 15 years ago I recall being trailed and monitored by suspicious characters in southern Thailand. They have already started WWIII. When does the West realize? Thinking about what might someday happen to the great art treasures of the Western World is one of the most horrifying aspects of the islamization of Europe. Muslims have been destroying the religous temples and artifacts of other religions for 1,500 years. And they want respect?"

Buddhism is a "religion of peace". Islam, not so much.

EUROPE IN BITTER CONFLICT WITH ITSELF

A following piece, posted to Dhimmi Watch by a contributor named Wimbledon Womble, buttresses the sorry state of affairs Europe finds itself in the wake of two events. One concerns an anti-sharia rally set for September 11, being banned in Brussels by its Socialist mayor Freddy Thielemans. The other event talking place just a few miles away in the Netherlands offers another take on things as the Dutch populist MP Geert Wilders suggests that the Koran should be banned as a “fascist book” alongside Mein Kampf because it urges Muslims to kill non-believers. WW's analysis:

Europeans walk a fine line between defense of free speech and curtailing of free speech. Unlike the US, you see books banned, speech banned, etc. in many European countries. It's usually hateful things, like Mein Kampf, but lately it's been used to ban other things like some of the late Oriana Fallaci's books that do not advocate genocide. I think maybe they should just not try to ban anything at all, even hateful things, as it is in the US. Although, even in the US, we know that flushing Korans down the toilet is a hate crime, while putting a crucifix in urine is art.

Certainly, though, the internal contradictions are reaching a boiling point. On a day when one Dutch politician calls for banning the Koran, something that would never stand a chance in hell of being banned, an anti-sharia rally is banned. If anti-sharia rallies can be banned, and if Mein Kampf is banned, then why not the Koran? It's pretty selective application of anti-hate speech/writing laws. Either ban everything that can reasonably be construed as hate-filled by a large group of people or don't try to ban anything, and let all ideas out, so that people can make up their mind.

But Europe is paternalistic and hypocritical and pro-Islam in many ways, which is the kind of thing CAIR is trying to bring to the US as step one in sharia-fication of America. Europe doesn't need CAIR, though, to bring this about. The Eurocrats themselves are doing the same job in Europe that CAIR does in the US.

FREEDOM WITH STRENGTH

"Whatever are we to do in the face of Islamic terrorism?" says Alice through the looking glass.

Of course, there are freedoms that can be sacrificed in the name of security. If one blindly follows intellectual papers written at the end of the 18th century without consideration, one will fall behind in a rapidly changing world. Tough times require tough decisions and sacrifices. Some people sound like a spoiled children who don't want a toy taken away.

It's easy for Americans in our geographically comfortable position to sometimes criticize Europeans for whom they choose to ally themselves. Look at whom we have claimed as allies over the years and currently. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia just to name two.

European countries have known the terrors and futility of war and so it is understandable that they will try every thing they can to avoid it, even if it means appeasement to what many consider the Islamic enemy. Europeans feel the sensible thing is to keep their neighbors happy for as long as is reasonably possible. They don't do this because they are cowards. They do this because they have seen death, starvation and the complete destruction of their cities for centuries upon. America is still a young nation and full of brash overconfident fools. Until the US has had to endure foreign troops marching through its own cities hoisting opposition flags, we will never understand the deep and lasting cultural effect war has on nations.

Europeans are hesitant of confrontation for now but they are not cowards.

IF EUROPE HATES ITSELF

The optimism as regards the victory of the European element, which Arnold Toynbee was still able to uphold at the beginning of the sixties, looks strangely outdated today. “Of the 28 cultures we have identified…18 are dead and nine out of the ten remaining—in fact all except our own—show that they are already mortally wounded.” Who would still repeat these words today? And in general, what is our culture, what’s left of it? Is the civilization of technique and commerce spread victoriously throughout the world actually European culture? Or was this not perhaps rather born, in a post-European way, from the end of the ancient European cultures? I see here a paradoxical synchrony.

The victory of the techno-secular post-European world; with the universalization of its model of life and of its way of thinking, is linked throughout the world, but especially in the strictly non-European worlds of Asia and Africa, to the impression that Europe’s world of values, its culture and its faith, that on which its identity is based, has reached the end and has actually already left the stage, that now the hour of other worlds’ values has arrived, of pre-Colombian America, of Islam, of Asian mysticism.

Europe, precisely in this its hour of maximum success, seems to have become empty inside, paralyzed in a certain sense by a crisis in its circulatory system, a crisis that puts its life at risk, resorting, as it were, to transplants that cannot but eliminate its identity. To this interior failure of its fundamental spiritual powers corresponds the fact that, even ethnically, Europe appears to be on the way out.

There is a strange lack of desire for a future. Children, who are the future, are seen as a threat for the present; the idea is that they take something away from our life. They are not felt as a hope, but rather as a limitation of the present. We are forced to make comparisons with the Roman Empire at the time of its decline: it still worked as a great historical framework, but in practice it was already living off those who would dissolve it, since it had no more vital energy.

With this point we have reached the problems of the present day. As regards the possible future of Europe, there are two opposite diagnoses. On one hand there is the thesis of Oswald Spengler, who believed he could define a kind of natural law for the great cultural expressions: there is a moment of birth, the gradual growth, the flourishing of a culture, then the on-come of weariness, old age and death. Spengler embroiders his thesis impressively, with documentation taken from the history of cultures, in which this law of natural evolution can be discerned.

His thesis was that the West had reached its final epoch, which is moving inexorably towards the death of this cultural continent, despite all efforts to avert it. This thesis, labelled as biologistic, found ardent opponents in the period between the two world wars, especially in Catholic circles. Arnold Toynbee, too, reacted against it in a striking way, with postulates that, of course, today find little hearing. Toynbee points out the difference between material-technical progress on one hand and real progress on the other, which he defines as spiritualization. He admits that the West—the western world—is in crisis, and he sees the cause for this in the decline from religion to the worship of technique, of nation, of militarism. Ultimately, for him, the crisis means secularism.

If we know the causes of the crisis, then we can find a way to cure it: the religious factor has to be reintroduced. In his view, part of this is “ the religious heritage of all cultures, but especially what is left of western Christianity.” He opposes the biologistic vision with a voluntaristic vision, which rests on the power of creative minorities and on exceptional individual personalities.

So the question is: is this diagnosis correct? And if so, is it within our power to reintroduce the religious moment, in a synthesis of residual Christianity and mankind’s religious heritage? In the end, the question between Spengler and Toynbee remains open, because we cannot see into the future. But independently of that, we must face up to the task of asking ourselves what the future can guarantee us, and what is able to keep alive the interior identity of Europe through all the historical metamorphoses. Or even more simply, what promises, for today and tomorrow, too, to impart human dignity and an existence that conforms to that dignity?

Thus we are faced with the question: how are things to go ahead? In the violent turbulence of our time, is there a European identity that has a future and for which we can commit ourselves with our whole being? I am not prepared to enter into a detailed discussion on the future European Constitution. I would just like to indicate briefly the fundamental moral elements, which to my mind should not be missing.

The first element is the “unconditionality” with which human dignity and human rights must be presented as values that precede any jurisdiction on the part of the state. These basic rights are not created by the legislator, nor conferred on the citizens, “but rather exist in their own right, are always to be respected by the legislator, are given previously to him as values of a superior order.” This validity of human dignity, previous to every political action and to every political decision, refers back ultimately to the Creator: only He can establish values that are founded on the essence of man and that are intangible. That there be values that cannot be manipulated by anyone is the real, true guarantee of our freedom and of man’s greatness; Christian faith sees in this the mystery of the Creator and of the condition of the image of God that He conferred upon man.

Now, almost no one these days would directly deny the precedence of human dignity and basic human rights over all political decisions; the horrors of Nazism and its racist theories are still too recent. But in the concrete sphere of the so-called progress of medicine there are very real threats to these values: whether we think of cloning, or of the conservation of human foetuses for organ donation, or of the whole field of genetic manipulation—no one can ignore the gradual erosion of human dignity that threatens us here. Added to this are the growth in the traffic of human persons, of new forms of slavery, trafficking in human organs for transplant. Good ends are always adopted in order to justify what is unjustifiable. In these sectors there are some hard and fast rules in the Charter of basic human rights we can be happy with, but on some important points it is still too vague. And it is precisely here that we jeopardize the seriousness of the principle at stake.

The second point in which the European identity appears is marriage and the family. Monogamous marriage, as the basic structure of the relationship between man and woman and, at the same time, as the cell of the formation of the state community, is derived from biblical faith. This has given Western Europe as well as Eastern Europe, its own particular face and its own particular humanity, precisely because the form of fidelity and self-denial set out here had always to be conquered, over and over again, with much effort and suffering. Europe would no longer be Europe if this fundamental cell of its social structure were to disappear or be essentially changed.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights speaks of the right to marriage, but does not express any specific protection for marriage—either juridical or moral—nor give it a more precise definition. And we all know how threatened marriage and the family are at present—on one hand by eroding their indissolubility through easier forms of divorce, and on the other hand by means of a new and more and more widespread lifestyle, the cohabitation of man and woman without the juridical form of marriage.

In stark contrast to all this is the request for communion of life between homosexuals, who paradoxically now demand a juridical form having the same value as marriage. This tendency marks a departure from the system of mankind’s moral history, which, notwithstanding all the diverse juridical forms of marriage, always recognized that marriage is, in its essence, the particular communion of man and woman that is open to children and thus to the family.

This is not a question of discrimination, but rather the question of what the human person is, as man and woman, and of how the togetherness of man and woman can be given a juridical form. If on one hand their togetherness is more and more detached from juridical forms, and on the other hand, homosexual union is seen more and more as having the same value as marriage, then we are before a dissolution of man’s image that can have only extremely grave consequences.

My last point is the religious question. I do not want to enter into the complex discussions of recent years, but to focus on only one aspect that is fundamental for all cultures: respect for what the other holds sacred, and in particular respect for the sacred in the highest sense, for God, something that we can legitimately suppose to find even in one who is not disposed to believe in God. Wherever this respect is denied, something essential in a society is lost. In our present-day society, thank God, whoever dishonours the faith of Israel, its image of God or its great personalities, is fined.

Whoever scorns the Koran and the basic convictions of Islam is fined, too. Instead, with regard to Christ and to what is sacred for Christians, freedom of opinion seems to be the supreme good, and to limit this would seem to threaten or even destroy tolerance and freedom in general. Freedom of opinion, though, finds its limit in this, that it cannot destroy the honour and the dignity of the other; it is not freedom to lie or to destroy human rights.

The West reveals here a hatred of itself, which is strange and can be only considered pathological; the West is laudably trying to open itself, full of understanding, to external values, but it no longer loves itself; in its own history, it now sees only what is deplorable and destructive, while it is no longer able to perceive what is great and pure.

By Joseph Ratzinger—May 14, 2004