ISLAM MARCHING ONWARD

The author of this email is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well known and well respected psychiatrist.

A MAN, WHOSE FAMILY was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics, who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque.

It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

The hard quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our posers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, worldwide, read this and think about it, and send it on before it's too late.

UNDERSTANDING CHINA

There is a new book out that should form part of the canon of those who wish to combat the simplistic urges of the Marxist-Maoist movements in this country with inconvenient facts and common relationships that help sort out fictional fantasy from reality on the ground.

The author of China House, Lawrence Klepinger, explains:

The self-proclaimed desire of the Chinese government to “crush” the current Tibetan uprising is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The horrifying effect of 60 years of Chinese communist rule is just now beginning to unfold. From unlawful land acquisitions and unfathomable slave labor working conditions to forced abortion, outright murder, rape and pillage by communist officials themselves, the world is only now starting to open its collective eyes. When it finally wakes up it will be horrified at what it sees.

As one reviewer, Dr. Michael D, Kruse, puts it: "China House is a straightforward, non-technical, popular attempt by an ex-resident of China to show us the dark side of the latest and possibly greatest of capitalism's glittering prizes. Using anecdotes, personal examples, conversations with Chinese people and, where available, documentary sources, the author makes a compelling argument for holding the "New China" at arm's length. He systematically exposes the government and business corruption, the failure of the health, education and (communist) agricultural and industrial systems, the "cosmetic" laws, the rape of the environment, the lying and cheating that seem endemic even in everyday business transactions, the suicide of children under unimaginable examination stress, the abuse of women and ethnic minorities, the lack of personal and political freedoms, in short, the utter betrayal of the people by the party and government that swore to protect them, and links all of these evils to blatant justifications in the wording of the Chinese Constitution itself.

"However, China House is not a racist polemic against the Chinese. The author is scrupulous in his efforts to show that the greater underlying evil that spawns this welter of lesser demons is a familiar one and not at all as exotic as the oriental locations. It is the greed of multinational (but mostly Western) companies, in the guise of "globalization". The author lists dozens of Western companies (and he names names) that have their snouts deep in the troughs of cheap labour and enormous markets that make the "New China" so attractive to the foreign investor. He paints a broad canvas showing how Western multinationals collude with the "communist" authorities to exploit both the Chinese worker and the Chinese consumer. It is a disturbing portrait. It is the reason, he claims, that "all free democracies willingly divert their attention to the other side of the room. If China were to become democratic and free-enterprising at the same time, there would be no way that the USA, let alone other Western countries, could compete."

Another reviewer named Klaus Kaltenthaler disagrees in some areas: "In this respect the book is a good eye opener and should be read by anyone getting ready to deal with China in any official way. However, many other publications should be consulted to afford the uninitiated student of China a more balanced view.

"The author, coming to China with all the Western values we have have come to expect and even take for granted, shows great compassion with the Chinese people in the face of the official abuse by their own government.

"However, I do not share the author's view that multinational corporations are in China to exploit the cheap labor market in order to produce ever cheaper products for the unsatiable Western world. Many companies have been trading with China for more than 100 years and are now investing in industrial production sites in China in order to serve the ever growing domestic market which otherwise could not be supplied with continuing imports. In the process of industrialization China not only acquires new and previously unobtainable expertise, but also obtains companies that are managed in a modern and worker friendly environment with individual incomes much higher than are achievable in a purely Chinese state-owned or even private company. Thus international cooperation and the exchange with other countries, training of employees abroad, et cetera, are possible. They can be the seeds for an admittedly slow, but steady improvement of the working conditions for all Chinese companies while at the same time benefiting the Chinese economy.

"Given the mutations of China throughout the millenia and centuries, adjusting to the ever changing world around them to survive and gain advantage, I do not see the possibility of an imminent downfall of the Chinese communist party system, but a continuing change and adjustement whenever China sees advantages for their long term goal of proving their own superiority to the rest of the world."

Nothing less is expected of, We the People, of the United States of America, writes Klepinger.

I tend to agree. And despite the fact that an ashcan of experts argue that untold number of even more experts are required to understand an alarming situation, I agree that an informed public is vital to a fully-conscious American citizenry. Fantasy is for children and intellectual misfits. Cold reality among the bold sandbox bullies is far more harsh a consciousness, but right preferable especially in critical and crucial times when the lives of millions of families are at stake like so many marbles in what is shaping up to be yet another geo-political slugfest.

DECONSTRUCTING THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE

Holy War and Anti-War: An Axis against Nature
by Walid Phares

The oddest of all factional relationships is the open alliance between the Jihadists and the so-called "antiwar" neo-Left movement in the West. The jumble of causes thrown together is mind-bending: globalization hobnobs with the caliphate, class struggle with Wahabism, proletariat with infidels, and North Korea with Palestine.

While still shedding each others' blood, the Reds (neo-Left) and the Dark Greens (Islamists) are conducting a joint offensive against both democracy-pushing America and the democracy-craving Middle East. They are not letting old or new grudges get in their way.

The Wahabis fiercely fought the Soviet Communists in Afghanistan;

the Muslim Brotherhood and the Marxists have been at each other's throats for decades;

the Salafists butchered left-wing intellectuals in Algeria and assassinated progressive bureaucrats in central Asia after the Soviet collapse;

the Taliban killed socialists and shut down art institutions;

the Khumeinist regime in Iran decimated the Tudeh Communist Party in the 1980's.

Despite all the mutual mayhem across the Mediterranean and throughout the Middle East, an unnatural alliance was established by elites of the two camps, even while blood was being shed in the 1990's. Setting ideologies and history aside, the Islamist tacticians and neo-Left pragmatists gradually converged on a two-lane path against liberal democracies and the specter of a free market and pluralist Middle East.

The Jihadi concern with Western involvement in the region is logical: free societies in the Arab and Muslim world, joined finally to the international community, would shatter fundamentalism's control of the region's political cultures. To have Arab and Iranian youths, in addition to minorities, hooking up directly with the peaceful and prosperous societies of the West would leave the Islamists without a base to recruit from.

Jihadism is joined with the antiwar movement even while promoting "holy war," which is the essence of their rissala (mission). The ideology of the Salafists and Khumeinists is to prepare for, mobilize for, incite, and engage in a constant war of jihad against the infidels, who are supposed to be all those who aren't Islamists, including moderate Muslims.

Theoretically, the jihadi connection to the antiwar concept is impossible. But in the realm of reality, it does occur, mainly because of the mutating "pragmatism" of both of the antidemocratic movements. The radical Islamists, as I argued in "Future Jihad", have undergone a strategic mutation that has allowed them to coalesce tactically with ideological foes, among them Baathists, Neo-Marxists, and anarchists.

The last group, under an international neo-Left umbrella in the West, created the anti-war movement, which is reminiscent of the old Cold War Communist-controlled "peace movement."

Islamists found it easier to insert themselves as partners in an "antiwar" movement than a "peace" movement. Effectively, in the jihadi aqida (doctrine), seeking permanent peace with others is a non-issue, given that jihad is constant, regardless of its form. Jihadism cannot accommodate a peace movement in principle.

However jurisprudence based on al Haja (necessity) would allow the jihadists to accept an interim cessation of war and work in more sophisticated ways to stop wars that they cannot win. Thus it is in the interest of the radical Islamists to stop a war that can't be won by them, at least until the balance of power is restored and a winnable war becomes possible again. They are against the West's war for tactical reasons. But they are not at all in favor of peace until they win.

In the case of the War on Terror, the "political Islamists" joined the "no war" crowd in order to stop the military efforts of the United States and its allies against the terrorist forces of the jihadists. Hence Islamic militants marched in the demonstrations against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as a way to give respite to the Taliban and al Qaeda. The antiwar movement exposed its broken rationale when it marched against some but not all wars. It demonstrated against the military efforts to overthrow the Taliban and Saddam but ignored the wars waged by the Sudanese regime against the African peoples in the south and Darfur; it marched against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, but ignored the Syrian occupation of Lebanon.

Worse, in the eyes of millions of Middle Easterners, were the highly publicized "red buses" filled with antiwar militants who headed to Iraq to "support" dictator Saddam Hussein. They traveled from London, Berlin, and Rome through Eastern Europe without a word in remembrance of its struggle against the Soviet occupation, and crossed Syria without comforting the thousands of political prisoners tortured and assassinated by the Baathist regime.

And for an apex of irony, the buses rolled through sinister Halabja, a Kurdish town gassed by Saddam in 1988, and past the Shiites' mass graves, stopping only to "shield" Saddam's castles, built from oil revenues that rented the buses and lodged their occupants in fancy hotels. This antiwar movement was convenient for the jihadists, as it was a form of war against the rise of democracies in the region. For the movement, mostly bourgeois in nature, never showed up in Darfur, among Berbers in Algeria or Lebanese under Syrian occupation, or to shield women under the Taliban.

Hence it wasn't surprising for viewers around the world to see the Islamist militants in Europe taking to the streets alongside the "bourgeois Neo-Marxists" to protest the governments that supported the War on Terror. In Europe, the most revealing action of the Islamist militants was when—in the same year as the red buses—they marched in support of the French government against U.S. intervention in Iraq, and then burned shops and cars in 200 French cities and towns during a "French intifada."

The jihadi manipulation of the bourgeois-Neo-Marxist "struggle" has played a central role in the so-called "mass demonstrations" in the West since 2002, and the demonstrations themselves are an important component of the "War of Ideas" against democracy. On campuses, both in North America and Western Europe, the jihadi-antiwar axis has planted deep roots, and thanks to the skills of university-based anarchist groups, the jihadists have found a cover they can hide under, instead of simply becoming members of the typical Wahabi-controlled Muslim Student Unions.

But this "marriage of convenience" with the extreme left has not deterred jihadists from conducting another, simultaneous, wedding with the extreme right. But that's another story.

Dr. Walid Phares is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy. He is the author of "War of Ideas", "Future Jihad", and other books.

A quite-thorough biography is available—within his web site, here

MUTUALLY ASSURED DECEPTION

Sheikyermami says, "When the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in Iran he immediately set upon the useful idiots who were assisting him in what they believed would be some kind of socialist revolution. When the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan they left an operator named Najibullah behind. Google 'Najibullah' and check what happened to him, which is likely what would happen to Karzai, the darling of the West."

Word to that. V S Naipaul—in Among the Believers—spent time with the earnest Persian socialists—the people who read the leftist and Soviet literature and truly believed in people's revolution and all that. Khomeini took them—and their Russian sponsors—for a ride.

The Jihad mobsters used left-speak, communist speak, anything available to persuade the Ruskies to hand over weapons, money, et cetera. In other places, other times, they used different, Western-style jargon to persuade the West to hand over weapons, money, et cetera. The 'Palestinians' were particularly clever at this maneuver—until Hamas ripped the mask off.

Frankly, the driving force has been Islam, Islam, Islam all along.

I would BET my bottom dollar that just as America and the EU are being fed a truckload of taqiyya and kitman, so too are the Chinese and the Russians. Just because the Russians and Chinese are users of propaganda, doesn't mean they are any more immune to an ancient and lethal system that is 1200 years older than theirs is. Living in an fog of lies makes you more, not less prone to be deceived.

ENOUGH GUILT TO SHARE

No one is saying that everyone in Muslim countries is directly responsible for the actions of others. What we are saying is that it is not only conceivable that we are holding you responsible for your own actions, we are doing so. Remember the words of a wise man:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

There are many good Muslims. Why aren't they doing anything? Your public condemnation of groups like al Qaeda and a boycott of the hajj and a refusal to attend mosques where imams preach that all non-Muslims are evil would go a long way. Your silence makes you an accessory.

2. Nazi Germany was a wonderful example. People wanted to avoid a war and so they turned a blind eye to what was done in Germany. The desire for "peace in our time" made us want to find ways to accommodate his demands. The reason Nazi Germany did NOT triumph is that good people were willing to fight and give their own lives for others. It took some time for us to come to terms with what had to be done but we did it.

Westerners were complicit to a degree in the Holocaust but that doesn't absolve Nazi Germany of its responsibility. Fighting the Nazis doesn't absolve us of our own sins in letting this take place, but it was an attempt to rectify it. In any case, Nazi Germany is NOT part of the West. Nazi Germany was destroyed in World War II. Berlin was reduced to rubble. The country was occupied by the allies and many of its people lived under communist rule for almost fifty years.

Germany still functions with treaty provisions that limit its behavior. The WWII Nazi leaders were put on trial for crimes against humanity and many were hung. Some stayed in prison for the rest of their lives. Some were able to escape and live in the jungles of South America, but many were ultimately brought to justice. None of them were lionized.

Compare that to the Muslims in Palestine who cheered as the WTC towers came down. They were filled with people who had done nothing to the Palestinians. The Palestinians, and all Muslims, lionize Muhammad Atta. They shield Osama bin Laden. If he really went against Islam he would have been killed or turned over to the UN.

I would also say that, on the same basis, Muslims have their own share of responsibility. Unlike the US and most of western Europe, Muslims were allied with the Nazis.

Many people believe that this type of hard look at reality on the ground is doom-mongering and worse, God forbid, racist. I guess it depends whether you see this as a war or not. If you don't, a lot of the discourse here will seem frightful and insane. I think some people use certain dehumanizing language because they need to buck themselves up for a long battle. If it's a war, it is either us or them, and I prefer us. If we survive with our freedoms intact, and their effort to cut us down fail, then we can wring our hands over 'what we've become.' We seem to have gotten over the awful demonization of the German and Japanese people during WWII. And if we fail, it's all a moot question.

George Orwell is said to have opined, "Decent people sleep soundly in their beds because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

STANDING FREE IN LIBERTY, NOT FEAR

democracy, In respose to a young voice naive complaining about the penetrating certainty that many Jihad Watch commentors convey in their assessment of today's political climate with regards to Islam, Jihad, and parsing the so-called moderate Muslim issue, here is a lean but strengthening response posted by a writer who calls herself Miss Anthrope:

I personally recommend you listen to those of us who don't have a nefarious religious/political agenda. Who is that? Only you can decide for yourself who on this board is trying to sway opinion.

I can tell you, as a non-religious person, that I don't fall into the 'box' most of my non-religuous peers wish for me. I am not blind to the agendas of those who wish to trample upon my individual freedoms.

I have had trouble defining myself based on current definitions, but you could say I fit, to an extensive degree, into the following categories: Moralist, Constitutionalist, Humanist, and, most recently, Secular Conservative (my terminology).

For many years, those who wish to trample upon my individual freedoms have been the Left. They use such terms as Military Industrial Complex instead of Military. They enjoy using such jargon to make you distrustful of every organization with ANY semblance of authority.

This is an old Communist tactic that has been used against the US since the '30s. And yet, despite their 'anti-authoritarian' slant, they are insistent that they know better than you anyway in order to tell you what to do! Does this make sense? Of course not. If they REALLY despised authority, they would despise it ALL. That's not the case...they just despise DEMOCRACY.

So, why am I giving you all of this background? For this reason only: Substitute Islam for the Left, and any Western country for the US. I think you see my point. As a thinking individual, you are to take or leave as you deem fit. I'm not one to do more here than have my say.

Cheers.

FAIR TRADE, NOT FREE TRADE

The headlines are clear: Tainted Chinese Imports Common. Federal agencies are being swamped with trade violations by the Chinese, and we're not just talking economic policy infractions, but on a scale we are only beginning to realize, the Communists are unlawfully exporting life-threatening choices to American consumers on the prowl for a kinder, gentler hit at the meat and potatoes counter.

Dried apples preserved with a cancer-causing chemical.

Frozen catfish laden with banned antibiotics.

Scallops and sardines coated with putrefying bacteria.

Mushrooms laced with illegal pesticides.

These consumables were among the 107 food imports from China that the Food and Drug Administration detained at U.S. ports just last month, agency documents reveal, along with more than 1,000 shipments of tainted Chinese dietary supplements, toxic Chinese cosmetics and counterfeit Chinese medicines.

For years, U.S. inspection records show, China has flooded the United States with foods unfit for human consumption. And for years, FDA inspectors have simply returned to Chinese importers the small portion of those products they caught — many of which turned up at U.S. borders again, making a second or third attempt at entry.

Now the confluence of two events—the highly publicized contamination of U.S. chicken, pork and fish with tainted Chinese pet food ingredients and this week’s resumption of high-level economic and trade talks with China—has provoked activists and members of Congress now demanding that the United States tell China it is fed up.

Dead pets and melamine-tainted food notwithstanding, change will prove difficult, policy experts say, in large part because U.S. companies have become so dependent on the Chinese economy that tighter rules on imports stand to harm the U.S. economy, too.”

Let's analyze this briefly. Free marketers announce proudly, "But hey… this is alright. Capitalism and open markets. This will rectify itself. And others cringe, questioning in old liguistic patterns, “Wait a minute, capitalism in bed with communism?”

But seriously folks, we must fully realize by now that there's little difference in how the prevailing economic pie is doled out in either hybrid system that impacts the bottom line when considering the question of contaminated product. It's nation against nation, cut-throat policies are cut-throat policies, PERIOD.

Those who are concerned that China’s and the U.S.’ economies are so PERILOUSLY “in bed” with each othe miss the point. This is chemical warfare first, economical warfare second. The idea that unregulated “capitalism in bed with communism” via unregulated free markets will somehow, miraculously, “right itself” fails to consider the possible catastrophic dangers of greed and related corruptions on both sides of the market divide.

Body count? How boring, they say. After the bodies pile up, they will of course soon vanish into the fiscal ledger of last year's bottom line, and the well-crafted mantra that capitalism by its very nature will level things out again out and everybody that's anybody will benefit from it in the long run, just seems like good business.

While so-called free markets are “righting themselves”, let's be honest that Chinese officials continue to incarcerate or worse, convince bullets into the brains of their reformers, hand in hand with exporting poisons and cheap, useless products into the US. Meanwhile, body counts in both countries mount…

There is no such animal as a free market economy. We scream out for a righteous and fair market economy.

FJORDMAN: The Eurabia Code, Part 3

In March 2006, the two-day plenary session of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, held in Brussels approved a resolution which "condemned the offence" caused by the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad as well "as the violence which their publication provoked." These MEPs and national MPs from the EU and Arab countries also urged governments to "ensure respect for religious beliefs and to encourage the values of tolerance, freedom and multiculturalism."

During the parliamentary assembly, Egyptian parliament speaker Ahmed Sorour insisted that the cartoons published in Denmark and other recent events showed the existence of a "cultural deficit." Jordanian MP Hashem al-Qaisi also condemned the cartoons, claiming that it is not sufficient to deplore the cartoons as these things might occur again in another country.

And European Parliament president Josep Borrell referred to the Mediterranean as "a concentrate of all the problems facing humanity." He said that after one year presiding over the assembly he "still did not fully understand the complexities of the Mediterranean." Following the cartoons affair, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana had travelled to the Middle East and made joint statements with Islamic leaders that "freedom of the press entails responsibility and discretion and should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions." Solana said that he had discussed means to ensure that "religious symbols can be protected." He held talks with Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of Al Azhar University, the highest seat of learning in Sunni Islam, and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa.

Solana also met with the leader of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. Following their discussion, Solana "expressed our sincere regret that religious feelings have been hurt", and vowed "to reach out… to make sure that people's hearts and minds are not hurt again."

Only a few years earlier, Mr. Solana, then Secretary General of NATO, in a speech stated that "the root cause of conflicts in Europe and beyond can be traced directly to the absence of democracy and openness. The absence of the pressure valve of democratic discourse can lead these societies to explode into violence." The irony that he himself is now trying to curtail the democratic discourse in Europe through the promotion of Islamic censorship apparently did not occur to him.

Meanwhile, the tentacles of the vast, inflated EU bureaucracy insinuate themselves into regulations on every conceivable subject. Some of the examples of the bureaucracy are ridiculous; some are funny. But it is the sinister side to the European bureaucracy:

The promotion of an official, "EU federal ideology" advocating Multiculturalism;

The denunciation as "xenophobes" of all those who want to preserve their democracy at the nation state level; and

Calling those who would limit Third World immigration "racists."

A report from the EU's racism watchdog said that more must be done to combat racism and "Islamophobia." One method of accomplishing this is the promotion of a lexicon which shuns purportedly offensive and culturally insensitive terms. This lexicon would set down guidelines for EU officials and politicians prohibiting what they may say. "Certainly 'Islamic terrorism' is something we will not use ... we talk about 'terrorists who abusively invoke Islam'," an EU official said.

Early in 2006, the EU's human rights commissioner Alvaro Gil-Robles's criticized a plan to revamp Christianity as a school subject in elementary schools in Denmark. Gil-Robles said doing so went against European values. "Religion as a school subject should be a general course that attempts to give students insight into the three monotheistic religions," he said. The "three monotheistic religions" means Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

As I see it, there are several possible ways of dealing with the issue of education about religion.

1. Teach the traditional religions within a particular country, which in Europe means Christianity and Judaism.
2. Teach all the major world religions.
3. Leave religion out of the curriculum.

What the European Union does, however, is to treat Islam as a traditional, European religion on par with Christianity and Judaism. This is a crucial component of Eurabian thinking and practice. Notice how EU authorities in this case directly interfered to force a once-independent nation state to include more teachings of Islam in its school curriculum in order to instill their children with a proper dose of Eurabian indoctrination. Notice also that they didn't ask for more teaching of Buddhism or Hinduism. Only Islam is being pushed.

In another case, the European Commission rebuffed a call by the Polish president for an EU-wide debate on reinstating the death penalty. "The death penalty is not compatible with European values," a Commission spokesman said. Again, the issue here is not your opinion regarding the death penalty. The real issue is that the metasticizing EU has already defined for you what constitutes "European values." Thus, major issues are simply beyond public debate. This innocent-sounding phrase "European values" cloaks a federal, Eurabian ideology enforced across the entire European Union without regard to the popular will.

Perhaps the most shameful and embarrassing aspect of the history of Eurabia is how the supposedly critical and independent European media has allowed itself to be corrupted or deceived by the Eurabians. Most of the documents about the Euro-Arab Dialogue place particular emphasis on working with the media, and the Eurabians have played the European media like a Stradivarius. Aided by a pre-existing anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, European media have been willing to demonize the United States and Israel while remaining largely silent on the topic Eurabia.

In May 2006, a big conference was held in Vienna involving media figures (journalists) from all over Europe, who met with partners from the Arab world as a part of the Euro-Arab Dialogue.

European officials responded publicly with "regret" to Israel's ambassador to Austria Dan Ashbel's decision to boycott the conference on racism in the media because of concern in Jerusalem that anti-Semitism was getting short shrift at the meeting. Speaking for the conference—entitled "Racism, Xenophobia and the Media: Towards Respect and Understanding of all Religions and Cultures"—an official claimed that anti-Semitism was not taken off the agenda. This official countered that the meeting was "primarily a dialogue between the media representatives of all the Euro-Med partners on the problems that beset their profession. These include xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia [my emphasis]."

Writer Bruce Bawer thinks that many Europeans recognize that "multiculturalism" is leading their societies to disaster. But they've heard all their lives from officially approved authorities that any concern about multiculturalism and its consequences is tantamount to racism:

"There's a widespread resignation to the fact that multiculturalists control the media, academy, state agencies, and so on. They know very well that if you want to get ahead in European society, you don't take on multicultural orthodoxy. The political establishment seems solidly planted, unmovable, unchangeable. There may be a widespread rage, in short, but it's largely an impotent rage. Europeans today have been bred to be passive, to leave things to their leaders, whose wisdom they've been taught all their lives to take for granted. To shake off a lifetime of this kind of indoctrination is not easy."

According to Bat Ye'or, fear of awakening opposition to EU policy toward the Arab Mediterranean countries led to the repression of all discussion of the economic problems and difficulties of integration caused by massive immigration. Any criticism of Muslim immigration is basically brushed off as being "just like the Jews were talked about in Nazi Germany," a ridiculous but effective statement.

Bat Ye'or agrees with Bawer's analysis "concerning the totalitarian web cohesion of 'teachers, professors, the media, politicians, government agency workers, talking heads on TV, the representatives of state-funded "independent" organizations like SOS Racism' to indoctrinate the politically correct. This perfectly expresses the political directives given by the European Commission to coordinate and control in all EU member-states the political, intellectual, religious, media, teaching and publishing apparatus since the 1970s so as to harmonize with its Mediterranean strategy based on multiculturalism."

Professional harassment, boycott and defamation punish those who dare to openly challenge the Politically Correct discourse. According to Bat Ye'or, this has led to the development of a type of "resistance press" as if Europe were under the "occupation" of its own elected governments. This free press on the Internet and in blogs has brought some changes, including the rejection of the European Constitution in 2005. Despite overwhelming support for the Constitution by the governments in France and the Netherlands and a massive media campaign by political leaders in both countries, voters rejected it. Blogs played a significant part in achieving this.

Only a few months later, EU authorities lined up together with authoritarian regimes such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and the Chinese Communist Party in favor of "more international control with" (read: censorship of) the Internet.

According to Richard North of the EU Referendum blog, "The most dangerous form of propaganda is that which does not appear to be propaganda. And it is that form at which the BBC [the British Broadcasting Corporation] excels. Perhaps the biggest sin of all is that of omission. By simply not informing us of key issues, they go by default, unchallenged until it is too late to do anything about them."

Vladimir Bukovsky is a former Soviet dissident, author and human rights activist who spent a total of twelve years in Soviet prisons. Now living in England, he warns against some of the same anti-democratic impulses in the West, especially in the EU, which he views as an heir to the Soviet Union. In 2002, he joined in on protests against the BBC's compulsory TV licence. "The British people are being forced to pay money to a corporation which suppresses free speech—publicising views they don't necessarily agree with." He has blasted the BBC for their "bias and propaganda," especially in stories related to the EU or the Middle East.

Conservative MP, Michael Gove and political commentator Mark Dooley also complain about lopsided coverage: "Take, for example, the BBC's coverage of the late Yasser Arafat. In one profile broadcast in 2002, he was lauded as an "icon" and a "hero," but no mention was made of his terror squads, corruption, or his brutal suppression of dissident Palestinians. Similarly, when Israel assassinated the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, in 2004, one BBC reporter described him as "polite, charming and witty, a deeply religious man." This despite the fact that under Yassin's guidance, Hamas murdered hundreds."

Polish writer Nina Witoszek, now living in Norway, warns that people who have lived under Communist regimes are struck by a strange feeling of dejá vu in Western Europe:

"Before formulating a sentence, you put on a censorship autopilot which asks: Who am I insulting now? Am I too pro-Israeli, or maybe anti-Feminist, or - God forbid—anti-Islamic? Am I "progressive" enough? Soon we shall all write in a decaffeinated language: We shall obediently repeat all the benign mantras such as "dialogue," "pluralism," "reconciliation" and "equality." Norway has never been a totalitarian country, but many people now feel the taste of oppression and of being muzzled. I know many wise Norwegians—and even more wise foreigners—who no longer have the energy to waste time on contributing to a castrated, paranoid democracy. We prefer safety above freedom. This is the first step towards a voluntary bondage."

She quotes follow writer from Poland Czeslaw Milosz, who won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1980 for books such as The Captive Mind, where he explained the seductiveness of totalitarian ideology.

One essay by Milosz is titled "Ketman." "Ketman" or "kitman" is an Islamic term brought to Milosz's attention by Arthur Gobineau's book Religions and Philosophies of Central Asia. He had noticed that the dissidents in Persia, long accustomed to tyranny, had evolved a style of their own. The need for survival often involved more than just keeping your mouth shut, but of actively lying in every way necessary. This strategy of dissimulation and deceit, which is especially pronounced by Shia Muslims but also used by Sunnis, is primarily used to deceive non-Muslims, but can also be used against other Muslims under duress.

According to Milosz, a very similar strategy was used in Communist countries. Similar to Islam, those practicing dissimulation felt a sense of superiority towards those who were stupid enough to state their real opinions openly. In Communist societies, dissimulation was just as much a technique of adaptation to an authoritarian regime as a conscious, theatrical form of art that became increasingly refined.

It is frightening to hear people who have grown up in former Communist countries say that they see this same totalitarian impulse at work in Western Europe now. According to them, we in the West are at least as brainwashed by Multiculturalism and Political Correctness as they ever were with Communism. It is frightening because I believe they are right. Have we witnessed the fall of the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe only to see an Iron Veil descend on Western Europe? An Iron Veil of EU bureaucracy and Eurabian treachery, of Political Correctness, Multicultural media censorship and the ever-present threat of Muslim violence and terrorism that is gradually extinguishing free speech. The momentum of bureaucratic treachery is accelerating.

Native Europeans and indeed some non-Muslim immigrants are quietly leaving in growing numbers, gradually turning the continent into a net exporter of refugees rather than an importer of them. When large parts of Europe are being overrun by barbarians—actively aided and abetted by our own trusted leaders—and when people are banned from opposing this onslaught, is Western Europe still a meaningful part of the Free World? Have the countries of Eastern Europe gone from one "Evil Empire" to another? Are they—and we—back in the EUSSR?

Vaclav Klaus, the conservative President of the Czech Republic, has complained that: "Every time I try to remove some piece of Soviet-era regulation, I am told that whatever it is I am trying to scrap is a requirement of the European Commission."

In an interview with Paul Belien of the Brussels Journal in February 2006, Vladimir Bukovksy warned that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. Mr Bukovsky called the EU a "monster" that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fully-fledged totalitarian state.

"The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people "Europeans", whatever that means. According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening."

Timothy Garton Ash is considered a leading expert on Europe's future. Bruce Bawer views Garton Ash as typical of Europe's political élite. Ash mistrusts national patriotism but adores the EU. He writes about the need for a factitious European patriotism ("flags, symbols, a European anthem we can sing") to encourage "emotional identification with European institutions." And just why does Europe need the EU? Garton Ash's answer: "To prevent our falling back into the bad old ways of war and European barbarism." Among his suggestions is that Europe encourage "the formation of an Arab Union." He makes no mention of Arab democracy. Imagining "Europe in 2025 at its possible best," he pictures it as a "partnership" with Arab countries and Russia that would extend "from Marrakesh, via Cairo, Jerusalem, Baghdad, and Tbilisi, all the way to Vladivostok."

The European Commission proposed the controversial idea of a singing event in all member states to celebrate the European Union's 50th "birthday," the 50th anniversary of the 1957 Treaty of Rome. Commissioner Margot Wallstrom was lobbying for big-style birthday celebrations to "highlight the benefits that European integration has brought to its citizens." Diplomats said the idea had sparked feelings of disgust among new, formerly Communist member states such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, which were reminded of "Stalinist times" when people were forced by the state to sing. Brussels also intended to spend around €300,000 on the appointment of 50 citizen "ambassadors," dubbed the "Faces of Europe," who are supposed to "tell their story" throughout the year on what the EU means to them in their daily life. Germany will go ahead with its own idea to let thousands of its bakeries bake 50 sorts of cakes with recipes from all 25 member states.

Commissioner Wallstrom in 2005 argued that politicians who resisted pooling national sovereignty risked a return to Nazi horrors of the 1930s and 1940s. Her fellow commissioners also issued a joint declaration, stating that EU citizens should pay tribute to the dead of the Second World War by voting Yes to the EU Constitution. The commissioners gave the EU sole credit for ending the Cold War, making no mention of the role of NATO or the United States.

Is the EU an instrument to end wars? In October 2006, Michel Thoomis, the secretary general of the French Action Police trade union, warned of a civil war in France created by Muslim immigrants: "We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails. You no longer see two or three youths confronting police, you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their 'comrades' free when they are arrested."

These Muslim immigrants were allowed in by the very same European elites who now want European citizens to celebrate their work through cakes and songs. While civil society is disintegrating in Western Europe due to Islamic pressures, EU authorities are working to increase Muslim immigration, while congratulating themselves for bringing peace to the continent. What peace? Where?

The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 ended the Thirty Years' War, the last major religious war in Europe, and helped lay the foundations for modern nation states. Before nation states, we thus had a pattern of borderless religious wars and civil wars. This is what we have returned to, full circle, only this time a borderless Jihad is triggering civil wars in Europe. While the EU may help prevent wars between nation states with old grudges, such as Germany and France, it may also actively cause other kinds of wars. It accomplishes this by increasing Multicultural tensions and a dangerous sense of estrangement between citizens and those who are supposed to be their leaders.

Wars have existed for thousands of years before the advent of the modern nation state. It is far more likely that weakening nation states will end our democratic system, a system which is closely tied to the existence of sovereign nation states, than that it will end wars.

When asked whether the member countries of the EU joined the union voluntarily, and whether the resulting integration reflects the democratic will of Europeans, Vladimir Bukovksy replied, "No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht Treaty twice. Look at Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage."

In 1992, Bukovksy had unprecedented access to Politburo and other Soviet secret documents, as described in his book, Judgement in Moscow. In January 1989, during a meeting between Soviet leader Gorbachev, former Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone, former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, American banker Rockefeller and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Giscard d'Estaing supposedly stated: "Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that."

This was in the 1980s, when most of the media still dismissed as scaremongering any talk of a political union that would subdue the nation states. Fifteen years later, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing became the chief drafter of the truly awful EU Constitution, an impenetrable brick of a book, hundreds of pages long, and lacking any of the checks and balances so crucial to the American Constitution. Giscard has argued that the rejection of the Constitution in the French and Dutch referenda in 2005 "was a mistake which will have to be corrected" and insisted that "In the end, the text will be adopted."

Giscard has also said that "it was a mistake to use the referendum process" because "it is not possible for anyone to understand the full text." Does it instill confidence among the citizens of Europe that we are supposed to be under the authority of a "Constitution" that is too complex for most non-bureaucrats to understand? According to Spain's justice minister Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar "you don't need to read the European constitution to know that it is good."

Jean-Luc Dehaene, former Belgian Prime Minister, said that "We know that nine out of ten people will not have read the Constitution and will vote on the basis of what politicians and journalists say. More than that, if the answer is No, the vote will probably have to be done again, because it absolutely has to be Yes."

Journalist Nidra Poller, however, is more skeptical. Commenting on the debate prior to the EU Constitution referendum in France, she noted a submissive attitude among EU leaders towards Muslim demands: "The Euro-Mediterranean 'Dialogue' is a masterpiece of abject surrender." The European Union functions as an intermediate stage of an ominous project that calls for a meltdown of traditional European culture, to be replaced by a new, Eurabian cocktail. And she asks: "When subversive appeasement hides behind the veil of 'Dialogue,' what unspeakable ambitions might be dissembled by the noble word 'Constitution'?"